SpaceX Updates (Thread 8)

By DocM
in Science News & Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm less certain it's a power play on SpaceX.  The rush by Lightfoot to discuss an EM-1 acceleration with Gerstenmaier just weeks ago may well be an OMG!!...CYA!! response. A Hail Mary to not have SLS-Orion marginalized just before the NASA appropriation was to be scored. That scoring has now been delayed.

  • Draggendrop
  • Like 1
Grand Master

Draggendrop Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
4 minutes ago, DocM said:

I'm less certain it's a power play on SpaceX.  The rush by Lightfoot to discuss an EM-1 acceleration with Gerstenmaier just weeks ago may well be an OMG!!...CYA!! response. A Hail Mary to not have SLS-Orion marginalized just before the NASA appropriation was to be scored. That scoring has now been delayed.

All true, But from a business perspective, how the public could perceive this as a "partial undercut" to NASA, when we know it's not the case, is WAY TO RISKY a move....something with dire consequences needed to be played in public. 

 

Don't get me wrong, SpaceX is more than capable of pulling this off...but the timing really, and I mean really, smells bad. The difference here is that the "power play" is initiated BY SpaceX, meaning Elon had no choice and had to present this in the best light, at the worst time, knowing NASA is fully aware of the situation.

 

This could be any new space venture, but SpaceX is the "media darling", and in the best position to make a difference.

 

Could not have come at a worse time because now the onslaught of the usual suspects are already at it.

 

:s

Rising Star

flyingskippy

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Draggendrop said:

This is nothing but undue pressure on SpaceX, particularly when they have a mess of paying customers to get launched...this does not help. 

SpaceX is developing D2 regardless of this civilian lunar mission. So why does it matter if they take the D2 that meets all the requirements NASA has put forth,  and put two civilians in it to go around the moon.

 

If SpaceX needs more time to meet certification, the first thing that will get pushed is the civilian lunar mission.

 

I guess I'm just a little confused as to why this puts more pressure on them? 

Rising Star

flyingskippy

Posted
Posted

Ultimately, it is NASA's decision to put astronauts on EM-1 and I think that rational heads will prevail. This power play back and forth between SpaceX, I think is a result of over analyzing and maybe a little paranoia.

 

NASA signed COTS/CRS providing a lot of support to get the F9 to where it is today. But they didn't limit SpaceX to only NASA missions. I mean this is commercialized space. Can we honestly expect SpaceX to not try and make a little extra capital on the side?

 

To me it's no different than comparing mission types like Orion and D2, or SLS and ITS. Why can two organizations run parallel mission goals? There hasn't been a conflict before. Why would there be now? 

 

As for the civilian lunar mission, the FAA will not issue a license until regulations are met. Seeing as to how the FAA has little to no space safety regulation experience I have no doubt they will adapt NASA's requirements for commercial crew. They will also want to see a demo mission before. Once certification has been completed, the FH and D2 designs will have to be frozen for all human missions. As always though, NASA may pull rank. 

 

 

 

Grand Master

Draggendrop Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
10 hours ago, flyingskippy said:

SpaceX is developing D2 regardless of this civilian lunar mission. So why does it matter if they take the D2 that meets all the requirements NASA has put forth,  and put two civilians in it to go around the moon.

 

If SpaceX needs more time to meet certification, the first thing that will get pushed is the civilian lunar mission.

 

I guess I'm just a little confused as to why this puts more pressure on them? 

The following is just my opinion..not directed at you.

I am basing my opinion on "business' and "business" only.

As far as Commercial Crew and D2 for CC, no impact at all. SpaceX still has to demonstrate the abilities of D2 via an uncrewed and crewed mission to the ISS prior to certification. Forcast is still Q2 of 2018 for second test, if we ignore "oversight" and follow direction from Gwynne Shotwell given during CRS-10 launch presser.

A lunar flyby D2 will require enhanced equipment such as ECLSS, communications, demanding navigational upgrades as well as thermal control measures. These can be done easily enough but require testing time, hence the concern of not having a qualified astronaut along for the ride in case of a "glitch".....ie; last D1 glitch on ISS docking approach.

Falcon 9 still requires 7 flights of block 5. This is March 2017 which implies 7 flights before crew on board D2 and the "fueling issue" has to be addressed. When is the first block 5 due to be launched...Q2 of 2018 is not far off, slightly more than a year....and cadence has not been increased yet, without block 5 introduction.

Side note...Amos-6 issue, multiple tests at McGregor have proven the "load rate issue". Cryogenics and carbon fibre have been used for decades in industry and research institutions. Any material scientist would have warned to be careful when playing with low temp cryo liquids at those temperatures due to phase transitions. Then lets throw carbon fibre into the mix to spice it up....this may be a somewhat new approach for launchers, but for cryo...this is not new, period. Amos-6 should have never happened.....if the proper testing , like what was done, was actually done prior. This is not hindsight...I was severely shocked that they were playing with load "rates", on a static fire, with payload, at those temperatures, without prior testing. This "bone head" move has caused the "issue" with crew/fuel loading and has heightened the safety awareness...this extra attention was not needed and will ensure a long safety review because crew loading and fueling is a big deal now.

Elon Time is in danger of being placed into the Urban Dictionary...
An example we all know is Falcon Heavy. Will it launch this summer, I believe so this time, they have no choice since some FH heavy customers have left and a customer backlog for this monster exists. FH is not F9...just because they are "bolted together"....FH was supposed to be ready to lift the backlog first, paying customers which do not require a "crew rating" and multiple flights of block 5 FH could have been used later for this designation...NOW it will need to work toward "human rated" right out of the gate, which could have been left for later adventures. Now, this should also warrant many Block 5 flights, I would say a number approaching 7 also, for "rating" since we have 3 x's the "fuel load" fun and do not want to appear as a double standard operator. This is where one needs to be sure. As for Falcon Heavy customers, put off for many years, I imagine they are not too excited to find "another project" which could bump a flight...because the "lunar shot" would happen BEFORE all customers are addressed.

There are a few corporations that have gone out of their way to back SpaceX such as SES and Iridium. Iridium and Matt Desch have gone out of their way for support and are fighting a financial restructering to keep the Iridium project on course....and then get bumped back again due to scheduling. I do not believe that SpaceX will attain the required number of launches for Iridium this year....Deal with the Booked Paying Customers first...reputation for dependability has to be earned.

SLS was never any threat to Newspace...period, in fact CST-100 and D2 could easily replace Orion...and that was known.

NASA "saved" SpaceX in the beginning and has been a great mentor. I envisioned SpaceX as the excited space geek and the mentor having to rein in and direct the enthusiasm...they work well together and will/would have had a long future. That situation is a bit strained now, due to the "lousy timing" of this " Adventure".

We all know about the "boy who cried wolf". This is a business and a business has to earn the trust and loyalty of it's customers...and do it on a daily basis. When one promises to do something, do it...talk is cheap.
 
While the "vision" for Mars is an inspiration, it takes time and it takes money...a lot of money, and that money comes from paying customers...and they come to you due to "earned loyalty"...and that is achieved by "action"...not words.

We have had CRS-7 and Amos-6, which have really put a damper on operations...effectively lost a year and introduced a lot of additional safety requirements. Much has been accomplished by SpaceX but a lot needs to be done to "attempt" to catch up to the back log and to fulfill the requirements to NASA.

Elon Musk is more than well aware of this, so if one refers to my above posts, the "timing" is outright horrible, introduces complexities to existing relationships and more importantly...increases "risk" to SpaceX if something were to go wrong "at any step" in the process to development of this adventure, for FH crew rating and modified D2 with humans aboard".

This lunar sightseeing routine is not new...Roscosmos was approached about this, years ago, and deemed it to be more trouble than it was worth, at that time. Just because a customer approaches with a proposal, doesn't mean one has to accept and disrupt a companies immediate plans.The more diligent approach would have been to screen all inquiries. This instance could have been handled by explaining that it would be more prudent to wait for certification of F9 and D2. Then wait till FH has been flight proven. Check the manifest for the least customer interference...then make a plan/announcement...it will still take time, but not be disruptive. Elon is more than well aware of this.....hence external factors, reference my prior comments. 

The timing of this "event" just plain smells....real bad. This will increase risk, the level of which, will soon be determined by launch and certification schedule achievements.

One can be an avid SpaceX fan and enjoy the achievements, but IMHO, a fan should also acknowledge shortcomings, hence my criticism of a few of their "decisions".

We are all entitled to an opinion, and I expect disagreement..it shows that we care.

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, flyingskippy said:

>

As for the civilian lunar mission, the FAA will not issue a license until regulations are met. Seeing as to how the FAA has little to no space safety regulation experience I have no doubt they will adapt NASA's requirements for commercial crew. They will also want to see a demo mission before. Once certification has been completed, the FH and D2 designs will have to be frozen for all human missions. As always though, NASA may pull rank. 

The current FAA licensing criteria for the launch covers the safety of persons and property on the ground, and crew ground operations. 

 

For Space Flight Participant(s) the protocols are mainly geared to informed consent, training and medical qualification, using the ECLSS etc.

 

Quote

The regulations require launch vehicle operators to provide certain safety-related information and identify what an operator must do to conduct a licensed launch with a human on board. In addition, launch operators are required to inform passengers of the risks of space travel generally and the risks of space travel in the operators vehicle in particular. These regulations also include training and general security requirements for space flight participants.

 

The regulations also establish requirements for crew notification, medical qualifications and training, as well as requirements governing environmental control and life support systems. 

And the vehicle qualification standard is rather low and covered by NASA's Commercial Crew test flights. For that matter, SpaceShip 2 meets the standard just by Virgin Galactic saying it does after test flights - there is no FAA Type Certificate for spaceships.

 

Quote

They also require a launch vehicle operator to verify the integrated performance of a vehicles hardware and any software in an ops oierational environment. An operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardwoare and any software in an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight participant on board. Verification must include flight testing. 

 

Edited by DocM
  • Draggendrop
  • Like 1
Rising Star

flyingskippy

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, DocM said:

And the vehicle qualification standard is rather low and covered by NASA's Commercial Crew test flights. For that matter, SpaceShip 2 meets the standard just by Virgin Galactic saying it does after test flights - there is no FAA Type Certificate for spaceships.

 

Whatever the regulatory process may be, The FAA will not give the go ahead without the requirements being met. Whatever D2 modifications are needed, they will have to be test flown before the actual mission. From there on out the design will be frozen and any further modifications will start the process over again. This process will also extend to the FH.

 

10 hours ago, Draggendrop said:

This is where one needs to be sure. As for Falcon Heavy customers, put off for many years, I imagine they are not too excited to find "another project" which could bump a flight...because the "lunar shot" would happen BEFORE all customers are addressed

Do you really think that SpaceX is going to screw customers over to make headlines for the lunar mission?  Who's to say that SpaceX doesn't separate two departments to work on achieving both goals? Unless its coming form a SpaceXer, we don't really know the inner workings of SpaceX. Analyzing what we see in headlines and launches is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

9 hours ago, Draggendrop said:

It appears we are like the dog that caught the bus...what now! :D

The emoticon makes this comment even more smug. Comments like this create hostile environment that restricts member participation. Mod's should be promoting an open discussion not hindering one.

  • Draggendrop
  • Like 1
Grand Master

Draggendrop Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
15 minutes ago, flyingskippy said:

<snip>

 

Do you really think that SpaceX is going to screw customers over to make headlines for the lunar mission?  Who's to say that SpaceX doesn't separate two departments to work on achieving both goals? Unless its coming form a SpaceXer, we don't really know the inner workings of SpaceX. Analyzing what we see in headlines and launches is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

<snip>

Actually, SpaceX has already promised launches and have delayed them to an extent that customers have left...so, in fact, customers have been messed with...not intentional, but the end result has already happened. One does not have to have inside information to witness launches...the launches tell the progression.

 

18 minutes ago, flyingskippy said:

<snip>

 

The emoticon makes this comment even more smug. Comments like this create hostile environment that restricts member participation. Mod's should be promoting an open discussion not hindering one.

That comment was an expression of great advancement , of which we are at the point that various missions are planned and a regulatory body is caught flat footed and requires to get up to speed. I therefore have no idea of what you comprehended.

 

This discussion is not only open, it is also talking about short comings. Where exactly do you see difficulties in posting?

Rising Star

flyingskippy

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Draggendrop said:

Actually, SpaceX has already promised launches and have delayed them to an extent that customers have left...so, in fact, customers have been messed with...not intentional, but the end result has already happened. One does not have to have inside information to witness launches...the launches tell the progression.

 

That comment was an expression of great advancement , of which we are at the point that various missions are planned and a regulatory body is caught flat footed and requires to get up to speed. I therefore have no idea of what you comprehended.

 

This discussion is not only open, it is also talking about short comings. Where exactly do you see difficulties in posting?

 Perhaps I needed a bit more context.

 

11 minutes ago, Draggendrop said:

Actually, SpaceX has already promised launches and have delayed them to an extent that customers have left...so, in fact, customers have been messed with...not intentional, but the end result has already happened. One does not have to have inside information to witness launches...the launches tell the progression.

I'm pretty sure SpaceX knows that if it continues to delay commercial missions for the development of FH, they will lose all of the financial support for it. We don't know how they are going about to achieve mission goals. Whose to say they are not devoting departments specifically for this mission while continuing development of FH in others. This is the point I am trying to make.

  • Draggendrop
  • Like 1
Grand Master

Draggendrop Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
2 minutes ago, flyingskippy said:

 <snip>

 

I'm pretty sure SpaceX knows that if it continues to delay commercial missions for the development of FH, they will lose all of the financial support for it. We don't know how they are going about to achieve mission goals. Whose to say they are not devoting departments specifically for this mission while continuing development of FH in others. This is the point I am trying to make.

Quite true. I think it is safe to say that we all have a bit of excitement with their achievements and wish them the best. It does get frustrating at times, but we do care.

 

I have my fingers crossed and hope that the cadence increase pans out....a lot of issues will melt away with this. The real "problem", if one can call it that, is that SpaceX has so much potential, a lot of interested parties will want in once certified.

 

Thank's for the candid reply. Your input is always appreciated.

 

 

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

F9-35 is listed as "Mission 1363" in the FCC application. A non-GTO launch from 39A with an LZ-1 booster landing. Everyone's going whaaaa?? Maybe a synonym for the NROL-76 milsat?

 

And Russia loses another one - this the Spanish governments PAZ radar bird. More about PAZ,

 

Press release....

 

@pbdes (Space News)
Hisdesat moving PAZ sat to @SpaceX follows @IridiumComm move from Dnepr to Falcon 9 for same reason. IRDM also left, maybe lost big deposit
>
Hisdesat: We dont yet know the ID of our co-passenger for late-2017 @SpaceX launch of our PAZ radar sat into polar LEO from VAFB.#SATShow

 

post-10859-0-59594400-1488950899.jpeg

  • Draggendrop
  • Like 1
Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted

And the Dnepr migration continues....

 

http://spacenews.com/hisdesat-demanding-refund-as-it-dumps-dnepr-for-falcon-9/#sthash.1wY630ru.dpuf

 


WASHINGTON  Spanish satellite operator Hisdesat is trying to retrieve money it paid Kosmotras for a long-overdue Dnepr launch of a radar satellite that Hisdesat has rebooked on a SpaceX Falcon 9 for a flight late this year.

Hisdesat announced last week that it has an agreement with SpaceX to launch PAZ, a 1,400-kilogram synthetic aperture radar satellite from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, during the fourth quarter.

The satellite was originally supposed to launch on a Dnepr rocket in 2014 under an agreement Hisdesat signed with Kosmotras, a Ukrainian-Russian joint venture that has not launched a Dnepr since 2015 because of difficulties winning Russian government approval for additional launches of the Ukrainian-built rocket.

Hisdesat has sinced turned to the International Court of Arbitration in Paris to recover money it paid Kosmotras for the repeatedly postponed Dnepr. According to Russian news service TASS, Hisdesat is seeking 15 million euros ($16 million).

In a March 10 interview, Hisdesat Chief Operating Officer Miguel Angel Garcia Primo confirmed the legal claim, but declined to say how much Hisdesat is seeking from Kosmotras.

It is true we are in a procedure to recover the money paid in advance, he said by email. The exact figure I would prefer not to comment.

Kosmotras did not respond to a SpaceNews inquiry.

Hisdesat joins Iridium in pursuing alternatives to Kosmotras for launching satellites. In January, the McLean, Virginia-based fleet operator added an eighth SpaceX mission to the launch campaign for its next generation constellation, Iridium Next, pairing the launch of five Iridium Next satellites with two U.S.-German research satellites. The twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On (GRACE-FO) satellites from NASA and the German Research Centre for Geosciences were also previously booked to launch using Dnepr.

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted

WHAT IS "Optimus Prime"?

 

Optimus Prime: a name used by a known SpaceXer on Reddit for a mystery device. Previously known as "Roomba" on the NSF and Reddit SpaceX forums,

 

 

Optimus Prime has been under construction in a large tent near Port Canaveral and was recently completed. A few fuzzy, long range pictures have shown what looks like power output shafts arranged like a tank tread and very heavy power cables (or hydraulic motor lines?) 

 

In parallel, a "dog house" structure with a door has been constructed on ASDS Of Course I Still Love You, and recently a crane has been brought in - possibly for placing Optimus Prime on deck.

 

The *speculation* is that Optimus Prime is a large robot to be used for securing landed stages without humans needing to board the ASDS.  Safer.

 

How? Who knows?

 

That said, much of the *speculation* has centered around grabber arms which attach to the stage's Octaweb, and magnets which secure Prime to the deck plates.  But who the hell knows with SpaceX? Curve balls are their specialty.

 

No one has confirmed, or denied, other than give Optimus Prime a catchy nickname.

  • SALSN and BetaguyGZT
  • Like 2
Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

@jeff_foust
SpaceX has won its second EELV launch contract, for another GPS 3 satellite, valued at $96.5M: https://t.co/dsjzoyitp0
>
Unlike the first, which SpaceX won uncontested, ULA did submit a bid for this launch contract.

 

From Jeff's link,

 

Quote

USAF

SpaceExploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, California, has been awarded a $96,500,490 firm-fixed-price contract for launch services to deliver a GPS III satellite to its intended orbit. Contractor will provide launch vehicle production, mission integration, launch operations, spaceflight worthiness and mission unique activities for a GPS III mission. Work will be performed at Hawthorne, California; Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida; and McGregor, Texas, and is expected to be complete by April 30, 2019. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition with two offers received. Fiscal 2016 space procurement funds in the amount of $96,500,490 are being obligated at the time of award. Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California, is the contracting activity (FA8811-17-C-0005).

  • BetaguyGZT, Emn1ty and Draggendrop
  • Like 3
Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Optimus Prime revealed!!

 

A Reddit user took a chopper ride and pics of the huge new landed stage securing robot on the deck of ASFS Of Course I Still Love You.

 

Runs on tracks as suspected. And has Jack's to (lift? move?) the stage by attaching to the Octaweb.

 

Hot Damn, that's a big robot!

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/60k0qw/i_took_a_helicopter_ride_over_ocisly_today_and/

 

Wide shot (lo-res)

 

Optimus_Prime-1-1024.thumb.jpg.e2939a549636253adf49449ae69ec9f7.jpg

 

Check how small the guy on the bottom left is! (2k zoom)

 

Optimus_Prime-zoom-2048.thumb.jpg.79f88ac03482536cf3c942d88d0e59bd.jpg

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing