Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 / Dragon 2 : SpX-DM2 : May 27, 2020 : DISCUSSION (Read 366473 times)

whitelancer64 · « **Reply #100 on:** 10/08/2019 07:46 pm »

Quote from: Yellowstone10 on 10/08/2019 07:25 pm

Quote from: Norm38 on 10/08/2019 07:10 pm
The crew are SpaceX, not NASA.

That's not quite right. SpaceX is not flying any of their own personnel on DM-2. Behnken and Hurley are both NASA astronauts. You may be thinking of Christopher Ferguson, on Boe-CFT, who is in fact a Boeing astronaut. Boeing elected to fly an in-house test pilot on their crewed test, while SpaceX did not; I'm guessing that's down to corporate cultural differences, given that Boeing's main business is in crewed aircraft while SpaceX flies uncrewed/automated spacecraft.

I'm definitely curious what Ferguson will do on orbit for six months, though!

Chris Ferguson, as well as the other 4 Commercial Crew astronauts, are all spaceflight veterans who have flown to the ISS multiple times. I'm sure NASA will be able to direct them all to do something useful

smoliarm · « **Reply #101 on:** 10/08/2019 07:46 pm »

Quote from: Norm38 on 10/08/2019 07:10 pm

... What would they be doing on a longer mission they're not doing on a shorter mission, besides float around?

...

- a lot of things, I guess.
Couple examples:

They will do science experiments (no surprise). Among others, there is this type - let's call it "one shot try". Because you have just one attempt: either you do it right or you fail the whole thing. Most of the long-term bio-science belong to this type - just because the experiment length is in weeks (months). So it's better to have as much training as possible.

Another example: during short-stay they are not likely have to perform Cygnus or cargo Dragon capture.

ncb1397 · « **Reply #102 on:** 10/08/2019 09:56 pm »

Quote from: whitelancer64 on 10/08/2019 07:46 pm

Quote from: Yellowstone10 on 10/08/2019 07:25 pm
Quote from: Norm38 on 10/08/2019 07:10 pm
The crew are SpaceX, not NASA.

That's not quite right. SpaceX is not flying any of their own personnel on DM-2. Behnken and Hurley are both NASA astronauts. You may be thinking of Christopher Ferguson, on Boe-CFT, who is in fact a Boeing astronaut. Boeing elected to fly an in-house test pilot on their crewed test, while SpaceX did not; I'm guessing that's down to corporate cultural differences, given that Boeing's main business is in crewed aircraft while SpaceX flies uncrewed/automated spacecraft.

I'm definitely curious what Ferguson will do on orbit for six months, though!

Chris Ferguson, as well as the other 4 Commercial Crew astronauts, are all spaceflight veterans who have flown to the ISS multiple times. I'm sure NASA will be able to direct them all to do something useful

Generally true, but Nicole Mann has never been to space.

Semmel · « **Reply #103 on:** 10/09/2019 07:46 am »

I think you underestimate the amount of training an astronaut is going through in preparation of the work on ISS. Its not like you show up at a new desk and look around what there is to be done. Especially spacewalks are prepared in simulation and in a swimming pool, executing all the steps that are done in space later. Similar things go for likely repairs of the ISS, tending to experiments are dry run on the ground, etc. Its a lot! I am not surprised that training takes at least as long as the stay on ISS.

woods170 · « **Reply #104 on:** 10/09/2019 08:23 am »

Quote from: Semmel on 10/09/2019 07:46 am

I think you underestimate the amount of training an astronaut is going through in preparation of the work on ISS. Its not like you show up at a new desk and look around what there is to be done. Especially spacewalks are prepared in simulation and in a swimming pool, executing all the steps that are done in space later. Similar things go for likely repairs of the ISS, tending to experiments are dry run on the ground, etc. Its a lot! I am not surprised that training takes at least as long as the stay on ISS.

I've been in a volunteering position that allowed me to closely monitor the training regime of several astronauts that went to the ISS (courtesy of having access to the right people at some of the parties involved in ISS). Even repeaters still go thru very large amounts of training. Training for a six month mission is generally much longer than the actual mission. As Dutch astronaut Andre Kuipers once remarked: the actual mission is a walk in the park compared to the training period.
Even if NASA puts Benhken and Hurley thru a much-reduced training regime they will tied up for at least six months. A substantial part of that will translate into a shift to the right of DM-2 IF it is converted into a multi-month mission.

What I THINK will happen is this: NASA is going to capitilize on the fact that the IFA static fire mishap has resulted in DM-2 using the much-more-capable spacecraft which was intented for the first operational mission. It allows them to extend the mission length. But, that spacecraft in not very far into integration and will require many months of work before being ready. This additional time, required for spacecraft integration and processing, also "buys time" to solve the parachute issues AND allows time for the required additional training for Benhken and Hurley.

rsdavis9 · « **Reply #105 on:** 10/09/2019 12:37 pm »

Quote from: woods170 on 10/09/2019 08:23 am

I've been in a volunteering position that allowed me to closely monitor the training regime of several astronauts that went to the ISS (courtesy of having access to the right people at some of the parties involved in ISS). Even repeaters still go thru very large amounts of training. Training for a six month mission is generally much longer than the actual mission. As Dutch astronaut Andre Kuipers once remarked: the actual mission is a walk in the park compared to the training period.
Even if NASA puts Benhken and Hurley thru a much-reduced training regime they will tied up for at least six months. A substantial part of that will translate into a shift to the right of DM-2 IF it is converted into a multi-month mission.

What I THINK will happen is this: NASA is going to capitilize on the fact that the IFA static fire mishap has resulted in DM-2 using the much-more-capable spacecraft which was intented for the first operational mission. It allows them to extend the mission length. But, that spacecraft in not very far into integration and will require many months of work before being ready. This additional time, required for spacecraft integration and processing, also "buys time" to solve the parachute issues AND allows time for the required additional training for Benhken and Hurley.

What are some of the things this "much more capable spacecraft" are capable of?

woods170 · « **Reply #106 on:** 10/09/2019 01:06 pm »

Quote from: rsdavis9 on 10/09/2019 12:37 pm

Quote from: woods170 on 10/09/2019 08:23 am

I've been in a volunteering position that allowed me to closely monitor the training regime of several astronauts that went to the ISS (courtesy of having access to the right people at some of the parties involved in ISS). Even repeaters still go thru very large amounts of training. Training for a six month mission is generally much longer than the actual mission. As Dutch astronaut Andre Kuipers once remarked: the actual mission is a walk in the park compared to the training period.
Even if NASA puts Benhken and Hurley thru a much-reduced training regime they will tied up for at least six months. A substantial part of that will translate into a shift to the right of DM-2 IF it is converted into a multi-month mission.

What I THINK will happen is this: NASA is going to capitilize on the fact that the IFA static fire mishap has resulted in DM-2 using the much-more-capable spacecraft which was intented for the first operational mission. It allows them to extend the mission length. But, that spacecraft in not very far into integration and will require many months of work before being ready. This additional time, required for spacecraft integration and processing, also "buys time" to solve the parachute issues AND allows time for the required additional training for Benhken and Hurley.

What are some of the things this "much more capable spacecraft" are capable of?

To name a few:

Not being hampered by thermal restriction, such as the DM-1 spacecraft was.
Capable of six-month stay at ISS.
Fully developed ECLSS as opposed to the prototype version that flew on DM-1.
Fully capable and "final" versions of crew interfaces such as the touch-screens.

Barley · « **Reply #107 on:** 10/09/2019 05:28 pm »

"What is the optimum preparation for a mission?" and "What amount of preparation is needed for a mission to have a positive outcome?" are different questions and will usually have different answers.

It seems some people are conflating the two when they argue that long planned missions have lots of training therefore any mission with less training is useless. That would only be true if the cost of no mission is zero.

gongora · « **Reply #108 on:** 10/09/2019 05:53 pm »

Quote from: Barley on 10/09/2019 05:28 pm

"What is the optimum preparation for a mission?" and "What amount of preparation is needed for a mission to have a positive outcome?" are different questions and will usually have different answers.

It seems some people are conflating the two when they argue that long planned missions have lots of training therefore any mission with less training is useless. That would only be true if the cost of no mission is zero.

There is some minimum amount of training required on the US and Russian sides of the ISS if the crew is expected to be using and maintaining the facility. The reason to extend a demo mission from a couple weeks to 6 months would be so that the astronauts can serve as a crew rotation instead of just short term visitors.

Vettedrmr · « **Reply #109 on:** 10/09/2019 07:23 pm »

IMO there will be a press to have a US presence on the station, either by extending our existing team's stay, wheedling our way into a Soyuz seat, or getting DM2 or Starliner (take your pick, I want both to succeed) there in time.

If that means the new crew gets the required training for a safe mission, but not all the training for a full duration science mission, then they may need to do that. A lot better than not being there at all.

None of those solutions are ideal; pick the best of the bunch.

Y'all have a good one,
Mike

Barley · « **Reply #110 on:** 10/09/2019 07:51 pm »

Quote from: gongora on 10/09/2019 05:53 pm

Quote from: Barley on 10/09/2019 05:28 pm
"What is the optimum preparation for a mission?" and "What amount of preparation is needed for a mission to have a positive outcome?" are different questions and will usually have different answers.

It seems some people are conflating the two when they argue that long planned missions have lots of training therefore any mission with less training is useless. That would only be true if the cost of no mission is zero.

There is some minimum amount of training required on the US and Russian sides of the ISS if the crew is expected to be using and maintaining the facility. The reason to extend a demo mission from a couple weeks to 6 months would be so that the astronauts can serve as a crew rotation instead of just short term visitors.

Exactly. There is a minimum they need, and there is the amount they get for normal missions. There is no reason to believe these are the same. There is good reason to think they are different. I don't think I've even seen an explicit claim that they are the same.

Alexphysics · « **Reply #111 on:** 10/10/2019 12:49 pm »

Quote from: Barley on 10/09/2019 07:51 pm

Quote from: gongora on 10/09/2019 05:53 pm
Quote from: Barley on 10/09/2019 05:28 pm
"What is the optimum preparation for a mission?" and "What amount of preparation is needed for a mission to have a positive outcome?" are different questions and will usually have different answers.

It seems some people are conflating the two when they argue that long planned missions have lots of training therefore any mission with less training is useless. That would only be true if the cost of no mission is zero.

There is some minimum amount of training required on the US and Russian sides of the ISS if the crew is expected to be using and maintaining the facility. The reason to extend a demo mission from a couple weeks to 6 months would be so that the astronauts can serve as a crew rotation instead of just short term visitors.
Exactly. There is a minimum they need, and there is the amount they get for normal missions. There is no reason to believe these are the same. There is good reason to think they are different. I don't think I've even seen an explicit claim that they are the same.

The minimum training required takes usually about 6 months to complete and there is recent example of that on astronauts like Joe Acaba.

rsnellenberger · « **Reply #112 on:** 10/10/2019 05:48 pm »

Quote from: Vettedrmr on 10/09/2019 07:23 pm

IMO there will be a press to have a US presence on the station, either by extending our existing team's stay, wheedling our way into a Soyuz seat, or getting DM2 or Starliner (take your pick, I want both to succeed) there in time.

If that means the new crew gets the required training for a safe mission, but not all the training for a full duration science mission, then they may need to do that. A lot better than not being there at all.

None of those solutions are ideal; pick the best of the bunch.

Y'all have a good one,
Mike

SpaceX might also suggest keeping DM-2 to its original schedule and plan (despite the replacement capsule's improved capabilities) and fly DM-3 as the first full-duration flight with a crew that has been through the full training cycle.

SteveU · « **Reply #113 on:** 10/10/2019 06:02 pm »

Quote from: rsnellenberger on 10/10/2019 05:48 pm

Quote from: Vettedrmr on 10/09/2019 07:23 pm
IMO there will be a press to have a US presence on the station, either by extending our existing team's stay, wheedling our way into a Soyuz seat, or getting DM2 or Starliner (take your pick, I want both to succeed) there in time.

If that means the new crew gets the required training for a safe mission, but not all the training for a full duration science mission, then they may need to do that. A lot better than not being there at all.

None of those solutions are ideal; pick the best of the bunch.

Y'all have a good one,
Mike
SpaceX might also suggest keeping DM-2 to its original schedule and plan (despite the replacement capsule's improved capabilities) and fly DM-3 as the first full-duration flight with a crew that has been through the full training cycle.

Anyone know the status of the DM-3 hardware?

gongora · « **Reply #114 on:** 10/10/2019 06:06 pm »

There is no such thing as "DM-3". DM is Demo Mission. After DM-2 they qualify the system and move into normal flights.

ajmarco · « **Reply #115 on:** 10/10/2019 06:08 pm »

Quote from: SteveU on 10/10/2019 06:02 pm

Quote from: rsnellenberger on 10/10/2019 05:48 pm
Quote from: Vettedrmr on 10/09/2019 07:23 pm
IMO there will be a press to have a US presence on the station, either by extending our existing team's stay, wheedling our way into a Soyuz seat, or getting DM2 or Starliner (take your pick, I want both to succeed) there in time.

If that means the new crew gets the required training for a safe mission, but not all the training for a full duration science mission, then they may need to do that. A lot better than not being there at all.

None of those solutions are ideal; pick the best of the bunch.

Y'all have a good one,
Mike
SpaceX might also suggest keeping DM-2 to its original schedule and plan (despite the replacement capsule's improved capabilities) and fly DM-3 as the first full-duration flight with a crew that has been through the full training cycle.

Anyone know the status of the DM-3 hardware?

Not sure the status of the hardware. But it would be Crew-1 hardware as there is no such thing as DM-3. The DM were for the demo missions, uncrewed and crewed.

Rondaz · « **Reply #116 on:** 10/22/2019 04:23 pm »

Through the crew patch for the SpaceX DM-2 mission, we pay tribute to the dedicated teams of NASA and SpaceX that have worked hard toward returning human spaceflight launches to the United States.
Patch design: Andrew Nyberg.

https://twitter.com/Astro_Doug/status/1186672268392439808