Launch News SpaceX Falcon 9 F3 COTS2+ Updates

[Star Voyager]

Keep in mind that STS-1 was delayed for 2 years before flying.

 

[NovaSilisko]

Keep in mind that STS-1 was delayed for 2 years before flying.

But that was a manned spacecraft that had never flown before. This is unmanned and has already flown once already (twice if you count the first F9 test)

 

[Star Voyager]

Good point. I would imagine though that there have been a lot of changes in both the launch vehicle and the dragon since then.

 

[Donamy]

Sometimes you learn more from a failure.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Hearing NET May 19th now.

My personal opinion is that they will likely slip until after the Soyuz TMA-04M launch on the 15 and docking on the 17th - meaning NET 19th.

If SpaceX launch on the 10th (and berth on the 13th), they will only have two days of margin in the schedule before both the Dragon and Soyuz flights will clash - and having low margin for additional testing days on a test flight is a bad idea, IMHO.

 

[MattBaker]

Sometimes you learn more from a failure.

Might be true, especially for an unmanned vehicle (I think Dick Scobee didn't learn anything from a failure), BUT:
The whole Commercial Program is heavily underfunded, considering it's the only program that will lead to US manned spaceflight until 2020 (yeah, I say there's no other manned spaceflight by the US 'til then!).
And politicians are "dumb", they don't say "Oh Elon, you gathered a lot of useful data, you're able to make the next 100 flights without any problems, here is your billion!", but much more "Ah, SpaceX, these morons didn't do anything, pushed back their launches just for a firework that wasted our money".
A failure would lead to a break or even a scrub in the Commercial Program, I don't want that, you don't want that and every advocate of spaceflight doesn't want that!

Apart from all that, I know that I'll be more excited at this launch than at STS-135 when they hold the countdown, I didn't understand why but the shuttle took off...

 

[Codz]

Orion will probably be flying to at least LEO before 2020.

 

[N_Molson]

If SpaceX launch on the 10th (and berth on the 13th), they will only have two days of margin in the schedule before both the Dragon and Soyuz flights will clash - and having low margin for additional testing days on a test flight is a bad idea, IMHO.

Yes, given that the Soyuz flight is manned and that becomes quite a rare thing, I'm sure they won't launch the Dragon before if it has the smallest chance to interfere. Since the two spacecraft would be launched on the same inclination. there is a very small but possible chance that their planes would cross (and let's say the Dragon doesn't respond, that would be a problem)...

Sometimes you learn more from a failure.

Here you have a point, failures are often essential. Soyuz had nasty failures before becoming what it is today. Apollo began with a catastrophic failure that showed the cabin environnement was very hazardous, and then it carried people to the Moon...

 

[Unstung]

What would happen if SpaceX failed; NASA was determined to reach the moon but Apollo 1 was a major setback. The same applies to the shuttle tragedies, but they made the spacecraft/missions safer. Congress is unhappy with COTS, ironically, so a failure cannot be good for their funding.

 

[FADEC]

Orion will probably be flying to at least LEO before 2020.

They at least hope so. But what are they going to do with Orion in LEO? Support the ISS? What if it's done by Dragon already? Go to the moon? Go to an asteroid? But how? By which hardware? Which funding?

NASA already is riding a dead horse since Constellation was announced. And if SpaceX does not succeed, they will ride two dead horses.

---------- Post added at 11:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 PM ----------

What would happen if SpaceX failed;

They will try another launch. It's unlikely that SpaceX will fail completely since they already demonstrated that they can launch and recover a capsule from space. And NASAs program was killed either way, no matter if SpaceX fails or not. But in case SpaceX would fail completely, the USA has two killed programs.

NASA was determined to reach the moon but Apollo 1 was a major setback.

But with a different context. It was a difficult political time between east and west. They had to sell one's own grandmother in order to go to the moon, if they wanted to demonstrate power.

The same applies to the shuttle tragedies, but they made the spacecraft/missions safer. Congress is unhappy with COTS, ironically, so a failure cannot be good for their funding.

Well, the Shuttle program already had progressed quite far, while STS-51L actually was human error.

Congress seems to be unhappy with anything related to manned space flight if you ask me. I get the impression that space flight just is an annoying topic for them. And they also have no clue of it.

 

[Unstung]

Congress seems to be unhappy with anything related to manned space flight if you ask me. I get the impression that space flight just is an annoying topic for them. And they also have no clue of it.

As long as it generates jobs in their districts. If it looks like a Saturn V, that may be a bonus.

What I'm saying is that Congress does not have the motivation to fund COTS like Apollo, so a failure may terminate their funding.

 

[orb]

A reminder, that the topic of this thread is "[Launch News] SpaceX Falcon 9 F3 Updates".

You can discuss off-topic in "NASA's Future: The War Continues - The political and off-topic discussion" in The Basement, or create a new thread in Spaceflight News if there is demand for different (non-political) topic.

 

[FADEC]

As long as it generates jobs in their districts. If it looks like a Saturn V, that may be a bonus.

What I'm saying is that Congress does not have the motivation to fund COTS like Apollo, so a failure may terminate their funding.

True.

But COTS at least is less expensive than anything else right now I think. And SpaceX is closer to return the USA to space than anyone else. NASA has a grounded capsule, and no launcher for it. Same for Boeing I think. But SpaceX has both ready to fly.

They might not fund SpaceX like Apollo, but they might fund SpaceX instead of another Constellation fail. I would even predict that once SpaceX succeeds, if they really do, that Dragon might be chosen instead of Orion for future space flight programs. Basically because it's not as much expensive as a NASA concept.

 

[RGClark]

...
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FL--The long-awaited launch of a commercial cargo ship bound for the International Space Station almost certainly will be delayed from May 7 to at least May 10 and possibly longer, sources said late Tuesday, to give company engineers additional time to complete pre-flight tests and checkout.

I really, really wish SpaceX had considered doing a "rendezvous" with, for example, a Progress cargo vehicle before going directly to the ISS. This would have allowed them to work out the kinks out of any software and hardware beforehand, before risking, in some peoples minds, a $100 billion asset in the ISS.
I'm aware that the docking mechanisms of the Dragon and Progress are not compatible, but it wouldn't actually have to dock with Progress to prove its capability. This is because the Dragon will not dock on its own to the ISS but only come to within close proximity to the station where it will be grappled by the robot arm to link with the station.
So it would suffice to just prove it could come within the specified distance to the Progress, or other orbiting vehicle, and stay within that specified distance without colliding with it. In fact it could do this multiple times with different orbiting craft to give further confidence in its capabilities.


Bob Clark

 

[ElGuapoGuano]

Man, they just can't seem to get it going. I don't know WTF the problem is, but the last launch of a Falcon 9 was Dec 2010. SpaceX's launch schedule is starting to look like Shenzhou! Stop giving launch dates if you aren't able to keep them...

 

[Urwumpe]

I wouldn't be too hard on SpaceX there, I don't know how much of the problems are SpaceX scheduling with go fever, and how much of it are NASA bureaucracy.

Launching something to the ISS is really a lot of legal trouble, but for a more or less good reason. If the Dragon capsule would for example suddenly depressurize while berthed to the ISS, the whole crew would be in danger. So, SpaceX has to proof in a engineering sense, that this risk is not higher than acceptable.

Same for station keeping inside the ISS zone of exclusion. just flying near the ISS is already a pretty dangerous thing, usually you have to be at least 2500 ft away from it.

 

[ElGuapoGuano]

Yeah, that's just the thing we really don't know. How much of this delay is bureaucratic red tape and/or are there technical reasons for the delay. I am not advocating "go fever" we all know where that gets you. I guess I'm just so wanting them to exceed expectations that delay after delay is getting me frustrated.

 

[N_Molson]

Launching something to the ISS is really a lot of legal trouble, but for a more or less good reason. If the Dragon capsule would for example suddenly depressurize while berthed to the ISS, the whole crew would be in danger. So, SpaceX has to proof in a engineering sense, that this risk is not higher than acceptable.

Same for station keeping inside the ISS zone of exclusion. just flying near the ISS is already a pretty dangerous thing, usually you have to be at least 2500 ft away from it.

Yep. And something like a total power loss or a jammed thruster during the approach can quickly degenerate into a serious issue... Such things happened with Progress spacecrafts, and the Progress-Mir collision is an evidence that automated systems can be trust only to a given point.

In fact, maybe it would have been simpler to launch with a volunteer test pilot to take manual control if something goes wrong.

 

[DaveS]

the Progress-Mir collision is an evidence that automated systems can be trust only to a given point.

That was not a KURS fault. The Progress was flown by a Mir crewmember during an undock/redock evaluation for a possible KURS deletion in order to save money.

 

[C3PO]

That was not a KURS fault. The Progress was flown by a Mir crewmember during an undock/redock evaluation for a possible KURS deletion in order to save money.

That was purely a management disaster. The "regular" Progress mission was over, with only the destructive reentry to go.

Managers wanted to test manual re-docking using video and radar distance/rate. The radar interfered with the video signal so they decided to turn the radar off, despite objections from the cosmonauts.

The problem wasn't the equipment failure but the decision to press ahead AFTER the equipment had failed.