SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3

[SWGlassPit]

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

This.  Some risks are carried through the life of the program, as well.  Even if the likelihood scores a 1 on the 5x5 LxC chart, if the consequence scores, say, a 5, the program may choose to keep the risk carried, if only to maintain visibility.  ISS does this -- certain risks cannot be "closed", merely "accepted", and risks that are "accepted" get reviewed annually to ensure that the risk posture hasn't changed.

[Alexphysics]

IIRC on one of the ASAP meetings last year (I think the one at the end of summer) they talked about the redesign for Block 5 not being entirely perfect and that they still found anomalies at McGregor during testing and that they would have to tweak the engine design so those anomalies could be solved and that SpaceX had developed a two stage way to get to that point. First an intermediate solution to mitigate them and they would test that on the ground and also they would fly that on DM-1 and then the final design would fly on DM-2 after proper analysis on the ground too, so it's obvious why the GAO report centers around the DM-1 engines as those were the ones with such modifications. On one of the last meetings they had I remember they saying that the turbine cracks don't appear anymore so that's a good sign. Maybe they didn't appear before this modification and the "anomalies" they mentioned were of other kind of thing in the engine but who knows.

[cppetrie]

Cross posting

Did I miss this being posted somewhere else already?

https://www.spacex.com/news/2019/07/15/update-flight-abort-static-fire-anomaly-investigation

[Navier–Stokes]

[FutureSpaceTourist]

From Elon’s Time interview published today (interview was last Friday):

Obviously a question a lot of folks wanna know right now is, when will we start seeing regular crewed runs to the International Space Station on a crewed Dragon?

Well, this is both a NASA and a SpaceX readiness thing. So from a SpaceX readiness standpoint, my guess is we’re about six months. But whatever the schedule currently looks like, it’s a bit like Zeno’s paradox. You’re sort of halfway there at any given point in time. And then somehow you get there. So if our schedule currently says about four months, then probably about eight months is correct.

[ThePonjaX]

I wondering why this video on this moment? 
It's because they solved the parachutes issue ?
It's because they  need to show progress on the Crew Dragon after the anomaly?

[Hog]

I wondering why this video on this moment? 
It's because they solved the parachutes issue ?
It's because they  need to show progress on the Crew Dragon after the anomaly?

To promote itself as a company devoted to safety?

[dondar]

I wondering why this video on this moment? 
It's because they solved the parachutes issue ?
It's because they  need to show progress on the Crew Dragon after the anomaly?

Beside DM-1 footage they used video from july 2018 (desert testing part). It was 16th test executed together with NASA in Naval Air Facility El Centro.
It looks professional production so most probably it was made long time ago and got postponed because of all this "news". (I don't think DM-1 anomaly was this "news"). As I understand the system is "done" (by June of 2018) and they are not going to introduce any changes. So there is nothing to fix.

P.S. there are numerous calls for some mysterious "transparency" and "openness". News are not noise only to prepared minds. Development is done in the knowledge fog. The solutions are right only when tests are positive.
Explaining costs LOT of time and efforts and still requires significant background understanding and knowledge on the receiving end. and in the most real cases  the right choices are not the first ones. Clueless public scrutiny (like it was in the case of single out test) will lead only to the significant overrun of "protect my ass" administrative costs, significant conservatism in engineering choices and project bouncing where the critical parts of testing have to land on the desks of "he will retire anyway" leader engineers....

[Kansan52]

My guess, waving the flag PR. Especially since it a recap of the parachute testing.

[gongora]

As I understand the system is "done" (by June of 2018) and they are not going to introduce any changes. So there is nothing to fix.

They've had more than one parachute test anomaly since June 2018 and they've made changes to the parachute system since June 2018.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/astrobehnken/status/1153031334752919554

While parachutes seem simple, it's never a small feat to understand these amazing systems. THANK YOU to the @SpaceX and @NASA @Commercial_Crew team for all the time in the desert ensuring they perform as designed! Pics are just a small sample, check out video below for more.

[gongora]

Cargo Dragon 2 does not have the SuperDraco system (from CRS-18 press conference).  They are aiming to use them for 5 flights each, versus 3 flights for Dragon 1.

[gongora]

Cargo Dragon 2 missions nominally from 39-A, could use SLC-40 if they really need to.

Cargo Dragon 2 is not refurbished Crew Dragon.

[intelati]

Cargo Dragon 2 does not have the SuperDraco system (from CRS-18 press conference).  They are aiming to use them for 5 flights each, versus 3 flights for Dragon 1.

Cargo Dragon 2 missions nominally from 39-A, could use SLC-40 if they really need to.

Cargo Dragon 2 is not refurbished Crew Dragon.

Sometimes you gotta laugh at the speculation here. I didn't participate much in the SuperDraco conversation, but you have to feel for all those wasted electrons that were slightly inconvenienced.

I can't say I'm too surprised about the lack of SuperDraco (especially with the hindsight of the test) but the non refurbished Cargo 2 has me puzzled.

It's not very SpaceX, so I think there may (I may be making smoke out of the fog) be something more to this equation here.

[gongora]

There was a document that showed cargo Dragon 2 not changing the propulsion system from Crew Dragon.  I never quite believed that meant it still had SuperDracos but it was the only source we had.  In hindsight maybe that just meant the Draco system since the SuperDracos are an abort system, not the propulsion system.

At this point shouldn't the first cargo Dragon 2 already be in the build process?  Kinda hard to reuse a Crew Dragon for it.  Jessica Jensen mentioned differences in the weldment, I wonder if they were able to get a little more volume for the cargo version.

[su27k]

I can't say I'm too surprised about the lack of SuperDraco (especially with the hindsight of the test) but the non refurbished Cargo 2 has me puzzled.

It's not very SpaceX, so I think there may (I may be making smoke out of the fog) be something more to this equation here.

I assume it meant they're confident they can reuse crew version of Dragon 2 for more crew flights, either they have a quick path for NASA to certify crew version for reflight, or they have other customers for reused crew dragon.

[Nate_Trost]

At five reflights per vehicle, it would not surprise me at all if it was just plain easier for SpaceX to plan on building a pair of from-scratch Cargo configuration Dragon 2's for CRS and baseline them for all the cargo flights.

Reduces a lot of uncertainty about Crew capsule availability based on schedule changes, unknowns about conversion time, etc.

Given how gung-ho SpaceX is on Starship, it would not surprise me at all if the Crew Dragons were just one-and-done mission wise. I mean, maybe they would refurbish one for a private flight, but I don't think there is any more demand for one of those at the moment than there ultimately was for DragonLab.

[Norm38]

How many Crew Dragons will there be anyway?  By the time SpaceX is done handing out used crew D2s as museum pieces, there won't be any left to reuse.
I'll take one for Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry!

[yg1968]

I can't say I'm too surprised about the lack of SuperDraco (especially with the hindsight of the test) but the non refurbished Cargo 2 has me puzzled.

It's not very SpaceX, so I think there may (I may be making smoke out of the fog) be something more to this equation here.

I assume it meant they're confident they can reuse crew version of Dragon 2 for more crew flights, either they have a quick path for NASA to certify crew version for reflight, or they have other customers for reused crew dragon.

From what I recall from past press conferences, the first 2 crewed Dragon2 flights will be new. After that, it hasn't yet been determined. But it might be easier to get reused Dragons certified by the FAA than it is by NASA. So there is some logic in using only new crewed Dragons 2 for NASA and reused crewed Dragons 2 for entirely private commercial flights.

[Joseph Peterson]

My fifteen minutes of searching are up with no links to share, but I recall seeing something about Bigelow reserving four crew launches from SpaceX sometime within the last six months.  My memory might be off on the details so all stop there.  What is really important here is that NASA isn't necessarily the only customer for crew Dragon.