SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3

[Lars-J]

This is just posturing as the barter agreement is finalized. A less generous takeaway would be “Roscosmos denial”... but it will happen. It is in both parties interests, but NASA actually holds the stronger hand here.

[Vettedrmr]

This is just posturing as the barter agreement is finalized. A less generous takeaway would be “Roscosmos denial”... but it will happen. It is in both parties interests, but NASA actually holds the stronger hand here.

I'm getting a bit confused here (not that unusual).  Are the two parties you're referring to here NASA and Roscosmos, or NASA and SpaceX?

And can anyone summarize in general what this barter agreement is?  Is it that SpaceX is absorbing the additional costs for the longer mission of DM-2 in exchange for being able to refly hardware from crewed missions on subsequent missions?

TIA, and have a good one,
Mike

[jpo234]

This is just posturing as the barter agreement is finalized. A less generous takeaway would be “Roscosmos denial”... but it will happen. It is in both parties interests, but NASA actually holds the stronger hand here.

I'm getting a bit confused here (not that unusual).  Are the two parties you're referring to here NASA and Roscosmos, or NASA and SpaceX?

And can anyone summarize in general what this barter agreement is?  Is it that SpaceX is absorbing the additional costs for the longer mission of DM-2 in exchange for being able to refly hardware from crewed missions on subsequent missions?

TIA, and have a good one,
Mike

A barter agreement between Roscosmos and NASA about flying Russian Cosmonauts on Commercial Crew vehicles in exchange for Americans and other international partners on Soyuz,

[gongora]

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.

IIRC they didn't bother starting with reuse because they (SpaceX and NASA) were trying to simplify the program at first to speed up the beginning of service.  It turns out the program still got delayed for various other reasons.

[spacenut]

Some of the delay in flying Dragon II was the landing legs coming out of the heat shield.  Then they were constantly changing F9 to be able to land the booster for reuse.  Things I can remember are the octoweb change from a square of 9 engines.  Stretching the tanks.  Changing the grid fins.  Mostly engine improvements over time almost doubling the power of the Merlin engine.  Also, making corrections on the helium support trusses.  Then they had to fly the Block 5 version at least 5 times. 

[Alexphysics]

Some of the delay in flying Dragon II was the landing legs coming out of the heat shield.   

No it wasn't.

[daedalus1]

Some of the delay in flying Dragon II was the landing legs coming out of the heat shield.  Then they were constantly changing F9 to be able to land the booster for reuse.  Things I can remember are the octoweb change from a square of 9 engines.  Stretching the tanks.  Changing the grid fins.  Mostly engine improvements over time almost doubling the power of the Merlin engine.  Also, making corrections on the helium support trusses.  Then they had to fly the Block 5 version at least 5 times.

Not very much to do with the booster, just the spacecraft.
That is why SpaceX beat Boeing by at least 12 months.

[Coastal Ron]

...Then they were constantly changing F9 to be able to land the booster for reuse.  Things I can remember are the octoweb change from a square of 9 engines.  Stretching the tanks.  Changing the grid fins.  Mostly engine improvements over time almost doubling the power of the Merlin engine.  Also, making corrections on the helium support trusses.  Then they had to fly the Block 5 version at least 5 times.

Falcon 9 changes did not affect the development of the Dragon spacecraft, and SpaceX knew they didn't need to stop making Falcon 9 changes until very near the end of the Commercial Crew development program, when NASA required them to have a Falcon 9 configuration that they could certify.

The first Falcon 9 with landing legs flew in 2014, so they had plenty of time to work on reusability.

Even if the Commercial Crew program would have been properly funded, and SpaceX was able to launch its Crew Dragon Demo flights years earlier, SpaceX would have chosen a Falcon 9 configuration to certify for NASA crew flights, but would have continued working on the final Block 5 configuration with other customer flights.

So bottom line is that Falcon 9 development was not a factor in Dragon Crew development.

[whitelancer64]

Some of the delay in flying Dragon II was the landing legs coming out of the heat shield.   

No it wasn't.

This is a very persistent myth. Nobody from either NASA or SpaceX has ever said that the landing legs through the heat shield was a problem. That was pure internet speculation, included in many articles, but without any basis in fact.

[Prettz]

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

Can anyone provide a better translation? A lot of meaning seems to have been lost.

[daedalus1]

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

Can anyone provide a better translation? A lot of meaning seems to have been lost.

Well when he says "Union" that is what Soyuz stands for in Russian.

[Star One]

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

Can anyone provide a better translation? A lot of meaning seems to have been lost.

I second that. The original translation is rather confusing to say the least.

[whitelancer64]

Russia has been pretty consistent in insisting that all testing be completed and the capsules certified by NASA before they will commit to flying Russians on them.

[woods170]

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

Contract mods are not hard. Those other folks upthread are wrong.

[yg1968]

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

Contract mods are not hard. Those other folks upthread are wrong.

A barter agreement is a contract modification. But the people upthread were saying that barter is easier than paying additionnal funding which is true. The additionnal funds paid to Boeing was exceptional for commercial crew (or cargo) and was not well received by the public.

[abaddon]

Russia has been pretty consistent in insisting that all testing be completed and the capsules certified by NASA before they will commit to flying Russians on them.

Correct, but they also seem to want "several" flights first to ensure safety of Russian cosmonauts.  For example, USCV-1 is a "certified" NASA mission, but Roscosmos was not interested in including a Russian cosmonaut on the flight.

Given the two providers and long-duration missions things taken together, it's going to take twice as long to accumulate flights on each crew vehicle.  So that will extend the window of time before either vehicle can accumulate enough flights to satisfy Roscosmos.

Much of this is likely posturing and defensive responses to all of the "Dragon is so great and modern and spiffy" stuff.  But it also seems like Roscosmos doesn't really care that much about swapping astros, and to be fair - why would they?  Soyuz is very reliable, and if it is reliable enough, there isn't a benefit to them in swapping crew, and there is added risk with a Russian cosmonaut flying on a US crew vehicle.

[kevinof]

As much as it irked the U.S. to have to fly their astros on the Russian system, it would now irk the Russians to send one of their astros up on a U.S. systems. Call it flag flying or Nationalistic pride you could understand why.

[cwr]

Russia has been pretty consistent in insisting that all testing be completed and the capsules certified by NASA before they will commit to flying Russians on them.

Correct, but they also seem to want "several" flights first to ensure safety of Russian cosmonauts.  For example, USCV-1 is a "certified" NASA mission, but Roscosmos was not interested in including a Russian cosmonaut on the flight.

Given the two providers and long-duration missions things taken together, it's going to take twice as long to accumulate flights on each crew vehicle.  So that will extend the window of time before either vehicle can accumulate enough flights to satisfy Roscosmos.

Much of this is likely posturing and defensive responses to all of the "Dragon is so great and modern and spiffy" stuff.  But it also seems like Roscosmos doesn't really care that much about swapping astros, and to be fair - why would they?  Soyuz is very reliable, and if it is reliable enough, there isn't a benefit to them in swapping crew, and there is added risk with a Russian cosmonaut flying on a US crew vehicle.

If you have the scenario where you have a crew supplied by a commercial crew vehicle so 4 non Russian
astronauts plus 3 Russian cosmonauts supplied via a Soyuz launch.
Then we come to crew handover time.
Unless the Russians change their plan, they still intend to do a non-direct handover.
So when the Soyuz leaves there will be no Russian cosmonauts on the ISS.
If an emergency arises in the Russian Segment while no Russian crew are on the ISS there is
a potential problem.
That is the problem that NASA wanted to avoid by bartering 1 seat with Russia on each crew vehicle
so there was always at least one US and 1 Russian crew member on the ISS.

Carl

[abaddon]

If you have the scenario where you have a crew supplied by a commercial crew vehicle so 4 non Russian
astronauts plus 3 Russian cosmonauts supplied via a Soyuz launch.
Then we come to crew handover time.
Unless the Russians change their plan, they still intend to do a non-direct handover.
So when the Soyuz leaves there will be no Russian cosmonauts on the ISS.
If an emergency arises in the Russian Segment while no Russian crew are on the ISS there is
a potential problem.
That is the problem that NASA wanted to avoid by bartering 1 seat with Russia on each crew vehicle
so there was always at least one US and 1 Russian crew member on the ISS.

Carl

Interesting, you say "still intend to do a non-direct handover", I'm assuming this is a change from how they've been doing it, since that would mean the ISS would have been uncrewed?  Perhaps their plan is to continue to do direct handovers until they are comfortable flying on a US crewed vehicle?

[cwr]

If you have the scenario where you have a crew supplied by a commercial crew vehicle so 4 non Russian
astronauts plus 3 Russian cosmonauts supplied via a Soyuz launch.
Then we come to crew handover time.
Unless the Russians change their plan, they still intend to do a non-direct handover.
So when the Soyuz leaves there will be no Russian cosmonauts on the ISS.
If an emergency arises in the Russian Segment while no Russian crew are on the ISS there is
a potential problem.
That is the problem that NASA wanted to avoid by bartering 1 seat with Russia on each crew vehicle
so there was always at least one US and 1 Russian crew member on the ISS.

Carl

Interesting, you say "still intend to do a non-direct handover", I'm assuming this is a change from how they've been doing it, since that would mean the ISS would have been uncrewed?  Perhaps their plan is to continue to do direct handovers until they are comfortable flying on a US crewed vehicle?

No. By "still intend to" I meant that when we have a steady pattern of 1 US crew vehicle and 1 Soyuz
to form an ISS crew of 7 NASA's stated intent is that they would do a direct handover while
Roscosmos stated intent is to do an indirect handover. I simply meant that this is still the plan, but if
they don't barter a seat exchange on every crew launch then that policy leaves the ISS without a Russian cosmonaut during an indirect handover.

While we've been in the mode of 2 Soyuz launches to bring the ISS crew to 6, then 6 months later
one of the Soyuz's would return to Earth, leaving an ISS crew of 3 from the most recent Soyuz.
These flights have been conducted under the NASA/Roscosmos agreement that each Soyuz launch would have
at least 1 person trained in the Russian segment and 1 person trained in the USOS on every Soyuz launch,
so that in the event of an emergency there was an expert to handle the emergency.

I may not be doing the most effective job of describing the situation because the pattern has been fixed
for most of the last decade. But as we introduce the 1st US commercial crew provider and then the
2nd US commercial crew provider, plus the introduction of the first commercial ISS visit in 2021
outside of regular commercial crew visits AND the Russians also start doing direct hand-overs
to allow visits by countries like UAE and customers of Space Ventures - this will become a lot
more complex.

Carl