SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3

[woods170]

kinda a bummer the reuse was decided after forcing SpaceX to choose that one shot valve system for the SuperDraco fix, since now they actually have to tear out that segment to replace the burst disc system...

Actually....NO. SpaceX doesn't have to tear out that segment to replace the burst discs.

Replacing the burst discs is done with the system in place on the pressure vessel. To gain access, only the four aeroshell panels that are sitting over the Super Draco pods are removed. SpaceX had already designed the Super Draco system such that high-maintenance stuff like valves are easily accessed and maintained while in place on the pressure vessel. Same for the burst discs. Unbolt used burst disc, remove, bolt replacement burst disc back into place. Done.


Post-firing inspections and clean-up procedures for Super Draco have remained essentially the same.


Also, SpaceX wasn't forced to use a one-shot valve system. It was SpaceX that made the decision, after the first IFA static fire mishap, to replace the hi-speed valves with burst discs. Their decision. Not something that their client forced on them.

[sanman]

The NSF livestream were talking about the revelation from some document, that NASA has made a tradeoff with SpaceX to allow them to re-use hardware for crewed missions.

It sounded like they were saying that already-flown boosters & capsules could be re-used again to fly personnel.
That seemed very noteworthy to me.
What are the implications of this?

What are the caveats in terms of testing/evaluation of the hardware, to ensure that it meets standards?
What kind of testing do they have to do, and what are the most critical areas of concern?

After taking into account testing/evaluation, is there any change to the risk for crews, as compared to flying in fresh new hardware each time?
How much re-use is too much re-use?

How does this affect the the pricing for passengers, whether NASA passengers or others? How could flight scheduling be impacted? What are the overall implications of this for access to space and space tourism in general?

[niwax]

The NSF livestream were talking about the revelation from some document, that NASA has made a tradeoff with SpaceX to allow them to re-use hardware for crewed missions.

It sounded like they were saying that already-flown boosters & capsules could be re-used again to fly personnel.
That seemed very noteworthy to me.
What are the implications of this?

What are the caveats in terms of testing/evaluation of the hardware, to ensure that it meets standards?
What kind of testing do they have to do, and what are the most critical areas of concern?

After taking into account testing/evaluation, is there any change to the risk for crews, as compared to flying in fresh new hardware each time?
How much re-use is too much re-use?

How does this affect the the pricing for passengers, whether NASA passengers or others? How could flight scheduling be impacted? What are the overall implications of this for access to space and space tourism in general?

The trade doesn't mean they cut any corners or that NASA changed their requirements. What happens with these contracts is that they try to bundle advantages/costs for both sides to avoid price modifications, because changes in price have repercussions regarding funding that could go all the way to congress. So what likely happened is that NASA approved both the prolonged stay of DM-2 as well as reuse and then offered to bundle them as a deal while keeping the total price the same.

[sanman]

The trade doesn't mean they cut any corners or that NASA changed their requirements. What happens with these contracts is that they try to bundle advantages/costs for both sides to avoid price modifications, because changes in price have repercussions regarding funding that could go all the way to congress. So what likely happened is that NASA approved both the prolonged stay of DM-2 as well as reuse and then offered to bundle them as a deal while keeping the total price the same.

And yet this change, which you say is shoehorned as part of a net balancing act, certainly seems to be one with fundamental implications for commercial manned spaceflight.

Once NASA-SpaceX has set the precedent, then what's to prevent other commercial operators from seeking similar arrangements once they feel confident?
And since everybody has distinct hardware designs, then how to ensure a uniform standard of safety?
Will all operators of reusable crewed flight hardware be automatically required to get NASA's approval, and to do so by first flying NASA astronauts?

[butters]

I think both sides have a good point. The trade of allowing flight-proven vehicles in exchange for extending DM-2 to ensure a continuous NASA presence on the ISS seems to be a reasonable trade in these particular circumstances. Under different circumstances, with different providers for different reasons, this kind of trade might not be reasonable.

And this does highlight a problem with firm fixed-cost contracting under federal acquisition rules, where unforeseen change requests cannot be accommodated without resorting to barter agreements that won't usually make nearly as much sense as this one. I doubt (or would hope) that this would ever lead to NASA making a trade that significant compromises safety or mission assurance, but we may see trades that veer uncomfortably close to compromising the integrity of future procurements and mission allocations. If NASA is put in a position where they need to issue IOUs to get things done, then we aren't going to have a level playing field, and that's a problem for commercial spaceflight.

[yg1968]

The same safety requirements apply before and after the change. Even before the announcements, NASA and SpaceX were working on ways to allow for reuse. I remember SpaceX saying that new Dragons were to be provided for the two first post certification missions. But after that, it hadn't been determined.

[abaddon]

NASA has been happy to modify both SpaceX and Boeing contracts in the past, adding money (significant money in Boeing’s case) along the way.  The narrative that only barter agreements are allowed is false.

[Vettedrmr]

What are the caveats in terms of testing/evaluation of the hardware, to ensure that it meets standards?
What kind of testing do they have to do, and what are the most critical areas of concern?

After taking into account testing/evaluation, is there any change to the risk for crews, as compared to flying in fresh new hardware each time?

Whether new or re-used, the hardware has to meet the same safety of flight requirements for any given flight.  One of the reasons (IMO) that SpaceX was able to convince NASA for reuse of anything was the in-flight and post-flight data (TM, inspections, performance, for example) that supported the assertion of little to no change in risk assessments.

As far as other space service providers using SpaceX's agreements as precedence, who is there that's bringing hardware back from space that's even a candidate?

Have a good one,
Mike

[Alexphysics]

The timing of the Dragon reuse announcement doesn't make much sense to me, as SpaceX hasn't even returned a single crewed Dragon yet, much less demonstrated their reusability. Why now? Obviously NASA wanted to extend the DM-2 mission, but surely they could have bargained something else with SpaceX.

 (Allowing previously-flown Falcon 9s makes sense, as their reliability is well-demonstrated.)

Starliner is known to be reusable since 2014 and it didn't fly then and until December it hadn't been flown before and they still were planning to have a reused capsule on their first operational mission. Reuse isn't much about launching one and see how it comes back, you sometimes design it beforehand knowing what things you might need to change and inspect, otherwise Shuttle would have had very little sense and same thing with Falcon 9 boosters.

[Alexphysics]

Crew Dragon is a different build. Crew will not be converted to cargo.

The SpaceX plan was/is to reuse Crew Dragons for cargo, in part because NASA wouldn't allow their reuse for NASA crew.

It is not the plan and they have said it quite a lot of times. I don't know why this is still discussed to this day when we have Jessica Jensen on video saying "we won't interchange crew and cargo vehicles". A video FROM A YEAR AGO and it went swoosh, no one noticed.

[Alexphysics]

The point I was trying to make is that SpaceX's original intent was to repurpose some Crew Dragons for cargo (since the new Cargo Dragons use the same Dragon 2 design, with the retirement of the Dragon 1). This would have allowed SpaceX to demonstrate that a Dragon 2 refurbished after being pulled out of salt water could nonetheless be safely reflown. I would have thought that NASA would have required at least one such reflight before agreeing to put crew onto a recovered Dragon.

That said, I don't know when PCM-2 is likely to take place, and I suppose SpaceX may have a few CRS missions prior in which they could demonstrate the reflight of either Endeavour or the PCM-1 Dragon.

They weren't repurposing used Crew Dragon capsules for cargo missions.

[Alexphysics]

I don't know if there was ever a plan, but we've known for quite a while that they are different vehicles and would not be converted.

What was SpaceX's intent for the refurbished Crew Dragons prior to this NASA announcement -- use them for private/commercial astronauts?

Yes and to certify them for NASA reuse, as they have just already done. All this nonsense of "Crew Dragon capsules will reused as cargo capsules" was all started by a Teslarati article saying that "obviously they must then be converted into cargo capsules" which makes me go like ? obviously? There are literally a thousand uses you can have for a used Crew Dragon. Heck, use it as playground for kids! But seriously the ONLY option is then to reuse them as cargo? 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️ no, they were obviously expecting to certify reuse later on and also reuse them on private missions, it's that simple. Cargo Dragon 2 will be the one doing all the CRS-2 contracts.

[su27k]

This does raise the question: Will they reuse the IFA Crew Dragon? That one may lack some subsystems but does have a complete structure and propulsion system, could be valuable.

[cwr]

This does raise the question: Will they reuse the IFA Crew Dragon? That one may lack some subsystems but does have a complete structure and propulsion system, could be valuable.

The Crew Dragon actually used for the IFA was the Crew Dragon planned for use in Demo-2
prior to the explosion of the capsule that flew the Demo-1 mission.
It was that Demo-1 capsule that had been planned to fly the IFA mission before the explosion.

So, my impression is that the IFA crew dragon is pretty close to a full function crew Dragon.

Carl

[woods170]

Once NASA-SpaceX has set the precedent, then what's to prevent other commercial operators from seeking similar arrangements once they feel confident?

What other commercial operatorS?

The only other commercial operator under CCP is Boeing. And Boeing was allowed, by NASA, to reuse its Starliner capsule from the get-go. So there is NO other commercial operator to want a similar arrangement.

[woods170]

NASA has been happy to modify both SpaceX and Boeing contracts in the past, adding money (significant money in Boeing’s case) along the way.  The narrative that only barter agreements are allowed is false.

Such narrative does not exist. Contract modifications are completely normal when either of the contract parties wants to have somthing changed.

In this case however there was a barter. That does NOT mean that ONLY barters are allowed. Far from it. For example: Boeing and NASA agreed a contract modification of well over $100 million to turn Boeing's CFT into a long-duration mission.

[abaddon]

Other folks upthead were talking upthread as if it had to be a barter arrangement as contract modifications would be too hard.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

NASA took advantage of a leverage position in the negotiations on the price for the contract modification. They new that SpaceX could meet the safety requirements and reliability requirements because they had already explored the engineering data and learning from CRS-1 on capsule reuse with water landings. It was a management holdout to request only new capsules just like the the original CRs-1 contract before the modification to add additional missions.

Capsule reuse is somewhat like Shuttle reuse. It saves some money but not alot. Its biggest impact is on increassed availability of hardware for missions.

[snotis]

Capsule reuse is somewhat like Shuttle reuse. It saves some money but not alot. Its biggest impact is on increassed availability of hardware for missions.

I'm genuinely curious: Is this your opinion or do you have some references where someone from SpaceX is saying that?  Thanks!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Hmm, someone is not happy. I don’t know the accuracy of the source but Roscosmos tweeting it is I think significant:

twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1269685590326419458

Google translate:

Cosmonaut Pavel Vinogradov: “If this ship (Crew Dragon) will fly, you can send anyone on it. But this madame, as we say, runs slightly ahead of the engine. First of all, this ship must be tested, certified, and then start flying on it ”...

https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1269685594411630592

... "The cost of launching Crew Dragon is much more than the launch of our" Union ". And when it is said that everything in Dragon is cheap and reliable, to put it mildly, not so. It's just that they want it, it's their desire. But they are far from normal life, ”said the Russian astronaut ➡️
https://nsn.fm/aviation-and-space/kosmonavt-obyasnil-otsutstvie-interesa-rossiiskih-astronavtov-k-crew-dragon