SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3

[kevinof]

Do we think SpaceX will reuse Dragon 2's for the commercial astronaut missions to ISS, or will these missions also use brand new ones like the CCtCap?

We don't know (yet) but suspect reused. Would be too expensive (I think) to build a new one each flight and also goes against everything Spacex is about.

[niwax]

Do we think SpaceX will reuse Dragon 2's for the commercial astronaut missions to ISS, or will these missions also use brand new ones like the CCtCap?

We don't know (yet) but suspect reused. Would be too expensive (I think) to build a new one each flight and also goes against everything Spacex is about.

And it would make sense since reused capsules are cleared by NASA to approach the station for CRS already, and only the customer is responsible for accepting added risk during launch.

[Robotbeat]

Opinion: 

With a limit of only two people per year I find it highly unlikely we're talking about additional crew vehicle launches.  Instead I expect commercial passengers will be riding on existing commercial crew launches.

Please reread the actual announcement. Two missions, not just two astronauts.

[Joseph Peterson]

Opinion: 

With a limit of only two people per year I find it highly unlikely we're talking about additional crew vehicle launches.  Instead I expect commercial passengers will be riding on existing commercial crew launches.

Please reread the actual announcement. Two missions, not just two astronauts.

Comment deleted.  That makes much more sense.  Trying to save NSF bandwidth expenses until I could re-up my subscription put me a few days behind.  Off to the Lunar threads it is.

[Johnnyhinbos]

Opinion: 

With a limit of only two people per year I find it highly unlikely we're talking about additional crew vehicle launches.  Instead I expect commercial passengers will be riding on existing commercial crew launches.

Please reread the actual announcement. Two missions, not just two astronauts.

Comment deleted.  That makes much more sense.  Trying to save NSF bandwidth expenses until I could re-up my subscription put me a few days behind.  Off to the Lunar threads it is.

Is that true? What I fount was this:

The agency will allow two such astronauts per year on the station for missions no longer than 30 days each. Those astronauts will be charged about $35,000 per day by NASA for use of station resources, like life support, as well as the fees charged by the companies arranging the flights.

From Jeff Foust’s SpaceNews article

https://spacenews.com/nasa-releases-iss-commercialization-plan/

He clearly state just two astronauts per year.

Guess the original NASA wording needs to be quoted for clarity.

[Robotbeat]

Opinion: 

With a limit of only two people per year I find it highly unlikely we're talking about additional crew vehicle launches.  Instead I expect commercial passengers will be riding on existing commercial crew launches.

Please reread the actual announcement. Two missions, not just two astronauts.

Comment deleted.  That makes much more sense.  Trying to save NSF bandwidth expenses until I could re-up my subscription put me a few days behind.  Off to the Lunar threads it is.

Is that true? What I fount was this:

The agency will allow two such astronauts per year on the station for missions no longer than 30 days each. Those astronauts will be charged about $35,000 per day by NASA for use of station resources, like life support, as well as the fees charged by the companies arranging the flights.

From Jeff Foust’s SpaceNews article

https://spacenews.com/nasa-releases-iss-commercialization-plan/

He clearly state just two astronauts per year.

Guess the original NASA wording needs to be quoted for clarity.

SpaceNews is not an official mouthpiece of NASA. As amazing as Jeff Foust is.

[spacebleachers]

Jeff shouldn't be wronged for that one. To his credit, during the presentation, the statement about two astronauts was said. During the Q&A portion, they clarified it to two missions and up to 12 astronauts.

[Rondaz]

Dragon2 Capsule Recieves FCC Authorization ( Pending )

https://fcc.report/ELS/Space-Exploration-Technologies-Corp/1096-EX-ST-2019

[docmordrid]

Dragon2 Capsule Recieves FCC Authorization ( Pending )

https://fcc.report/ELS/Space-Exploration-Technologies-Corp/1096-EX-ST-2019

>
Name of Applicant: Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
>
Explanation

Please explain in the area below why an STA is necessary:

This application uses information from previous grant 0068-EX-ST-2019. This STA is necessary for Dragon2 capsule telemetry, tracking, and command, for the upcoming SpaceX Commercial Crew vehicle demonstration mission to the International Space Station. The launch and re-entry licensing authority is the FAA. Launch is also to be coordinated with the Eastern Range. On-orbit rendezvous with the ISS is to be coordinated with the NASA.
>
Requested Period of Operation

Operation Start Date: 11/01/2019

Operation End Date: 05/01/2020
>
>

[Steven Pietrobon]

Think its worth posting all the program risks from the GAO report.

"• Parachute System Certification. Like Boeing, SpaceX is conducting several parachute tests to demonstrate that its system meets the Commercial Crew Program’s requirements. However, SpaceX experienced two anomalies with its parachute system in August 2018. As a result, a SpaceX official told us they enhanced the parachute design to improve robustness. NASA officials told us SpaceX’s enhanced parachutes performed well on its uncrewed test flight. Prior to the crewed test flight, SpaceX must demonstrate the performance of its parachute system. SpaceX plans to continue to test its parachutes, and according to a SpaceX official, will take all steps necessary to ensure that the flight design meets or exceeds minimum performance levels.

• Propellant Loading Procedures. SpaceX is continuing to address a safety risk related to its plans to conduct launch vehicle propellant loading procedures after the astronauts are on board the spacecraft. SpaceX officials told us that this loading process has been used in other configurations for multiple SpaceX flights. The Commercial Crew program has approved SpaceX’s proposed loading procedures, including the agreed upon demonstration of the loading procedure five times from the launch site in the final crew configuration before the crewed test flight. The five events include the uncrewed test flight and in-flight abort test. As of March 2019, SpaceX had completed the first two events.

• Redesigned Composite Overwrap Pressure Vessel. SpaceX is continuing to address a risk that its launch vehicle’s redesigned composite overwrap pressure vessel, which is intended to contain helium under high pressure, may serve as an ignition source. The the program determined that all possible ignition sources, with one exception, have a low likelihood of creating ignition. The program continues to assess this ignition source. According to a NASA official, there were no indications of any issues during SpaceX’s uncrewed test flight. SpaceX officials also told us that the redesigned vessel has successfully flown on multiple flights. The program will need to determine whether to accept the risk associated with this technical issue prior to SpaceX’s crewed test flight.

• Engine Turbine Cracking. NASA continues to assess a SpaceX risk related to the design of its launch vehicle engines, which has previously resulted in the turbine wheel cracking. To mitigate the turbine cracking risk, SpaceX conducted additional qualification testing and developed an operational strategy that resulted in no cracks. Consequently, the program accepted this risk for SpaceX’s uncrewed test flight but levied a constraint on the crewed test flight. Specifically, SpaceX has agreed to conduct a follow-on test campaign of the engines to demonstrate that it meets NASA’s standards in order to launch its crewed test flight. Program officials said SpaceX plans to build the launch vehicle engines for its crewed test flight concurrently with this follow-on testing series."

[Vettedrmr]

Steve,

I wonder what the status is of those risks?  From my experience identified risks are very slow to actually be closed out in a development program, but at least one of these (the COPV risk) should have met all the criteria that we know of for satisfying that particular risk.

And, as most anyone that's ever dealt with the GAO knows, they are the epitome of nay-sayers.  If they wrote a report on the status of the sun rising, they'd probably raise the issue of the sun not coming up complaining that the originator of the solar system has not shown a proper mitigation of the risk of the sun not rising.

Thanks for sharing, and have a good one,
Mike

[gongora]

The GAO reports I've seen are pretty factual, but the reports may be done over the course of 6-12 months and may not contain the latest info.  They also can only report what they know about.  When your job is to review troubled programs all day it probably doesn't make you optimistic about schedule claims.

[gongora]

Think its worth posting all the program risks from the GAO report.
...
• Engine Turbine Cracking. NASA continues to assess a SpaceX risk related to the design of its launch vehicle engines, which has previously resulted in the turbine wheel cracking. To mitigate the turbine cracking risk, SpaceX conducted additional qualification testing and developed an operational strategy that resulted in no cracks. Consequently, the program accepted this risk for SpaceX’s uncrewed test flight but levied a constraint on the crewed test flight. Specifically, SpaceX has agreed to conduct a follow-on test campaign of the engines to demonstrate that it meets NASA’s standards in order to launch its crewed test flight. Program officials said SpaceX plans to build the launch vehicle engines for its crewed test flight concurrently with this follow-on testing series."

This is the one I don't get.  The turbine blades were completely redesigned for Block 5.  Has there actually been any problem with the Block 5 version?

[Vettedrmr]

Think its worth posting all the program risks from the GAO report.
...
• Engine Turbine Cracking. NASA continues to assess a SpaceX risk related to the design of its launch vehicle engines, which has previously resulted in the turbine wheel cracking. To mitigate the turbine cracking risk, SpaceX conducted additional qualification testing and developed an operational strategy that resulted in no cracks. Consequently, the program accepted this risk for SpaceX’s uncrewed test flight but levied a constraint on the crewed test flight. Specifically, SpaceX has agreed to conduct a follow-on test campaign of the engines to demonstrate that it meets NASA’s standards in order to launch its crewed test flight. Program officials said SpaceX plans to build the launch vehicle engines for its crewed test flight concurrently with this follow-on testing series."

This is the one I don't get.  The turbine blades were completely redesigned for Block 5.  Has there actually been any problem with the Block 5 version?

It almost reads like the GAO is only counting the launches that are directly tied to man-rated flights.  IOW, only the Merlins on the DM-1 flight would count.

In the fighter industry we went through GAO audits regularly (maybe every 1-2 years?), and what the report looked like was always factual but virtually NEVER told the real story.  The old phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics" was used profusely.

The good news is that the GAO doesn't have any direct teeth; so the real impact is how the customer (in this case NASA) interprets the GAO report.  Our customers never disregarded GAO reports completely, but they never took them at 100% value, either.

Have a good one,
Mike

[gongora]

It almost reads like the GAO is only counting the launches that are directly tied to man-rated flights.  IOW, only the Merlins on the DM-1 flight would count.

It's NASA doing the counting, not GAO.

GAO's customer is Congress.  Their audits will never be 100% complete, but they can be a good window into the programs.

[whitelancer64]

Think its worth posting all the program risks from the GAO report.
...
• Engine Turbine Cracking. NASA continues to assess a SpaceX risk related to the design of its launch vehicle engines, which has previously resulted in the turbine wheel cracking. To mitigate the turbine cracking risk, SpaceX conducted additional qualification testing and developed an operational strategy that resulted in no cracks. Consequently, the program accepted this risk for SpaceX’s uncrewed test flight but levied a constraint on the crewed test flight. Specifically, SpaceX has agreed to conduct a follow-on test campaign of the engines to demonstrate that it meets NASA’s standards in order to launch its crewed test flight. Program officials said SpaceX plans to build the launch vehicle engines for its crewed test flight concurrently with this follow-on testing series."

This is the one I don't get.  The turbine blades were completely redesigned for Block 5.  Has there actually been any problem with the Block 5 version?

I read that as - the redesign results in no cracking and the CC program has accepted their use, but they also asked SpaceX to perform follow-up testing to be extra sure all is well for the crewed flight test. The engines specifically for the crewed flight test are going to be built as this follow-up testing is happening.

[Vettedrmr]

Then why is it listed as a program risk?

[ZChris13]

Then why is it listed as a program risk?

I took "program risk" in this case to mean "there's going to be a lot of paperwork to convince people that it really is fine and they need to stop obsessing over it"
Why are parachutes on that list?

[gongora]

Why are parachutes on that list?

The parachutes haven't gotten through the testing yet.  The GAO report mentioned parachute problems in August that required changes to the design, and they had another parachute test failure in April.

[Vettedrmr]

I took "program risk" in this case to mean "there's going to be a lot of paperwork to convince people that it really is fine and they need to stop obsessing over it"
Why are parachutes on that list?

In my career a "program risk" was a formally tracked issue, with a corrective action plan (changes and testing), and verification of the changes to correct the issue.

Have a good one,
Mike