SpaceX COTS-2/3 Flight

[Doodler]

Looks like the berthing was nailed right at the estimated time, +3 hours from capture.

[Garrison]

Following the live stream and I nearly said some very bad things when they announced SpaceX had issued a 'retreat command' guess some masking tape is indicated for Kibo.

In the end a great moment and congrats to SpaceX on the first of many Dragons to visit the ISS.

Now when can we expect the manned version?

[MaDeR]

Theoretically 2015 with NASA funding. But SpaceX is not known for being fast or delayless.

[Van Rijn]

But SpaceX is not known for being fast

Not fast? Compared to who?

or delayless.

Who in that industry doesn't have delays?

After the abort, where engines had actually started, I doubted they'd be flying again for months, and was near certain of it when they said there was a hardware problem. After all, if it were NASA, generally I'd expect they'd take the rocket off the launchpad, do months of testing and simulation, do a heavy inspection and retest of components, then move it all back to the launchpad. Frankly, I was amazed SpaceX had it fixed and ready for launch that quickly.

And this is all for a relatively new rocket, built and flying far more quickly than I'm used to seeing for present day rocket designs, and that all done using far less money than what I'm used to seeing.

[djellison]

But SpaceX is not known for being fast .

Your bias is showing.


Let's list the commercial cargo operators who've started delivering cargo to ISS faster than Space X.


....

Finished.


How does that compare to alternatives from industry and government?

RpK signed up to COTS at the same time as SpaceX, failed to achieve any goals, lost their contract in 2007 and went into administration in 2010.

Orbitals Cygnus? No flights yet. May fly a non ISS demo flight by the end of the year that's already delayed from Dec 2010.

ESA's ATV... >20 years.
The Automated Transfer Vehicle was first proposed in the mid-1980s as a way to transport unmanned cargo to a Space Station. Later the design was based on use of an Ariane 5 to launch the ATV for docking with the International Space Station. Following protracted development, the ATV finally flew in 2008.
JAXA's H-II .... >15 years, and 8 years late.
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has been working on the design since the early 1990s. The first mission, HTV-1, was originally intended to be launched in 2001. It launched at 17:01 UTC on 10 September 2009 on an H-IIB launch vehicle


Compare those to SpaceX, Dragon and Falcon. Zero to onboard ISS in <6 years The one thing you can not accuse SpaceX of being is slow. NO company has achievements of that scale, quicker.

Oh - and they're the ONLY one that can return significant cargo.

[Garrison]

Theoretically 2015 with NASA funding. But SpaceX is not known for being fast or delayless.

Compared to whom exactly?

[MaDeR]

Whoa, a lot of flak there.

Not fast? Compared to who?

Compared to whom exactly?

Compared to SpaceX in 2002, or rather Musk promises back then.

Who in that industry doesn't have delays?

My comment was about fact of their schedule moving always right - at this moment comparing, criticising or praising them was not my intention. Just fact. Do you claim they really will have first manned spaceflight before 31 Dec 2015?

Your bias is showing.

Funny, I consider myself SpaceX fan.

Orbitals Cygnus? No flights yet.

Do you claim that they have schedule pushed to right even more than SpaceX?

[Garrison]

Your bias is showing.


Let's list the commercial cargo operators who've started delivering cargo to ISS faster than Space X.


....

Finished.


How does that compare to alternatives from industry and government?

RpK signed up to COTS at the same time as SpaceX, failed to achieve any goals, lost their contract in 2007 and went into administration in 2010.

Orbitals Cygnus? No flights yet. May fly a non ISS demo flight by the end of the year that's already delayed from Dec 2010.

ESA's ATV... >20 years.
The Automated Transfer Vehicle was first proposed in the mid-1980s as a way to transport unmanned cargo to a Space Station. Later the design was based on use of an Ariane 5 to launch the ATV for docking with the International Space Station. Following protracted development, the ATV finally flew in 2008.
JAXA's H-II .... >15 years, and 8 years late.
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has been working on the design since the early 1990s. The first mission, HTV-1, was originally intended to be launched in 2001. It launched at 17:01 UTC on 10 September 2009 on an H-IIB launch vehicle


Compare those to SpaceX, Dragon and Falcon. Zero to onboard ISS in <6 years The one thing you can not accuse SpaceX of being is slow. NO company has achievements of that scale, quicker.

Oh - and they're the ONLY one that can return significant cargo.

And that's just the vehicles that flew, lets not forget that without COTS NASA probably wouldn't have been able to fly anything to the ISS until 2016-17 when Ares I might have been ready...

[Garrison]

Whoa, a lot of flak there.



Compared to SpaceX in 2002, or rather Musk promises back then.

So it took longer than expected, as has been pointed out that happens with space projects, comparing their performance to that of other projects they have been both timely and efficient.

My comment was about fact of their schedule moving always right - at this moment comparing, criticising or praising them was not my intention. Just fact. Do you claim they really will have first manned spaceflight before 31 Dec 2015?

And this an odd admission given your next point:

Funny, I consider myself SpaceX fan.

And yet on the day they reach a major milestone, all you can do is carp about their schedule. As they say; 'with friends like these...'

Do you claim that they have schedule pushed to right even more than SpaceX?

They haven't been quite as quick as SpaceX would be closer to the truth, but still a sight quicker than the government programs if they keep to their current schedule.

[djellison]

Compared to SpaceX in 2002, or rather Musk promises back then.

COTS was signed in the fall of 2006.

My comment was about fact of their schedule moving always right - at this moment comparing, criticising or praising them was not my intention. Just fact. Do you claim they really will have first manned spaceflight before 31 Dec 2015?

No - i don't think they'll have a manned flight by then, because I don't think the proper funding to make it happen will get thru Washington.

Incidentally - having merged the objectives of COTS flights 2 and 3...they've actually accelerated the schedule to the contracted delivery flights.

However, I would challenge you to name a major aerospace project in the last half century that hasn't 'moved right'

Do you claim that they have schedule pushed to right even more than SpaceX?

More? No. About the same? Certainly.

What would you have them do...cut corners?

[publiusr]

I'm quite impressed so far. Here is a question I'd like to ask. Has any LV provider replaced a faulty valve on a LV faster than Elons team did? I'm actually glad of that launch abort. Sturdy LV--quick repair. This might be one rare instance where a delay was a plus to a program.

This all makes me wonder why Dream Chaser's folk still want to fly on Atlas V. A Falcon 9 heavy would allow a Dream Chaser spaceplane to have plenty of margin for weight creep.

Ironically, this was going on at the moment of capture--so the timing was great:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SpaceDeve

[ugordan]

Station crew HD video of the Dragon approach today: youtube

[GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter]

And they did it at night. What was all that fuss about only doing it during the day?

It's probably like the Shuttle—the rendezvous and initial approach must be during the day, but the docking or grapple can (and due to the orbital period, always will) happen at night.

[Garrison]

I'm quite impressed so far. Here is a question I'd like to ask. Has any LV provider replaced a faulty valve on a LV faster than Elons team did? I'm actually glad of that launch abort. Sturdy LV--quick repair. This might be one rare instance where a delay was a plus to a program.

This all makes me wonder why Dream Chaser's folk still want to fly on Atlas V. A Falcon 9 heavy would allow a Dream Chaser spaceplane to have plenty of margin for weight creep.

Atlas had proven reliability before Falcon 9 was flying and also SpaceX has a pretty full schedule, not to mention having their own manned vehicle plans.

[cjl]

And they have now opened the hatch between Dragon and the ISS - Dragon is in space, with people inside

[mutleyeng]

And they did it at night. What was all that fuss about only doing it during the day?

Just going by the converstaions at the time there was no issue with doing it at night, they just didnt know if the astronauts would consider they had sufficient visability. When he said he did, then that was all they needed to know.
I do recall ground control saying that they wanting to avoid the transition between night and day during the grab phase, but other than that it was the astronauts call.

[kamaz]

This all makes me wonder why Dream Chaser's folk still want to fly on Atlas V. A Falcon 9 heavy would allow a Dream Chaser spaceplane to have plenty of margin for weight creep.

But Falcon 9 Heavy does not exist. If everything goes well, then maybe it will fly in 2013.

You never base a project on something that is not available at the project's starting date, because if it fails to materialize, your project will fail.

[kamaz]

ISS crew enters Dragon: http://www.onorbit.com/node/4668

[Garrison]

ISS crew enters Dragon: http://www.onorbit.com/node/4668

Half expected Elon Musk to leap out and yell 'Surprise!'

[Trebuchet]

And they have now opened the hatch between Dragon and the ISS - Dragon is in space, with people inside

Can't wait until there are already people inside when they open the hatch!

[kamaz]

Half expected Elon Musk to leap out and yell 'Surprise!'

Actually, I sort of expect that the first crewed flight of Dragon will have Elon on board

[Polyrealastic Observer]

Why is that NASA's fault? It's down to the traffic load, the streaming company and so on. Livestream, Ustream or Akamai. Not a problem of NASA's making.

Moreover, you're confusing the time of capture, with the time they ANNOUNCE the official time of capture. There is usually a several minute delay between the two. Same with a rocket launch - it'll be L+several minutes before they announce the 'official launch time'

And in either case - why does it matter and why is it ridiculous?

Point taken about the delay not being NASA's fault. My apologies to our venerable space agency. But the delay IS annoying. I wasn't talking about the announcement of the capture, I was speaking about the video of the process and the time it was reported to have happened. At the time indicated, the image was showing the arm still in motion, so there IS a significant delay. My assumption was that it was done on purpose, in case of a disaster, the public could be spared a gruesome spectacle. Under that assumption, I thought a thirty second delay would be sufficient. 5 minutes is what I was refering to as ridiculous. A moot point now, just clearing up the confusion. I just felt slightly cheated of 'the moment', by technology that's supposed to be oh-so-more advanced than the crude television camera in mission control in 1969, where there was I'd guess about a 35 second delay between the actual event, and folks seeing it.

[djellison]

But Falcon 9 Heavy does not exist.

Nor does a man rated Atlas V.

[djellison]

. My assumption was that it was done on purpose, in case of a disaster, the public could be spared a gruesome spectacle.

If you have the equipment to receive NTV directly ( details at http://www.nasa.gov/ntv ) there is no delay whatsoever.

Any delay you're seing is a symptom of web-broadcast.

[Gemini]

It's nice to have some happy news for once. It seems like most space news these days is doom and gloom.

[Swift]

This is not aimed at anyone in particular, but may I suggest we keep this thread strictly on the SpaceX flight, and save side discussions, such as the rockets of competing companies and the workings of the Internet, for other threads.

Thanks,

[Extravoice]

I'd read in one of the news reports (unfortunately, I can't find it now) that the astronauts wore goggles, breathing masks and earplugs when entering the Dragon. I'd seen the eye and breathing protection reported in several other accounts, and they sort-of make sense. Ear plugs don't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me, though. Can anyone confirm they wore earplugs, or was this just an over zealous reporter?

[Garrison]

I'd read in one of the news reports (unfortunately, I can't find it now) that the astronauts wore goggles, breathing masks and earplugs when entering the Dragon. I'd seen the eye and breathing protection reported in several other accounts, and they sort-of make sense. Ear plugs don't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me, though. Can anyone confirm they wore earplugs, or was this just an over zealous reporter?

Maybe they were worried about dust or particulates getting into the ear canal?

[mutleyeng]

id guess to protect against slight pressure differences

[Trebuchet]

I got curious as to how the Dragon compares with its competitors so I did a bit of Wikiing.

Dragon: 10m^3 pressurized, 14m^3 unpressurized, 6000kg payload up, 3000kg down.
HTV (Japan): 14m^3 pressurized, 5200kg pressurized, 1500kg unpressurized up, no return.
ATV (Europe): 48m^3 pressurized, 7667kg up, no return.
Progress (Russia): 7.6m^3 pressurized, 2350kg up, no return.

I suspect Soyuz, which as I recall was originally designed as a 2-man capsule, can carry very little other than crew in either direction.

None of which, of course, come close to the shuttle. Of available spacecraft today, Dragon is the only option if you want to bring anything back (assuming it will fit through the hatch) but ATV is certainly superior for capacity, especially for less dense items with its large volume.