SpaceX F9 : CRS SpX-18 : July 25, 2019 - DISCUSSION

[gongora]

CRS-18 Discussion thread

NSF Threads for CRS-18 : Discussion / Updates / RNDZ, ISS Ops, EOM Updates / L2
NSF Articles for CRS-18 :
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=CRS%2BSpaceX

NSF Articles for CRS missions :  https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=CRS

Successful launch July 25 at 18:01 EDT/22:01 UTC) on Falcon 9 (booster 1056.2) from SLC-40 at Cape Canaveral. RTLS landing was successful.  This Dragon was previously used for CRS-6 and CRS-13.


External cargo: IDA-3


Other SpaceX resources on NASASpaceflight:
   SpaceX News Articles (Recent)  /   SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews)
   SpaceX Dragon Articles  /  SpaceX Missions Section (with Launch Manifest and info on past and future missions)
   L2 SpaceX Section

[gongora]

RFTSat (1007-EX-CN-2018)

The RFTSat CubeSat will be launched as a payload on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle executing the SpX-18 cargo mission for the International Space Station. The RFTSat CubeSat will then be deployed at a to-be-determined later date by a Cygnus vehicle departing the International Space Station.
The current launch date is projected to be May 7th, 2019
...
Overview
The goal of the Radio Frequency Tag Satellite (RFTSat) mission is to develop and demonstrate the first space-based 5.8GHz RF backscattering communications system. It will allow a wireless passive RF tag to harvest RF energy transmitted through space from
an RF reader on the spacecraft, store that energy in a supercapacitor, and power an MCU and various sensors on the tag. Then the collected sensor data will be transmitted back to the reader by modulating this information on the backscattered RF signal. This tag will be mounted at the end of an unfurling carbon fiber boom and will be used to measure accelerations, temperature, and radiation TID at a distance of about 1 m from the reader. All data will be downlinked to earth via GlobalStar satellite network.

[Comga]

RFTSat (1007-EX-CN-2018)

The RFTSat CubeSat will be launched as a payload on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle executing the SpX-18 cargo mission for the International Space Station. The RFTSat CubeSat will then be deployed at a to-be-determined later date by a Cygnus vehicle departing the International Space Station.
The current launch date is projected to be May 7th, 2019
...

How is that deployment possible?
Post departure deployments from Cygnus have been done from external deployers.
CubeSats carried on SpaceX CRS missions have gone as internal cargo and have been deployed thru the JEM airlock.
External transfer between these systems doesn’t make sense, which contributes to why it hasn’t been demonstrated.
The only way I can see this working is if they bring it back on the Dragon after some testing on orbit and ship it to MARS to be loaded onto the Cygnus before encapsulation and launch.
Unless there are two RFTSats

[Bob Shaw]

There's a new deployer system on this Cygnus which fits into the hatch (so far as I can make out). Cygnus will go to a higher orbit to deploy, then will be deorbited. This method will also be available in future if all goes well.

[gongora]

These are references to the new deployer use with the current SpX-16 and NG-10 missions:

https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2018/12/08/dragon-attached-to-station-returns-to-earth-in-january/

A small satellite deployment mechanism, called SlingShot, will be ride up in Dragon and then be installed in a Northrop Grumman Cygnus spacecraft prior to its departure from the space station. SlingShot can accommodate as many as 18 CubeSats of any format. After the Cygnus cargo ship departs from station, the spacecraft navigates to an altitude of 280 to 310 miles (an orbit higher than that of the space station) to deploy the satellites.

NG Press Release

The next phase of the mission features an inaugural flight for the Slingshot CubeSat Deployer System which further demonstrates Cygnus’ capabilities beyond its core cargo delivery function. Cygnus is prepared to support Slingshot, a flexible platform that can fly hosted payloads and CubeSats after installation onto the Cygnus spacecraft by NASA astronauts. Upon completion of its secondary missions, Cygnus will perform a safe, destructive reentry into Earth’s atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean.

https://twitter.com/SEOPSLLC/status/1030517519562551298

[Olaf]

More on this topic

https://twitter.com/SEOPSLLC/status/1050415785078853636
https://twitter.com/SEOPSLLC/status/1072927789601427456

[Comga]

Ah!
Like Jonathan Goff’s proposed “HatchBasket”
The group formed last year and got something to orbit before the end of this year
Very rapid technical and contractual development.
Looking forward to learning the details of how the pieces, “Slingshot” dispensed, CubeSats, etc. are arranged, transported, installed and deployed.

[deruch]

RFTSat (1007-EX-CN-2018)

The RFTSat CubeSat will be launched as a payload on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle executing the SpX-18 cargo mission for the International Space Station. The RFTSat CubeSat will then be deployed at a to-be-determined later date by a Cygnus vehicle departing the International Space Station.
The current launch date is projected to be May 7th, 2019
...

How is that deployment possible?
Post departure deployments from Cygnus have been done from external deployers.
CubeSats carried on SpaceX CRS missions have gone as internal cargo and have been deployed thru the JEM airlock.
External transfer between these systems doesn’t make sense, which contributes to why it hasn’t been demonstrated.
The only way I can see this working is if they bring it back on the Dragon after some testing on orbit and ship it to MARS to be loaded onto the Cygnus before encapsulation and launch.
Unless there are two RFTSats

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/Facility.html?#id=7847 

The SlingShot attachment hardware and controller, as well as the satellites in their deployers, are flown to the space station as pressurized cargo in a visiting vehicle. Just prior to Cygnus departure, the SlingShot Controller is installed inside the Cygnus Cargo Module, the Cygnus hatch is closed and Slingshot deployer hardware is installed in the Cygnus PCBM. The deployers/satellites are then loaded into place. Next, the ISS hatch is closed and Cygnus departs and maneuvers to approximately 50 to 100 km above the space station, and deploys the SlingShot satellites. The remaining SlingShot hardware then burns up with Cygnus upon destructive reentry

That's clever.  The actual deployer is installed on the hatch or berthing ring.  But given the internal cargo volume limitations already experienced with Dragon, I'd be surprised if NASA chooses to send up many payloads with SpaceX instead of inside the Cygnus.

[zubenelgenubi]

Launch date: July 8, 2019
Source: SFN Launch Schedule, updated Jan. 16

[gongora]

0048-EX-CM-2019 MakerSat-1

MakerSat-1 is a technology proof-of-concept mission to demonstrate microgravity additive
manufacturing, assembly, and deployment of a CubeSat from the International Space Station.
MakerSat-1 is the first spacecraft explicitly designed to be 3D-printed aboard the ISS, easily and
safely snap-assembled by the astronaut crew in only 5 minutes without tools or fasteners, and
then gently deployed directly into orbit from the ISS. Its structural frame was 3D-printed in
August 2017, using the Additive Manufacturing Facility (AMF) printer aboard the ISS. Six circuit
boards/batteries are being sent to ISS on a July 2019 re-supply flight to permit the crew to finish
snap-together assembly, and battery charging. MakerSat-1 will be launched on a SpaceX
Falcon 9 vehicle where it will be transported onto the ISS. It will then be deployed from the
SEOPS deployment system onboard the Cygnus spacecraft hatchdoor which will be released
from the ISS.

I guess the parts go up on SpX-18 and the cubesat is launched from NG-12.

[Olaf]

I guess the parts go up on SpX-18 and the cubesat is launched from NG-12.

Or NG-11?

[Olaf]

I guess the parts go up on SpX-18 and the cubesat is launched from NG-12.

Or NG-11?

It will be NG-11.
From site 6 of the ODAR.pdf

Milestone Schedule
CubeSat Delivery to SEOPS 5/6/2019
Falcon 9 Launch to ISS 7/8/2019
Assembly on ISS 7/15/2019
Deploy from Cygnus 7/24/2019
Begin Orbital Operation 7/25/2019

[Olaf]

IDA-3 on SpX-18 is confirmed.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/stationreport/2019/05/02/iss-daily-summary-report-5022019/

The crew ingressed PMA 3 today and reconfigured IMV ducts in preparation for the arrival of International Docking Adapter (IDA) 3 on SpX-18.  Planned for Extravehicular Activity (EVA) installation, IDA 3 is required to support future US Crewed Vehicles (USCV).

[gongora]

ISS update at the NAC HEO committee meeting said mid-July for this launch

[jacqmans]

June 04, 2019 
MEDIA ADVISORY M19-051

NASA Invites Media to 18th SpaceX Cargo Launch to Space Station

Media accreditation is open for the launch of the next SpaceX delivery of NASA supplies, equipment and science investigations to the International Space Station.

A SpaceX Dragon cargo spacecraft is scheduled to launch in July on a Falcon 9 rocket from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) in Florida. This will be the company’s 18th mission under NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services contract.

Media prelaunch and launch activities will take place at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and neighboring CCAFS. Credentialing deadlines are as follows:

International media without U.S. citizenship must apply by 4:30 p.m. EDT Sunday, June 9, for access to CCAFS or by 4:30 p.m. Sunday, June 30, for access to Kennedy media activities only.U.S. media must apply by 4:30 p.m. Sunday, June 30.

All media accreditation requests should be submitted online at:

https://media.ksc.nasa.gov

For questions about accreditation, please email [email protected]. For other questions, contact Kennedy’s newsroom at 321-867-2468.

The International Space Station is a convergence of science, technology and human innovation that demonstrates new technologies and enables research not possible on Earth. The space station has been occupied continuously since November 2000. In that time, more than 230 people and a variety of international and commercial spacecraft have visited the orbiting laboratory.

The space station remains the springboard to NASA's next great leap in exploration, including missions to the Moon by 2024 and on to Mars. Space station research also provides opportunities for other U.S. government agencies, private industry, and academic and research institutions to conduct microgravity research that leads to new technologies, medical treatments, and products that improve life on Earth.
 

For launch countdown coverage, NASA's launch blog, and more information about the mission, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/spacex

[PM3]

Stephen Clark reports a launch date of July 18.
Ben Cooper reports a launch date of NET July 21,  ~7:30 pm Eastern.

This is close to Soyuz MS-13, which is scheduled for July 20.

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html

[anik]

I confirmed July 21 from my source.

[zubenelgenubi]

Ben Cooper reports a launch date of NET July 21,  ~7:30 pm Eastern.

This is close to Soyuz MS-13, which is scheduled for July 20.

http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html

Assuming all goes according to plans:
Soyuz MS-13 will launch and dock with ISS on July 20 UTC.

Dragon SpX-18 will launch late on July 21 UTC and be berthed with ISS approximately two days later, July 23.

[yg1968]

Slide 32 has this this to say about SpX-18:

SpaceX CRS-18 Mission Status
• Mission Planning
• Launch tentatively planned for July 2019.
• Upmass – 3,310 kg estimated; Return/disposal – 2,500 kg estimated
• Pressurized Cargo
• Ascent: 2 Polar, 2 AEM-T, Bioculture
• Return: 4 Polar, 1 AEM-T, 1 MERLIN
• Unpressurized Cargo
• International Docking Adaptor (IDA)-3

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/iss_nac_may_2019_rev_b.pdf

[gongora]

The ASAP meeting mentioned an EMU going up on this flight.

[Sesquipedalian]

Slide 32 has this this to say about SpX-18:

SpaceX CRS-18 Mission Status
Upmass – 3,310 kg estimated

That's quite a jump from the ~2,442 kg of CRS-17.  Is that because of the IDA, or are they debuting new densified packing techniques?

[gongora]

Slide 32 has this this to say about SpX-18:

SpaceX CRS-18 Mission Status
Upmass – 3,310 kg estimated

That's quite a jump from the ~2,442 kg of CRS-17.  Is that because of the IDA, or are they debuting new densified packing techniques?

IDA was listed at 467kg on the CRS-9 flight.

[zubenelgenubi]

Cross-post re: launch time:

http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html

A Falcon 9 is slated to launch the ISS Dragon resupply mission CRS-18 from pad 40 on July 21 at 7:32 pm EDT.

19:32 EDT = 2332 UTC

[whitelancer64]

CRS-11 used the Dragon from CRS-4
CRS-12 was the last flight of a new Cargo Dragon
CRS-13 used the Dragon from CRS-6
CRS-14 used the Dragon from CRS-8
CRS-15 used the Dragon from CRS-9
CRS-16 used the Dragon from CRS-10
CRS-17 used the Dragon from CRS-12

CRS-18  CRS-5 or the first third reuse?

[Alexphysics]

CRS-11 used the Dragon from CRS-4
CRS-12 was the last flight of a new Cargo Dragon
CRS-13 used the Dragon from CRS-6
CRS-14 used the Dragon from CRS-8
CRS-15 used the Dragon from CRS-9
CRS-16 used the Dragon from CRS-10
CRS-17 used the Dragon from CRS-12

CRS-18  CRS-5 or the first third reuse?

On the last CRS mission Hans said the last ones would be third used capsules so I'd say any one of the above already twice-used capsules. The last ones have more probabilities considering they are the last ones out of the production and they introduced a lot of changes from the CRS-8 capsule onwards to improve reuse so maybe next one will be the CRS-9/15 capsule? Or probably the CRS-8/14 capsule? Who knows, but those last ones might have a better chance to be the ones used three times.

[whitelancer64]

CRS-11 used the Dragon from CRS-4
CRS-12 was the last flight of a new Cargo Dragon
CRS-13 used the Dragon from CRS-6
CRS-14 used the Dragon from CRS-8
CRS-15 used the Dragon from CRS-9
CRS-16 used the Dragon from CRS-10
CRS-17 used the Dragon from CRS-12

CRS-18  CRS-5 or the first third reuse?

On the last CRS mission Hans said the last ones would be third used capsules so I'd say any one of the above already twice-used capsules. The last ones have more probabilities considering they are the last ones out of the production and they introduced a lot of changes from the CRS-8 capsule onwards to improve reuse so maybe next one will be the CRS-9/15 capsule? Or probably the CRS-8/14 capsule? Who knows, but those last ones might have a better chance to be the ones used three times.

Thank you, I wasn't sure if that information was already out there or not. Hopefully it's mentioned in a pre-flight press conference, or a tweet, soon.

[Olaf]

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum18/HTML/001498.html

[Rondaz]

SpaceX Targeting Sunday, July 21, at 7:35 p.m. for CRS-18 Launch

Danielle Sempsrott Posted on June 26, 2019

A SpaceX Dragon cargo spacecraft is scheduled to launch at 7:35 p.m. EDT on Sunday, July 21, on a Falcon 9 rocket from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. This will be SpaceX’s 18th Commercial Resupply Services contract mission to the International Space Station for NASA.

Launch on July 21 results in an arrival at the space station for a robotic capture by Expedition 60 crew members Nick Hague and Christina Koch of NASA on Tuesday, July 23, at 7 a.m. EDT for about a month-long stay.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacex/2019/06/26/spacex-targeting-sunday-july-21-at-735-p-m-for-crs-18-launch/

[Targeteer]

June 27, 2019
MEDIA ADVISORY M19-063
NASA Highlights Science on 18th SpaceX Resupply Mission to Space Station


NASA will host a media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Tuesday, July 9, to discuss select science investigations launching on the next SpaceX commercial resupply flight to the International Space Station.

Audio of the teleconference will stream live online at:

https://www.nasa.gov/live

SpaceX is targeting 7:35 p.m. Sunday, July 21, for the launch of its Dragon spacecraft on a Falcon 9 rocket from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.

Participants in the July 9 preview briefing will be:

    Bryan Dansberry, assistant program scientist for NASA’s International Space Station Program Science Office, who will share an overview of the research being conducted aboard the space station and how it benefits exploration and humanity.
    Ken Shields, chief operating officer for the International Space Station U.S. National Laboratory, who will discuss the lab’s work in advancing science in space, and in developing partnerships that drive industrialization through microgravity research.
    Charles Cockell, professor of astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh, who will discuss Biorock, an investigation that will provide insight into the physical interactions of liquid, rocks and microorganisms under microgravity conditions for potentially mining materials in space and could benefit long-duration spaceflight missions.
    Valentina Fossati and Andres Bratt-Leal, researchers from the New York Stem Foundation Research Institute, who will discuss the Space Tango – Induced Stem Cells investigation, where cells from patients with Parkinson’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis will be cultured on the space station to examine cell to cell interactions that occur in neurodegenerative disease.

    Tomomichi Fujita of Hokkaido University, who will discuss Space Moss, an investigation that grows mosses aboard the space station, and on Earth, to determine how microgravity affects their growth, development, gene expression, photosynthetic activity and other features.
    Craig Everroad, a scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center, who will discuss MVP Cell-02, an experiment that aims to understand the effects of the space environment on microbial evolutionary processes.

To participate in the teleconference, media must contact Joshua Finch at 202-358-1100 or [email protected] by 4 p.m. Monday, July 8, for dial-in information.

SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft also will carry crew supplies and hardware to the orbiting laboratory to support the Expedition 60 crew for the 18th mission under NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services contract.

The space station is a convergence of science, technology and human innovation that demonstrates new technologies and enables research not possible on Earth. The orbiting laboratory has been occupied continuously since November 2000. In that time, more than 230 people, and a variety of international and commercial spacecraft, have visited the orbiting laboratory. The space station remains the springboard to NASA's next great leap in exploration, including future missions to the Moon and eventually to Mars.

For launch countdown coverage, NASA's launch blog, and more information about the mission, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/spacex

[jacqmans]

The International Docking Adapter 3, a critical component for future crewed missions to the International Space Station, is carefully packed away in the unpressurized “trunk” section of the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft at the SpaceX facility on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on June 19. It will launch to the orbiting laboratory in July on the company’s 18th commercial resupply mission. The adapter will support future U.S. crewed vehicles visiting the station.

Photo credit: NASA/Isaac Watson

[jacqmans]

[ahanktcd]

This is on this launch.

https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/techshot-and-nscrypt-to-launch-3d-biofabrication-facility-in-space-156636/

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/tylerg1998/status/1146507778833432576

B1056.2 has arrived back at Cape Canaveral in Florida for the launch of CRS-18 to the ISS on July 18th. This booster previously launched CRS-17 to orbit (and then returned to land at LZ-1) on May 4th. 🚀

In response to:

twitter.com/astroperinaldo/status/1146110295758319616

Google translate:

Guys, I'm next to a Falcon 9 just recovered! They just got it back, just as we were passing by the Kennedy Space Center bus!

[scr00chy]

That's LC-39A on the pictures, right? Was the booster going in or out? I'm thinking it's actually B1047.3. The booster in the pictures has had its legs removed while B1056 was the first one to have them folded up rather than removed. Also, the grid fins have been removed which seems like a strange thing to do for a booster that is going to be reused soon after its first mission. But it would make sense for them to be removed on B1047 which hasn't flown since November so they may have needed to use its fins on another mission.

So maybe this is actually B1047.3 being moved to LC-39A for Amos-17? There were indications that Amos-17 would be launching from LC-39A (probably because there would be a conflict with CRS-18 otherwise).

There is actually a booster number visible in the picture but it's too blurry for me to make out even in the highest resolution image.

[Steven Pietrobon]

If I squint really hard, the number looks closer to 47 than to 56!

[vaporcobra]

If I squint really hard, the number looks closer to 47 than to 56!

Yeah, it's definitely not a B105X booster but the second digit could be a 7 or 9. Does look like the transporter turned around and was backing into the 39A hangar, which is the correct orientation. If I had to guess, SpaceX is just making use of the available space to refurb or store a booster while 39A is inactive, on top of whichever booster was in the hangar as of late June.

[jacqmans]

RUBI – Full steam ahead for the ISS

02 July 2019

Friedrichshafen, 02 July 2019 – The next supply mission (CRS-18) to be launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida, will transport a special ‘steam engine’ to the International Space Station (ISS). RUBI (Reference mUltiscale Boiling Investigation), a fluid science experiment developed and built by Airbus for the European Space Agency (ESA), addresses the fundamentals of the boiling of fluids. ESA astronaut Luca Parmitano is set to install RUBI in the Columbus module of the ISS during his five-month ‘Beyond’ mission (from July to December 2019). The fluid experiment will then be operated and controlled by the Belgian User Support and Operation Centre (B-USOC) in Brussels.

RUBI will study the phenomena of phase transition and heat transfer during the evaporation of fluids in microscopic and macroscopic dimensions. RUBI’s core element is a cell filled with fluid, which can be heated and cooled thermoelectrically. The boiling process is then triggered on a metal-coated glass heater using a laser. High-resolution cameras record the formation and growth of vapour bubbles in both the visible and infrared spectrum. By taking up to 500 images per second, RUBI’s cameras can create a three-dimensional representation of the bubble shapes and analyse the temperature distribution on the heater, enabling the scientists to precisely determine evaporation conditions and heat flux densities. The boiling process can be systematically influenced using a high-voltage electrode (up to 15,000 volts) and an adjustable convection loop.

On Earth – thanks to the effect of gravity – only small bubbles form, quickly detaching from the heating surface and masking other physical effects. The scientists want to optimise their numerical models of the boiling process with a series of tests conducted under zero-gravity conditions and corresponding reference tests on Earth. In the future, this could contribute towards the production of more efficient and environmentally friendly household appliances (stoves, radiators) and heat exchangers for industrial manufacturing processes.

A particular challenge for the Airbus-led industrial team was to shrink RUBI down to the size of a ‘shoe box’ (40 x 28 x 27 cm) weighing just 34 kg that would then be suitable for use in space. By comparison, a terrestrial laboratory setup would be approximately the size of a wardrobe (2 x 1 x 1 m) and would weigh some 300 kg.

[SMS]

The ASAP meeting mentioned an EMU going up on this flight.

Which EMU unit will be up, which one will be down? Thanks

[ZachS09]

If I squint really hard, the number looks closer to 47 than to 56!

Yeah, it's definitely not a B105X booster but the second digit could be a 7 or 9. Does look like the transporter turned around and was backing into the 39A hangar, which is the correct orientation. If I had to guess, SpaceX is just making use of the available space to refurb or store a booster while 39A is inactive, on top of whichever booster was in the hangar as of late June.

I thought they planned on using B1056 from the start.

[Orbiter]

Booster by the LC-39A hangar a few days ago was B1048. Checked USLaunchReport's video below of that booster being unloaded and compared the soot marks with the picture in the tweet above. Definitely the same booster. I don't think it's being used for this mission.

[Alexphysics]

If I squint really hard, the number looks closer to 47 than to 56!

Yeah, it's definitely not a B105X booster but the second digit could be a 7 or 9. Does look like the transporter turned around and was backing into the 39A hangar, which is the correct orientation. If I had to guess, SpaceX is just making use of the available space to refurb or store a booster while 39A is inactive, on top of whichever booster was in the hangar as of late June.

I thought they planned on using B1056 from the start.

The question is not about which booster is going in this mission but rather which booster is the one seen there in those pictures which from different reasonings seems like it is not the one for this mission but rather a different one, probably either 48 or 49.

[anik]

Which EMU unit will be up, which one will be down?

3003 will be returned.

[ddspaceman]

https://twitter.com/space_tango/status/1148289481788809216
https://twitter.com/space_tango/status/1148290235345854465

[ddspaceman]

https://twitter.com/ISS_Research/status/1148275804335304704
https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1148377439225167873

[catdlr]

YouTube version for those that do not have a twitter account.

Highlights of Science Launching on SpaceX CRS 18 - July 8, 2019

[ddspaceman]

Thanks catdir, but you don't need a Twitter account to click on and see things from Twitter if the account is public, only to post or respond or follow people.     I manually followed lots of Twitter accounts using bookmarks like for a website for a couple of years before I ever actually made an account on Twitter.   Used to check Elon for example and read all the comments too.   No account needed.  For this NasaSpaceFlight.com site too, if all you do is look and read.  Lurked on here for years before making an account.   

To enter Twitter just click on the body of any tweet shown (NOT the video or picture part or link parts) and it opens the twitter page in a new tab or window.  Then the video interface is the same as your used to.   One extra click.   If your internet connection is slow you may have to wait a second or two.   

Sorry for the non-update post.

[kessdawg]

I still prefer the YouTube link.  Nicer interface and all...

[Rondaz]

Rise of Private-Sector Research Onboard the ISS National Lab on Display with SpaceX CRS-18 Mission..

NEWS PROVIDED BY
International Space Station (ISS) U.S. National Laboratory

Jul 09, 2019, 15:15 ET

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rise-of-private-sector-research-onboard-the-iss-national-lab-on-display-with-spacex-crs-18-mission-300881977.html

[ddspaceman]

https://twitter.com/ISS_CASIS/status/1149051924404195329
https://twitter.com/UCSDalumni/status/1148704033277792256

[Oersted]

Thanks catdir, but you don't need a Twitter account to click on and see things from Twitter if the account is public, only to post or respond or follow people.     I manually followed lots of Twitter accounts using bookmarks like for a website for a couple of years before I ever actually made an account on Twitter.   Used to check Elon for example and read all the comments too.   No account needed.  For this NasaSpaceFlight.com site too, if all you do is look and read.  Lurked on here for years before making an account.   

To enter Twitter just click on the body of any tweet shown (NOT the video or picture part or link parts) and it opens the twitter page in a new tab or window.  Then the video interface is the same as your used to.   One extra click.   If your internet connection is slow you may have to wait a second or two.   

Sorry for the non-update post.

Not totally true: Twitter often blocks pages when I try to access them, especially from my phone, with a text saying "you are rate limited". It is a twitter block, not a block from my service provider-

[ddspaceman]

Thanks catdir, but you don't need a Twitter account to click on and see things from Twitter if the account is public, only to post or respond or follow people.     I manually followed lots of Twitter accounts using bookmarks like for a website for a couple of years before I ever actually made an account on Twitter.   Used to check Elon for example and read all the comments too.   No account needed.  For this NasaSpaceFlight.com site too, if all you do is look and read.  Lurked on here for years before making an account.   

To enter Twitter just click on the body of any tweet shown (NOT the video or picture part or link parts) and it opens the twitter page in a new tab or window.  Then the video interface is the same as your used to.   One extra click.   If your internet connection is slow you may have to wait a second or two.   

Sorry for the non-update post.

Not totally true: Twitter often blocks pages when I try to access them, especially from my phone, with a text saying "you are rate limited". It is a twitter block, not a block from my service provider-

This is new info to me, I've never seen this message.  Of course I never access Twitter on my phone, only my laptop.  I'm a dinosaur who basically mainly use my phone to make, wait for it,,,, actual phone calls! 

A quick search reveals this to be a problem for third party Twitter apps:   It has to do with how many times the app bugs Twitter in an hour.    Wait a bit, and try again.

Helpful sites might include:
http://janetfouts.com/what-twitters-rate-limit-changes-mean-to-you/

https://support.onelouder.com/hc/en-us/articles/203931090-Why-am-I-getting-a-rate-limit-

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/a/2008/what-does-rate-limit-exceeded-mean-updated.html

[FutureSpaceTourist]

SpaceX’s Cargo Dragon to Deliver New Space Station Docking Adapter for Commercial Crew Spacecraft
Author Danielle Sempsrott
Posted on July 12, 2019
Categories Commercial Crew Program, Commercial Resupply, International Space Station, Kennedy

A new International Docking Adapter, called IDA-3, is scheduled to arrive at the International Space Station this July aboard SpaceX’s 18th cargo resupply mission to the microgravity laboratory. When installed on the space station, the one-of-a-kind outpost will have two common ports enabling expanded opportunities for visiting vehicles, including new spacecraft designed to carry humans for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.

The docking adapters are the physical connections spacecraft like Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and future, yet-to-be designed international spacecraft will use to autonomously attach to station. The adapters are important because the plans are readily available for spacecraft builders and standardize a host of docking requirements.
 
Currently stowed in the trunk of SpaceX’s Dragon cargo spacecraft, the IDA-3 was assembled at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and comprises of a number of sensors that spacecraft will communicate with and connect to through use of onboard computers and navigation systems.  Docking requires no crew assistance and can be completed much more quickly than the berthing process often used for cargo spacecraft today, which may involve astronauts aboard the station manually capturing spacecraft using a robotic arm then maneuvering the craft to attach to a common hatch mechanism.

IDA-3 is one of the primary payloads on the SpaceX resupply mission and is identical to the International Docking Adapter-2, IDA-2, installed in the summer of 2016. IDA-2 was used by SpaceX during the company’s first uncrewed flight test, called Demo-1, for commercial crew. Both docking adapters were built by Boeing.

Once at the space station, flight controllers will use the station’s Canadarm2 robotic arm to remove the IDA-3 from Dragon’s trunk and place it over a Pressurized Mating Adapter (PMA-3) on the station’s Harmony module, or Node 2. Later this summer, two Expedition 60 crew members will perform a spacewalk to permanently install the IDA-3 to PMA-3.

The SpaceX CRS-18 mission is scheduled to launch at 7:35 p.m. EDT on Sunday, July 21, from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. After its arrival, the Dragon cargo spacecraft will remain at the space station for about a month.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/kennedy/2019/07/12/spacexs-cargo-dragon-to-deliver-new-space-station-docking-adapter-for-commercial-crew-spacecraft/

First photo caption:

The International Docking Adapter 3, a critical component for future crewed missions to the International Space Station, is carefully packed away in the unpressurized “trunk” section of the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft at the SpaceX facility on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on June 19. Photo credit: NASA/Isaac Watson

Second photo caption:

The International Docking Adapter 3, a critical component for future crewed missions to the International Space Station, is carefully packed away in the unpressurized “trunk” section of the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft at the SpaceX facility on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on June 19. Photo credit: NASA/Cory Huston

[mn]

Thanks catdir, but you don't need a Twitter account to click on and see things from Twitter if the account is public, only to post or respond or follow people.     I manually followed lots of Twitter accounts using bookmarks like for a website for a couple of years before I ever actually made an account on Twitter.   Used to check Elon for example and read all the comments too.   No account needed.  For this NasaSpaceFlight.com site too, if all you do is look and read.  Lurked on here for years before making an account.   

To enter Twitter just click on the body of any tweet shown (NOT the video or picture part or link parts) and it opens the twitter page in a new tab or window.  Then the video interface is the same as your used to.   One extra click.   If your internet connection is slow you may have to wait a second or two.   

Sorry for the non-update post.

Not totally true: Twitter often blocks pages when I try to access them, especially from my phone, with a text saying "you are rate limited". It is a twitter block, not a block from my service provider-

I get that rate limited message all the time. (also don't have a Twitter account), it always works for me on refresh, use the browsers reload function not the retry  button Twitter gives you which never worked for me.

[ddspaceman]

Biomedical Research a Key Focus for ISS National Lab Onboard SpaceX CRS-18

JULY 15, 2019

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER (FL), July 15, 2019 – Many of the payloads heading to the International Space Station (ISS) U.S. National Laboratory onboard SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft will be experiments to advance biomedical research. Industrial biomedicine is a key thrust area for private-sector work in low Earth orbit.

The unique environment of the ISS National Lab enables novel biomedical research approaches for studies aimed at improving patient care on Earth.

Two of the payloads are sponsored by the ISS National Lab and Boeing. They both stem from the MassChallenge Startup Accelerator, the global nonprofit organization that offers mentorship, capital, and connections to investors and business partners to rapidly scale growth of high-potential startups.

MicroQuin will launch a project called Microgravity Crystals. The project goal is to study the structure of a protein associated with breast cancer and several other diseases. Decades of microgravity research have shown that some proteins form larger, higher-quality crystals in space, allowing scientists to see more details about the protein’s structure. This project will crystallize both the target protein alone and the protein bound to a candidate treatment developed by MicroQuin. This study could enable improvements to this potential future treatment for breast cancer.
Dover Lifesciences will crystalize complexes of human glycogen synthase proteins on the ISS. This work will increase information about the structure of the proteins and lead to the development of drugs to treat obesity, rare genetic disorders, and cancer.
The second of three planned projects by AstraZeneca is the study of microgravity on the production of monoclonal antibodies—these biological molecules can be developed and used as drugs to treat cancer and autoimmune diseases. Their work will further the understanding of antibody production and stability, which could shrink the drug development timeline and improve future manufacturing techniques.

The National Stem Cell Foundation is funding a payload focused on The Effects of Microgravity on Microglia 3-Dimensional Models of Parkinson’s Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. They will study 3D neuroglial cell cultures from induced pluripotent stem cells of patients with these diseases. Previous studies show that microgravity increases proliferation and delays differentiation of some stem cell types. This research may ultimately play a role in the identification of neurodegenerative biomarkers and development of related therapeutics.

To learn more about all the ISS National Lab–sponsored investigations on SpaceX CRS-18, please visit the SpaceX CRS-18 Mission Overview.

SpaceX CRS-18 is scheduled to launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station no earlier than July 21 at 7:35 p.m. EDT.
https://www.issnationallab.org/press-releases/biomedical-research-a-key-focus-for-iss-national-lab-onboard-spacex-crs-18/



https://twitter.com/ISS_CASIS/status/1150916203654897664

[ddspaceman]

https://twitter.com/space_tango/status/1151114996585291786

[Solar_OPS]

Another payload on SpX-18 I haven't seen mentioned yet:
Multiscale Boiling aka RUBI for the European Space Agency, to be installed into the Fluid Science Laboratory of Columbus:

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2019/07/rubi--full-steam-ahead-for-the-iss.html

[Steven Pietrobon]

SpX-18 is sporting a different paint scheme. The grey paint on the second stage is being trialled to presumably lower boiloff and heating of the propellants. The first stage also looks different to me, having a more silver colour.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48554.msg1966920#msg1966920

[cscott]

SpX-18 is sporting a different paint scheme. The grey paint on the second stage is being trialled to presumably lower boiloff and heating of the propellants. The first stage also looks different to me, having a more silver colour.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48554.msg1966920#msg1966920

Other way 'round, I think: a darker paint would absorb slightly more heat, preventing fuel from getting too cold during long coast.  That is, goal is keeping things warm, not keeping them cold.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Other way 'round, I think: a darker paint would absorb slightly more heat, preventing fuel from getting too cold during long coast.  That is, goal is keeping things warm, not keeping them cold.

Yes, that could make sense. Grey to warm the RP-1 and white to keep the LOX cold.

[envy887]

SpX-18 is sporting a different paint scheme. The grey paint on the second stage is being trialled to presumably lower boiloff and heating of the propellants. The first stage also looks different to me, having a more silver colour.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48554.msg1966920#msg1966920

The booster simply looks sooty to me.

[capoman]

Curious why the static fire is being postponed multiple times. Is it because of NASA's oversight reusing a booster?

[zubenelgenubi]

SF now NET Friday morning.

I take it that the launch can no longer occur on the 21st.

[Jarnis]

Curious why the static fire is being postponed multiple times. Is it because of NASA's oversight reusing a booster?

Almost certainly just some minor bugs with the hardware - either with the vehicle or the ground systems. Lots of things that can leak, get stuck etc...

[Paul Howard]

SpaceFlightNow says it's Monday, 22nd if they Static Fire today.

[AndyX]

SpaceFlightNow says it's Monday, 22nd if they Static Fire today.

Chris seems very cautious about that. So I'd wait for SpaceX to say what the launch date is.

[SMS]

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1152301288761286657

[Ken the Bin]

45th Weather Squadron: 60% 'Go' for Monday, 40% 'Go' for Wednesday.

[gongora]

45th Space Wing has just removed the weather forecast from their website. This usually means: no launch within the upcoming three days.

I still see it there:
https://www.patrick.af.mil/About-Us/Weather/

[ChrisC]

NASA webcast https://youtube.com/watch?v=CfRULatzLZQ

Interesting ... a separate, scheduled live webcast from NASA, SpaceX style.  I don't recall NASA ever doing this before.

[ZachS09]

NASA webcast https://youtube.com/watch?v=CfRULatzLZQ

Interesting ... a separate, scheduled live webcast from NASA, SpaceX style.  I don't recall NASA ever doing this before.

I thought they first did this during the DM-1 launch coverage.

[Alexphysics]

NASA webcast https://youtube.com/watch?v=CfRULatzLZQ

Interesting ... a separate, scheduled live webcast from NASA, SpaceX style.  I don't recall NASA ever doing this before.

They literally did this just the other day with the Soyuz MS-13 launch coverage.

[Solar_OPS]

Article about 3 ESA experiments to be delivered by CRS SpX-18:

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Research/SpaceX_to_deliver_Space_Station_science

[Lee Jay]

From the article:

"The change in color is designed to permit heat transfer from the LOX tank into the RP-1 tank, essentially taking some of the heat that isn’t needed in the LOX tank and transferring it to the RP-1 fuel tank where it is needed."

The LOX is colder than the RP1, thus the only way to move heat from the LOX to the RP1 is with a heat pump, correct?

I could see how the gray will absorb solar heat and thus heat the RP1, but I don't see how it could move heat from the LOX to the RP1.

[Semmel]

From the article:

"The change in color is designed to permit heat transfer from the LOX tank into the RP-1 tank, essentially taking some of the heat that isn’t needed in the LOX tank and transferring it to the RP-1 fuel tank where it is needed."

The LOX is colder than the RP1, thus the only way to move heat from the LOX to the RP1 is with a heat pump, correct?

I could see how the gray will absorb solar heat and thus heat the RP1, but I don't see how it could move heat from the LOX to the RP1.

Yes, the heat transfer is the other way around.

The LOX is colder than the RP1 and will suck out the heat from it over time. The gray color is supposed to absorb more sunlight and prevent the RP1 from getting too cold. This is mainly useful for longer coasts of S2. Since CRS 18 doesnt need a long S2 coast, I bet this is a proof of concept.
My hunch is, they run into RP1 temperature limits for some profitable reference orbits, like direct GSO insertion for FH payloads.

[Olaf]

https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/NASA_ASAP_3rd_qtr_public_meeting_June_6_2019_FINAL_RevB_Signed_tagged.pdf

One EMU (#3003) did have a minor issue with a suit pressure sensor during EVA #52 and is being held in “ready spare” status until it is replaced by SN# 3009 which is manifested on the Space-X 18 cargo flight slated for July. Additionally, a spare Fan Pump Separator Unit will be delivered on SX-18.

[Rondaz]

SpaceX CRS-18: Launch Countdown Milestones for July 24 Liftoff

Anna Heiney Posted on July 24, 2019

The launch of SpaceX’s 18th commercial resupply services mission to the International Space Station for NASA is scheduled for 6:24 p.m. EDT with an instantaneous launch window. The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft have been moved to the vertical launch position. Launch coverage will begin at 6 p.m. on NASA Television and the agency’s launch blog.

Meteorologists with the U.S. Air Force 45th Space Wing continue to predict a 30% chance of favorable weather for liftoff. The primary weather concerns are the cumulus cloud rule, lightning rule and attached anvil rule.

Packed with more than 5,000 pounds of research, crew supplies and hardware, the Dragon spacecraft will launch on a Falcon 9 rocket from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.

Mission Timeline (all times approximate)
COUNTDOWN
– 00:38:00     SpaceX Launch Director verifies go for propellant load
– 00:35:00     RP-1 (rocket grade kerosene) loading begins
– 00:35:00     1st stage LOX (liquid oxygen) loading begins
– 00:16:00     2nd stage LOX loading begins
– 00:07:58     Dragon transitions to internal power
– 00:07:00     Falcon 9 begins pre-launch engine chill
– 00:01:00     Command flight computer to begin final prelaunch checks
– 00:01:00     Propellant tanks pressurize for flight
– 00:00:45     SpaceX Launch Director verifies go for launch
– 00:00:03     Engine controller commands engine ignition sequence to start
– 00:00:00     Falcon 9 liftoff

https://blogs.nasa.gov/kennedy/2019/07/24/spacex-crs-18-launch-countdown-milestones-for-july-24-liftoff/

[ejb749]

It looks to me like the cell over the cape right now is dissipating.

[jcm]

Which EMU unit will be up, which one will be down?

3003 will be returned.

But sill no word on the upward EMU s/n?

[Joseph Peterson]

So ceramic Starship tiles might be back.

[gongora]

Which EMU unit will be up, which one will be down?

3003 will be returned.

But sill no word on the upward EMU s/n?

https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/NASA_ASAP_3rd_qtr_public_meeting_June_6_2019_FINAL_RevB_Signed_tagged.pdf

One EMU (#3003) did have a minor issue with a suit pressure sensor during EVA #52 and is being held in “ready spare” status until it is replaced by SN# 3009 which is manifested on the Space-X 18 cargo flight slated for July. Additionally, a spare Fan Pump Separator Unit will be delivered on SX-18.

[tyrred]

WeatherX made a great show today 

edit: Pad was not the culprit

[jcm]

Which EMU unit will be up, which one will be down?

3003 will be returned.

But sill no word on the upward EMU s/n?

https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/NASA_ASAP_3rd_qtr_public_meeting_June_6_2019_FINAL_RevB_Signed_tagged.pdf

One EMU (#3003) did have a minor issue with a suit pressure sensor during EVA #52 and is being held in “ready spare” status until it is replaced by SN# 3009 which is manifested on the Space-X 18 cargo flight slated for July. Additionally, a spare Fan Pump Separator Unit will be delivered on SX-18.

ooh thanks-  had missed that

[Prettz]

So ceramic Starship tiles might be back.

I guess it's safe to assume this is not PICA-X v3, but some new material.

[docmordrid]

So ceramic Starship tiles might be back.

I guess it's safe to assume this is not PICA-X v3, but some new material.

Perhaps TUFROC, or an evolution of it. They signed an SAA for it some time ago.

TUFROC page...

[Norm38]

The Bio-Printer experiment looked pretty cool.  It's nice how that experiment architecture - racks, connections, etc. has matured to where a company can do about whatever they want in zero-g as long as they can get their stuff in that box.

[ZachF]

Nice tracking shot of first stage coming back in!

[Vettedrmr]

Gotta admit I was getting a bit queasy when the entry burn marker and the actual event were so far off.  Awesome flight, SpaceX!

[meekGee]

Am I the only one who thought the controls were working extra hard on the way down starting about 20-30 seconds before the landing burn?

Like the divert was larger, and like there was wind buffeting maybe?

[tvg98]

Is it just me or did it look like the first stage was going off course just before the landing burn? I heard a few ohhs from the livestream and got a little worried. Nice job from Spacex nonetheless.

[intelati]

Am I the only one who thought the controls were working extra hard on the way down starting about 20-30 seconds before the landing burn?

Like the divert was larger, and like there was wind buffeting maybe?

To me, it seemed like the rocket wasn't "aimed" properly. It almost seemed as it it was aimed on land past the LZ

[billh]

Am I the only one who thought the controls were working extra hard on the way down starting about 20-30 seconds before the landing burn?

Like the divert was larger, and like there was wind buffeting maybe?

To me, it seemed like the rocket wasn't "aimed" properly. It almost seemed as it it was aimed on land past the LZ

The direction the stage is pointing isn't necessarily where it is going to land.

[ZachF]

Am I the only one who thought the controls were working extra hard on the way down starting about 20-30 seconds before the landing burn?

Like the divert was larger, and like there was wind buffeting maybe?

To me, it seemed like the rocket wasn't "aimed" properly. It almost seemed as it it was aimed on land past the LZ

Higher AoA, they've been doing this for a little while... stage is actually slightly gliding back to the LZ.

[VoodooForce]

If you mean further inland I would agree. Went "vertical" at the end to land on the pad.

[northenarc]

 So, May 4th - July 25th, is this the shortest turnaround to date for booster reuse?

[Vettedrmr]

You can't go by the angle the 1st stage is pointing at, because they fly the stage back at an angle to dissipate energy.  I also thought the "oohs" were from the contrails coming off the stage and grid fins, nothing worse than that.

The quick correction on landing burn I've seen before: when under power the angle of attack is zeroed out (I assume), then they stuck the landing as typical, but never normal!

HTH, and have a good one,
Mike

[whitelancer64]

So, May 4th - July 25th, is this the shortest turnaround to date for booster reuse?

No, it's 10 days longer. Record turnaround time is for booster 1045, 72 days between the TESS and CRS-15 launches.

[eriblo]

Was that the first time we've ever seen the solar array deployment from S2? It was very brief and right at the bottom of the screen.

No, we have seen it before. CRS-5 had a slightly better shot but was in shadow seconds before sunrise while CRS-6 had a well lit and centered profile view.

[AC in NC]

The NASA TV feed showed only the returning booster and missed Dragon deploy... Fail

Success!!!   NASA is all-in on Recovery Fever!!!!  MwuuuuuuaaaaahHaHaHaHa!!!

[whitelancer64]

Note:
I just did the math, and the average turnaround time for Block 5 reuses has now decreased to 102 days. The next scheduled launch, booster 1047.3 for AMOS-17, was most recently launched in November 2018 and that will increase the average a bit, to 115 days if it launches on August 3.

[cwr]

Was that the first time we've ever seen the solar array deployment from S2? It was very brief and right at the bottom of the screen.

No, we have seen it before. CRS-5 had a slightly better shot but was in shadow seconds before sunrise while CRS-6 had a well lit and centered profile view.

I'm confused.
I watched today's CRS-18 launch and saw the Dragon solar panel deploy - shot from a camera
on the dragon underneath the panel cover and folded solar panel.

This is what I've observed on pretty much all prior Dragon launches.
I don't recollect ever seeing a Dragon panel deploy with a camera on S2.
There's a camera switch between watching Dragon separate from S2 and then
watching panel deploy from Dragon.

Carl

[billh]

Was that the first time we've ever seen the solar array deployment from S2? It was very brief and right at the bottom of the screen.

No, we have seen it before. CRS-5 had a slightly better shot but was in shadow seconds before sunrise while CRS-6 had a well lit and centered profile view.

I'm confused.
I watched today's CRS-18 launch and saw the Dragon solar panel deploy - shot from a camera
on the dragon underneath the panel cover and folded solar panel.

This is what I've observed on pretty much all prior Dragon launches.
I don't recollect ever seeing a Dragon panel deploy with a camera on S2.
There's a camera switch between watching Dragon separate from S2 and then
watching panel deploy from Dragon.

Carl

I did not recall seeing it before. But I went back and watch CRS-6 as eriblo suggested and you can see it there, too. It's overexposed, unfortunately, but at least both arrays and both covers are in the frame.

[Silmfeanor]

Was that the first time we've ever seen the solar array deployment from S2? It was very brief and right at the bottom of the screen.

No, we have seen it before. CRS-5 had a slightly better shot but was in shadow seconds before sunrise while CRS-6 had a well lit and centered profile view.

I'm confused.
I watched today's CRS-18 launch and saw the Dragon solar panel deploy - shot from a camera
on the dragon underneath the panel cover and folded solar panel.

This is what I've observed on pretty much all prior Dragon launches.
I don't recollect ever seeing a Dragon panel deploy with a camera on S2.
There's a camera switch between watching Dragon separate from S2 and then
watching panel deploy from Dragon.

Carl

I did not recall seeing it before. But I went back and watch CRS-6 as eriblo suggested and you can see it there, too. It's overexposed, unfortunately, but at least both arrays and both covers are in the frame.

See here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37294.msg1358461#msg1358461

[AC in NC]

I'm confused.
I watched today's CRS-18 launch and saw the Dragon solar panel deploy - shot from a camera
on the dragon underneath the panel cover and folded solar panel.

This is what I've observed on pretty much all prior Dragon launches.
I don't recollect ever seeing a Dragon panel deploy with a camera on S2.
There's a camera switch between watching Dragon separate from S2 and then
watching panel deploy from Dragon.

Carl

[Steven Pietrobon]

Congratulations to SpaceX and NASA for the successful launch!

Grabs showing nose cover deploy and landed first stage.

[cscott]

Some shots inside Mission Control during the Dragon SpX-18 launch.

source: JSC twitter

So SpaceX mission control had a Saturn V model on the desk, and NASA mission control had a Falcon 9 model...

[KenigOld]

Fdiday:)
https://vk.com/spaceactivityinfographics

[DistantTemple]

Wow I didn't realise the $/Kg of the Dragon was 3x that of progress!!! And to be fair the Russian price is excellent - on this graphic (above) - as SX have been so proud of their $62M with discounts for re-usability.... If progress really is $56M including the capsule, SX still have a long way to go! and were clearly not the first to drive down prices.

[KenigOld]

Wow I didn't realise the $/Kg of the Dragon was 3x that of progress!!! And to be fair the Russian price is excellent - on this graphic (above) - as SX have been so proud of their $62M with discounts for re-usability.... If progress really is $56M including the capsule, SX still have a long way to go! and were clearly not the first to drive down prices.

The original price of progress of course in rubles. On this mission of insurance - 3.9 billion rubles. Insurance premium 250 million rubles.

[Jcc]

Wow I didn't realise the $/Kg of the Dragon was 3x that of progress!!! And to be fair the Russian price is excellent - on this graphic (above) - as SX have been so proud of their $62M with discounts for re-usability.... If progress really is $56M including the capsule, SX still have a long way to go! and were clearly not the first to drive down prices.

The graphic shows a mission cost for Dragon of $170M. Don’t know where that comes from, maybe dividing the total CRS contract by number of missions?

[scr00chy]

The graphic shows a mission cost for Dragon of $170M. Don’t know where that comes from, maybe dividing the total CRS contract by number of missions?

Not sure, value of the last extension of the CRS contract for 5 launches is estimated at 700 million which averages out to only 140 million per launch. The previous extension was estimated at 150M per launch. Sources: https://www.elonx.net/list-of-spacex-contracts/

[Rondaz]

SpaceX retracts Falcon 9 booster’s landing legs a second time after speedy reuse..

By Eric Ralph Posted on July 29, 2019

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-retracts-falcon-9-landings-legs-second-time/

[su27k]

Wow I didn't realise the $/Kg of the Dragon was 3x that of progress!!! And to be fair the Russian price is excellent - on this graphic (above) - as SX have been so proud of their $62M with discounts for re-usability.... If progress really is $56M including the capsule, SX still have a long way to go! and were clearly not the first to drive down prices.

It's not apple to apple comparison, Russian systems' R&D are paid by USSR decades ago, while SpaceX still needs to amortize their investment in Dragon and Falcon 9. Also Dragon can return tons of payload back to Earth, Progress cannot.

And I think we have some comparison of Falcon 9 and Soyuz's $/kg somewhere on this forum, Falcon 9 is quite competitive.

[CorvusCorax]

I think progress wins because Nasa utilised only a fraction of Dragons payload capacity in this specific mission, while Progress was maxed out 98%.

I dunno if the quoted mass includes the IDA or only pressurized mass

[SMS]

Somewhere they wrote what caused such a difference:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/spacex_crs-7_mission_overview.pdf
International Docking Adapter #1  - 526 kg

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/spacex_crs-9_mission_overview.pdf
International Docking Adapter-2  - 467 kg

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/spacex_crs-18_mision_overview_high_res.pdf
International Docking Adapter-3 -  534 kg?

[gongora]

The number given for Dragon cost is too high, even if you include a lot of certification work it's more like $150M.  The 6t capacity of Dragon is very theoretical, it's not large enough to carry that much real cargo, and it doesn't tend to carry commodities like water and fuel (I believe Progress carries both of those?).

[Joffan]

It is important in this sort of price comparison (Dragon vs other) to factor in that every Dragon visit to the ISS is two missions - one to take mass up, and one to take mass down. This latter mission is probably twice as important/valuable but often effectively valued by commentators at zero.

I think though that's getting off topic for CRS-18 specific chat, so I want to ask if anyone knows any further source for the statement from Teslarati that the landing legs were retracted:

SpaceX retracts Falcon 9 booster’s landing legs a second time after speedy reuse..

By Eric Ralph Posted on July 29, 2019

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-retracts-falcon-9-landings-legs-second-time/

(not that Eric Ralph doesn't have good information - I was just hoping that we might get more details or pictures)

[gongora]

so I want to ask if anyone knows any further source for the statement from Teslarati that the landing legs were retracted:

There was a link in the article to a tweet with the picture:
https://twitter.com/throughtjseye/status/1155286791127281667

[Alexphysics]

There is also another picture of the leg retraction for this booster that was shared on the facebook group.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10157734493651318/

[XenIneX]

I disagree. We haven't seen this before on a landed booster. The engine was gimbaling in addition to the grid fins to a huge degree, and the oscillations appeared grow in strength, then to die right when the landing legs deployed- so I don't think it was surface winds.

I think they had an oscillation setup that they had trouble dampening. so what caused it? A sticky grid fin? Sticky engine gimbal?



and

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1155567236716740608

It does that literally every time.  You just don't see it sometimes because of camera issues.

Go back through daytime RTLS landings.  You'll see it on every one.

[cscott]

There are control inversion transitions both as the grid fins go trans-sonic and as soon as the first leg touches the ground.  These are legit engineering reasons for quick control excursions. (Watch the star hopper engine as soon as the first leg touches.) I bet SpaceX can explain the cause of every sharp control input on the video.

[intelati]

There are control inversion transitions both as the grid fins go trans-sonic and as soon as the first leg touches the ground.  These are legit engineering reasons for quick control excursions. (Watch the star hopper engine as soon as the first leg touches.) I bet SpaceX can explain the cause of every sharp control input on the video.

I'd love to see a force diagram along the re-entry

[mandrewa]

Wow I didn't realise the $/Kg of the Dragon was 3x that of progress!!! And to be fair the Russian price is excellent - on this graphic (above) - as SX have been so proud of their $62M with discounts for re-usability.... If progress really is $56M including the capsule, SX still have a long way to go! and were clearly not the first to drive down prices.

Hmm...  I did some math and I think the implied prices are rather similar, or arguably taking
everything in to account the Dragon is significantly cheaper.

The main reason is what gongora briefly mentioned, a major part of the Progress payload is
water and other liquids.  These are dense and they don't suffer from what I've been describing
to myself as the "packing problem."

Although the Dragon spacecraft has a smaller ratio of pressurized volume to mass than the
Cygnus, the same can be said for the Progress, and since Progress is the smaller vehicle it
would have an even worse "packing problem" than the Dragon if it were not carrying liquids.

So let's imagine for the moment that the roles were reversed and the Dragon was carrying up some
of the liquids that the ISS needs in addition to the "packing problem" payloads that can fit
within its 11 cubic meter pressurized volume and with yet another payload in its unpressurized trunk. 
That is the Dragon would be full.  All capacities, mass (97%) and volume, pressurized and unpressurized,
would be fully used.  How then would the prices compare?

If we use the $140 million per launch price (see scr00chy above) implicit in the contract that paid
for this launch, and divide that by 5.75 metric tons, then that's $24,346 per kilogram, which is
quite close to the $22,300 per kilogram number that KenigOld gave for the current Progress where
that same Progress is fully used to its capacity.

But if Dragon were carrying the liquids then the Progress couldn't since the ISS needs only so much
liquid per month.  What would the price per kilogram be for the Progress if it were restricted to
carrying only "packing problem" payloads?  I think Progress would be doing very well if it could
reach the 39% mass utilization ratio that this Dragon mission achieved and likely the Progress can
not actually do that, because it doesn't have an unpressurized trunk.  But if we pretended that
the Progress could do that, then its payload would be 1009 kg and the price per kg would be $55,464.

And then there is the fact that the Dragon brings back a payload to Earth.  This payload is arguably
as valuable as the payload taken up.  This is especially true as long as the Dragon is the only path
by which experimental payloads can return to Earth. 

It's going to get harder to assess the value of this once DreamChaser is operational and we have a
second vehicle that can return payload, but for now it seems reasonable to assign half the value
of a Dragon mission to what it returns.

So that gives us four comparisons, with all including the value of the payload returned to Earth:

$30,276 per kg vs. $22,300 per kg (Dragon without liquids vs. Progress with liquids)
$12,173 per kg vs. $22,300 per kg (Dragon with liquids vs. Progress with liquids)
$12,173 per kg vs. $55,464 per kg (Dragon with liquids vs. Progress without liquids)
$30,276 per kg vs. $55,464 per kg (Dragon without liquids vs. Progress without liquids)

To my eyes these are the real price differences between the Dragon and the Progress, but there
are two other factors that might be applied to further adjust these numbers.

First, the price for the Dragon clearly is in part a reflection of the cost of developing the Dragon,
while the development of the Progress has long since been paid for.  This has no impact on what
things actually cost now, but as a measure of technical achievement, I would love to know what the
marginal cost of building a Dragon is versus the marginal cost of building a Progress.

Second, these prices are in part a reflection of the overall state of the US economy versus the
Russian economy.  Since the US economy is doing much better than the Russian economy, anything
being done in the United States faces a penalty versus the same activity in Russia.  Or in other
words Russia wants and needs dollars while the United States doesn't particularly need rubles.
Now we could put a number on this and adjust for it, and although it wouldn't change the real prices,
it would in a sense more accurately reflect the level of achievement of people working within
the space industry in the United States.

[DistantTemple]

snip...
$30,276 per kg vs. $22,300 per kg (Dragon without liquids vs. Progress with liquids)
$12,173 per kg vs. $22,300 per kg (Dragon with liquids vs. Progress with liquids)
$12,173 per kg vs. $55,464 per kg (Dragon with liquids vs. Progress without liquids)
$30,276 per kg vs. $55,464 per kg (Dragon without liquids vs. Progress without liquids)
snip...

Brilliant careful analysis. As they say analysis w/o numbers is opinion. And you have analysed it not just with the numbers, but on a the back of a detailed and justified critical comparison!

And the original leaflet above, had numbers, but they were used to "paint a positive picture" ;-( of the Progress, and imply SX was expensive - by encouraging us to ignore or downplay critical information.... maybe another saying: numbers without analysis ... is ... disinformation.

[eeergo]

And if my grandma had wheels she'd be a bandwagon

It's funny, yet a little disheartening and scary, what level of baroquism some are willing to reach in order to protect preconceived (nationalistic? ideological? sports-fan-like?) ideas, as the last paragraph shows. Note I am not siding with Russian metrics, just noting IMO bad, and shallow, reasoning.

Progress-MS has little to do with the original 7K-TG spacecraft of the 70s. Arguably there are some non-negligible development costs which are quite recent and not amortized (new docking system, new computers, new GN&C, new TPS...).

Furthermore, if we go so deep to dev costs and general economical considerations, shouldn't we also consider other similar (or even not similar, just budget-linked) spacecraft in development by the same entity? Or even the "penalty", to speak with your own terms, that Russia faces considering their economy is worse, has been so for decades (and much worse), and so have their working conditions - yet they manage to launch reliably a core, indispensable system to ISS while introducing upgrades and innovations (2-orbit rendezvous, vehicle upgrades...)?

What about the cost of propellant transfer to the ISS only propulsion system, what value should be assigned to that one compared to return cargo, even if it those return items are not utilization or refurbishment samples, by the way?

And for fast launch-to-(autonomous)-docking capability? Even if it's not really utilized for time-sensitive supplies so far, it theoretically could, as your "liquid-Dragon" concept, how much would that cargo be worth compared to standard one?


Cost estimates are always messy and incomplete, but corrections should be that: corrections, not something that changes completely the value of a previous analysis just by adding qualifiers to it. As for analysis needing numbers: you can punch numbers in the calculator all day, if your underlying concept isn't correct it's worse than opinion - it's undecipherable numerology.

[DistantTemple]

snip...
$30,276 per kg vs. $22,300 per kg (Dragon without liquids vs. Progress with liquids)
$12,173 per kg vs. $22,300 per kg (Dragon with liquids vs. Progress with liquids)
$12,173 per kg vs. $55,464 per kg (Dragon with liquids vs. Progress without liquids)
$30,276 per kg vs. $55,464 per kg (Dragon without liquids vs. Progress without liquids)
snip...

Brilliant careful analysis. As they say analysis w/o numbers is opinion. And you have analysed it not just with the numbers, but on a the back of a detailed and justified critical comparison!

And the original leaflet above, had numbers, but they were used to "paint a positive picture" ;-( of the Progress, and imply SX was expensive - by encouraging us to ignore or downplay critical information.... maybe another saying: numbers without analysis ... is ... disinformation.

eeergo, I am the one at fault here... from your comments it looks as if you read mandrewa's piece thoroughly. He justified his figures sensibly. Now you have added to them, improving the debate.

It was me that made a sweeping generalization about disinformation! However the original graphic was a good "debate starter", and the impression given there is getting picked apart and debated! I was pleasantly surprised that there were arguments that progress is cheaper than Dragon (which I do champion) and of course $60M per seat for Russia launching American crew, is similar to what SX will charge NASA, ignoring development funding I think?
So yes bandwagon... at least somewhat. Careful analysis, truth, and fairness do matter more than shouting for a favourite team.

[ZChris13]

All of the vehicles that have visited or will visit the ISS have brought their own unique and indispensable benefits.
STS had enormous upmass and downmass
Progress fuels the propulsion system
Soyuz is the only current crew capsule and lifeboat
Dragon's upmass and downmass capabilities
I don't know enough about Cygnus to sing their praises, and I'm probably forgetting a few of the other resupply vehicles because I'm not a big ISS fan.
In the future, Starliner and Dragon 2 will provide the same crew up and down capability as STS, but also be capable as lifeboats (I think? I thought they had long duration capabilities) although I don't think the current plan involves these capabilities being used.
I'm sure Dreamchaser does something special beyond the subjective benefits of a lifting body but I am not qualified to sing its praises either.

[mandrewa]

Note I am not siding with Russian metrics, just noting IMO bad, and shallow, reasoning.

How is it bad?  How is it shallow?  Please get specific.

Any comparison between any vehicles produced by different nations is going to be perceived as nationalist by probably the majority of the people that read it.  And that's because people are tribalist.  It's built into our genes.

But this isn't intended to be a nationalist drumbeat.  I'm trying to make an accurate comparison between vehicles and assess where we actually are.

I don't get why you think that last paragraph is a nationalist assertion.  It's just a simple statement of economic reality.  Of course it has a big impact on costs.  You think it doesn't matter that workers in the space industry in the United States get paid twice or three times or whatever more than people in the Russian space industry?  Of course it matters.

And yet I did not even include that in the cost comparison.  I merely pointed out that some people would.

Progress-MS has little to do with the original 7K-TG spacecraft of the 70s. Arguably there are some non-negligible development costs which are quite recent and not amortized (new docking system, new computers, new GN&C, new TPS...).

That's interesting.  Is there any public estimate of the recent development budget for the Progress? 
 

Furthermore, if we go so deep to dev costs and general economical considerations, shouldn't we also consider other similar (or even not similar, just budget-linked) spacecraft in development by the same entity? Or even the "penalty", to speak with your own terms, that Russia faces considering their economy is worse, has been so for decades (and much worse), and so have their working conditions - yet they manage to launch reliably a core, indispensable system to ISS while introducing upgrades and innovations (2-orbit rendezvous, vehicle upgrades...)?

I think it's a remarkable achievement what the Russians have done in rather difficult circumstances.  They deserve a great deal of credit.

You know I almost didn't post this.  I really hesitated because I knew that the Russians would take it as a big criticism.

But at the same time the idea that the Dragon hasn't caught up with or isn't as good as the Progress is, I think, horribly wrong. 

What about the cost of propellant transfer to the ISS only propulsion system, what value should be assigned to that one compared to return cargo, even if it those return items are not utilization or refurbishment samples, by the way?

Yes, I thought about that.  But that's by design.  Propellant can only come up on the Russian side by design.  It's not like it had to be that way.  It's not like that's some virtue in the Progress vehicle.  And remember the context is comparing Progress to Dragon.

And for fast launch-to-(autonomous)-docking capability? Even if it's not really utilized for time-sensitive supplies so far, it theoretically could, as your "liquid-Dragon" concept, how much would that cargo be worth compared to standard one?

And that's by design also.  Because of the orbit of the ISS, the Russians can launch cargo virtually any time day or night and still get there.  And also because of the orbit, there is an opportunity, I think it's about once per day for a "fast launch."  But it's not because NASA is incompetent that they don't do fast launches.  It's because of the orbit.

Cost estimates are always messy and incomplete, but corrections should be that: corrections, not something that changes completely the value of a previous analysis just by adding qualifiers to it. As for analysis needing numbers: you can punch numbers in the calculator all day, if your underlying concept isn't correct it's worse than opinion - it's undecipherable numerology.

I totally agree that the concept has to be sound.  I introduced two concepts into the comparison of Dragon and Progress.  One concept is to point out that that Dragon returns payload and that this of great value.  I can see an argument about just exactly how much it is worth.  But I don't understand an assertion that it is not of great value and that we should ignore it.

The second concept is even more important and as it happens I've been thinking about it a lot lately in the context of getting cargo to NRHO and comparing the virtue of different systems for doing that.  And as it happens this comparison, Dragon to Progress, is a wonderful example of the same general problem.

It's relatively easy to design a vehicle to efficiently carry dense fluids to NRHO because you don't have a packing problem.  It's harder to assess and compare different vehicles that will be transporting things that do have a packing problem to NRHO because you don't really know what the mix of things is going to be.  Dragon kind of provides an estimate of what the actual ratio of payload to theoretical capacity will likely be, as in this case where only 39% of the mass capacity of the Dragon is used.

Progress doesn't have that problem because, by design, it carries liquids in addition to its other cargo, and therefore it always goes up almost 100% full.  Dragon, by design, does have the packing problem because Progress is already taking the liquids, and most of the cargo that the ISS needs is stuff that goes through the packing problem bottleneck.

Anyway, in my opinion, if you compare these two vehicles, and ignore this issue, then you're ignoring half of what's going on.

[gongora]

How is it bad?  How is it shallow?  Please get specific.

You're taking payloads off of Progress that it was specifically designed to carry and then saying that it no longer compares favorably with another vehicle that you magically increased the payload on.  Progress has the fuel transfer equipment instead of one of the pressurized modules that is on Soyuz.  The fuel is also delivered to a part of the station that Dragon doesn't interact with.

[mandrewa]

How is it bad?  How is it shallow?  Please get specific.

You're taking payloads off of Progress that it was specifically designed to carry and then saying that it no longer compares favorably with another vehicle that you magically increased the payload on.  Progress has the fuel transfer equipment instead of one of the pressurized modules that is on Soyuz.  The fuel is also delivered to a part of the station that Dragon doesn't interact with.

Yes, but that's part of the point.  Progress carries liquids because it's designed to.  Vehicles that go up with 97% of their mass capacity are generally going to do quite good on a cost per kilogram basis compared with vehicles that carry only 39% of their mass capacity.

But the whole reason Progress gets 97% mass capacity is because of the liquids it transports.

And further we could reinterpret the numbers I gave as an estimate of how much of the difference in cost is due to the nature of the cargo.

[eeergo]

It is shallow because it just considers disproportionate corrections for one side, ignoring equivalent obvious ones for the other, and using broad-sweep generalities (macroeconomic conditions) to fill in gaps. It is bad because the initial well-researched post, while undoubtedly subject to discussion, only aimed at establishing a face-value comparison between the two most-used vehicles in the ISS program, using publicly-available and quantifiable data, including some of your caveats like downmass or unpressurized open cargo, not a complete history of which development was more "worthy". Your corrections were hand-waved in magnitude and seemed to aim to a foregone conclusion. It is nationalistic (which is definitely NOT something in our genes) because it's baselessly and unnecessarily talking about "accurately reflecting achievements" of a (your) side based on a shallow contextualization that ignores the other.

Of course salaries matter. Of course sanctions matter. Of course working conditions and brain drain matter. Of course industrial power and leverage matter. Of course accumulated knowledge matters. But if you're gonna use those many profound considerations, you have to do it at least coherently, or you'll reach any "result" and come across as pursuing a partisan picture.

Anyway, first you say that you intend to make the comparison more accurate. A couple of paragraphs later you assert some of the unique capabilities of Progress I mentioned are not to be considered because they are "by design" (??) - ignoring that Russian propulsion is "by design" precisely because Roscosmos is the only one in the ISS consortium who has a proven, working propellant transfer system. Dragon doesn't have it also "by design", even though STS could (and did) reboost the Station, and a back-up or primary ISS thruster system could be developed for the USOS. It just wasn't.

Propellant isn't carried just as if it was Tang bags. It requires a safe and robust pressurization, distribution and purging system that also takes away cargo capacity. How much more "dry" cargo could Progress carry if this system wasn't in place? Of course, it's a rhetorical question since that would make a different vehicle and we could also ask what if we strip Dragon of something else, or add a propellant transfer system to it? That's why a face-value comparison is useful, while using only partial corrections becomes dicey and misleading.

Concerning fast-track docking... please have a look again at how it works. Launches from Florida have no handicap with respect to Kazakhstan or any other point in latitudes within ISS' orbital inclination, quite the contrary upmass-wise. Of course Russia cannot launch to ISS at any time of the day/night! US VVs could minimize launch-to-docking times as much as they wanted too if the relevant choreographies were developed, and window flexibility impacts accepted.

A "corrected" version of price per kg like you're pursuing will also strongly depend on the programatic needs in a given period: downmass is valuable only if there's something worthwhile to carry down. Clearly not the same to use that capability for souvenirs, trash or high-school experiments than biological samples or EMUs to repair. OTOH, destructive disposal of trash may be very valuable too (STS used to carry down large amounts!). Propellant is only valuable if the orbit needs to be changed (in STS times it was quite lower, so reboosts were more frequent, and major construction operations meant more fuel was needed to desaturate the CMGs after frequent attitude changes). Etc.

Sorry if this comes across as terse, but I keep seeing how the pluralistic, insightful and respectful views this forum used to boast are being dragged down in most threads to endless simplistic, pushy narratives always aimed in the same direction.

[abaddon]

You're taking payloads off of Progress that it was specifically designed to carry and then saying that it no longer compares favorably with another vehicle that you magically increased the payload on.  Progress has the fuel transfer equipment instead of one of the pressurized modules that is on Soyuz.  The fuel is also delivered to a part of the station that Dragon doesn't interact with.

The default was the opposite, though.  Dragon was never given an opportunity to carry those Progress payloads and is being dinged because of it.  I think @mandrewa's pointing that out is totally valid.  Their assessment isn't "right" but it points out an inherent built-in bias that Progress "enjoys" in this comparison, and that's completely valid.

Comparisons like these are very difficult because they are apples to oranges.  The original assessment did a very simplistic comparison and was very misleading as a result.

All of that said... perhaps this should be in a different thread...

[mandrewa]

eeergo, I'm not going to continue with this argument.  I think I've said all I wanted to say. 

But if you wanted to put numbers as these various factors that you don't feel I'm taking proper account of and that should be considered in this comparison well then I would like to hear that.  I realize it's not stuff you can just look up; it would have to be estimates.  But as far as I'm concerned estimates are just fine.

And also I like your point about the mass of the system for manipulating the fluids, the "safe and robust pressurization, distribution and purging."   That's a good point and I hadn't considering it.

And also would it be possible to give a rough estimate of how much that system masses?  Is that public information?

[leetdan]

Aside from upmass, it's a lynchpin of ISS operations, full stop.  ATV alone shared this capability, and it only flew five times.

4700kg prop upmass for ATV, up to 1950kg for Progress according to Wikipedia.

[eeergo]

eeergo, I'm not going to continue with this argument.  I think I've said all I wanted to say. 

But if you wanted to put numbers as these various factors that you don't feel I'm taking proper account of and that should be considered in this comparison well then I would like to hear that.  I realize it's not stuff you can just look up; it would have to be estimates.  But as far as I'm concerned estimates are just fine.

And also I like your point about the mass of the system for manipulating the fluids, the "safe and robust pressurization, distribution and purging."   That's a good point and I hadn't considering it.

And also would it be possible to give a rough estimate of how much that system masses?  Is that public information?

Sure, I would also love to see an assessment that went from KenigOld's comparison of *two particular missions* (SpX-18 and Progress-MS 11), and then move on to a more general face-value comparison between systems, to one that took into account objective balanced corrections for each vehicle to reach a more comprehensive picture. Unfortunately, I think it requires an amount of time and expertise in researching elusive information archives I do not possess. As for estimates, I think the error bars they'd add would be more significant than the contribution they'd make.

No idea how much the propellant transfer system weighs, but I do know its tanks occupy the middle section of the craft (where Soyuz has the re-entry capsule), together with the water and gas transfer system - it's called the "refueling module": spaceflight101.net/progress-spacecraft-information.html / russianspaceweb.com/progress.html. I actually like to consider the gases and propellant as "unpressurized cargo", since they're not inside the crew-accessible pressure vessel: the refueling module is an unpressurized truss covered with light MMOD, and the tanks are exposed to vacuum. Of course, it's confusing to call a pressurized gas an unpressurized payload

Anyway, I think this is the point of cooperation vs "my team/country should lead and be best in everything": provide dissimilar redundancy, fresh viewpoints, backup options and complementary capabilities.

[...] I'm probably forgetting a few of the other resupply vehicles because I'm not a big ISS fan.[...]

I think you'd find it surprisingly rewarding and uplifting to delve deeper into the ISS program and learn more about its history and capabilities, in spite of the some shortfalls it has This forum certainly has quite some material to enjoy!

[CorvusCorax]

So, long story short, comparing Progress to Dragon will always be comparing apples to oranges.

-One primarily transports consumables and fuel, while the other primarily transports science payloads.
20k $ per kg is much compared to the commodity value of fuel, while 70k $ per kg might be quite insignificant compared to the price of one-of-a-kind scientific experiments/instruments
-One has downmass, the other doesn't
-One is mass, the other volume constrained
-The economies of production are not comparable
-The financing structure is not comparable (SpaceX uses CRS missions to in part amortise R&D of F9, Reusability, Dragon1, Dragon2 Raptor and Starship dev, I have no clue what Russia is using the progress launch money for)
( Not even opening the whole price vs cost can of worms )
-ISS needs both, not one XOR the other, so they are not competing vehicles in the first place.

Edit: mostly typos

[mandrewa]

That's a pretty good summation, CorusCorax.  I like that way of looking at things.

There should be some mention of the Dragon's unpressurized trunk which makes it possible to add elements to the structure of the space station, as with this mission.  But even there usually the elements being added are science experiments.

[envy887]

Dragon's ability to carry large amounts of downmass greatly affects every other aspect of it's performance and cost, so there is no good way to compare it to a vehicle that cannot transport downmass at all. The only other vehicle to visit ISS that could do this was the Shuttle, which was even more expensive per cargo kg.

[tleski]

I just wanted to point out that the comparisons of which country is better (has better technology etc..) which triggered such a strong condemnation by @eeergo was not really started by @mandrewa. The original infographic posted by @KenigOld contains the US and Russian flags on balances indicating that we are comparing capabilities (or pricing)  offered by two competing countries. I am not surprised that it could make some people unhappy.

And yes, this discussion should probably be moved to one of the general Dragon threads.

[mn]

https://twitter.com/Space_Station/status/1166343146734850048

To accommodate better lighting conditions today, the @SpaceX #Dragon cargo craft is now scheduled to leave the station at 10:59am ET today. #AskNASA | https://www.nasa.gov

So they change the departure time for better lighting conditions? Like they couldn't predict the lighting conditions at this date and time years in advance? Did the sun suddenly change orbit?

Just curious how such a thing gets scheduled and then changed for things that are known well in advance.

[Ken the Bin]

https://twitter.com/Space_Station/status/1166343146734850048

To accommodate better lighting conditions today, the @SpaceX #Dragon cargo craft is now scheduled to leave the station at 10:59am ET today. #AskNASA | https://www.nasa.gov

So they change the departure time for better lighting conditions? Like they couldn't predict the lighting conditions at this date and time years in advance? Did the sun suddenly change orbit?

Just curious how such a thing gets scheduled and then changed for things that are known well in advance.

The sun doesn't change orbit, but the ISS does.  In fact it may have changed because of being in free drift last night for the MS-14 docking.  (I don't have enough technical knowledge to know if that specific thing would cause a significant change in orbit, but there are other things that definitely do, such as orbit raising burns.)

[cscott]

It could also be that (say) SpaceX requested a photo of a particular part of dragon for internal documentation purposes (isn't Dragon sporting some new thermal tiles?), perhaps based on something seen recently.  That request may have caused a reassessment of lighting conditions at departure time, resulting in the reschedule.  Lots of possible reasons.

[Paul_G]

Great shots from Pauline Again (@w00ki33) showing the Dragon capsule being unloaded.

https://twitter.com/w00ki33/status/1167135493399568384

In the final shot you can see how the test Starship heat tiles held up compared to when we last saw them in John Kraus' pre launch photos:

https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1154096671703404544

In Paulines shot, the nearest test heat tile seems to be slightly lower than the 'old' style tile to its left - as this tile is immediately below the main parachute bay, I wondered if the panne opens rather violently, and knocked it off. Alternatively the test heat tile might react differently to the reentry environment, and not expand / erode as much as the old style tile.

[Comga]

https://twitter.com/SpaceXFleet/status/1166455430551392258

NRC Quest has arrived at the splashdown location of Dragon, after traveling 10 km in ~30 minutes.

The vessel will now deploy fast-approach boats to collect up the chutes and help secure Dragon for the lift onboard.

The RIBs made it to the DM-1 capsule about two minutes after landing.
Given their maximum speed of <30 knots that had to be less than 2 km

It seems Go Quest was much farther from CRS-18 Dragon's splashdown.
I've been wondering about the landing precision since SpaceX stopped publicizing it after the second Dragon landing.
Anyone have any information if this was a more conservative stand-off distance or a less precise landing?