• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

NASA Commercial Crew (CCtCap) test milestones

Recommended Posts

Draggendrop    5,747

This is just bonkers...can"t beleive that I'm even posting this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NASA has officially ticked me off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,643

It wasn't that big of a deal, in of itself ... but to the sensitivities of the "power players" it was a big deal. Appearances are everything and Elon sometimes forgets that.

 

Not even being the Devil's Advocate -- I'm a supporter of SpaceX and Elon Musk, and I agree that this is B.S. of the highest order and that this whole thing has been completely blown out of proportion -- just stating things as I perceive them.

 

Remember the thing about anything and everything OldSpace can possibly do to paint SpaceX (and Elon Musk, by inference) in a negative light they'll do it and go all in on it; the "dirty tricks, underhandedness and sabotage"?? I believe that applies now.

 

So what we've got here is probably the meeting of those two things. Elon forgetting about perceptions and doing something ill-advised; and the demonic (no other word FOR it) levels of underhandedness that OldSpace will resort to in gaslighting a situation into something way more than it actually is if it serves their interests.

 

/sigh ...

 

This probably won't end well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draggendrop    5,747

Mean while up in Canada....."and the problem is?"   even California, where it took place....at the end of the show, only tried it once prior and did not inhale.....NASA needs to grow a set. That "thinking" is not acceptable in today's world.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draggendrop    5,747

Here are a few articles...

 

NASA concerned about culture of “inappropriateness” at SpaceX

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/nasa-plans-invasive-review-of-spacex-after-musk-smoked-weed/

 

NASA will review workplace safety at SpaceX and Boeing because Elon Musk smoked marijuana

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/20/18105149/nasa-spacex-boeing-elon-musk-marijuana-safety-commercial-crew?utm_campaign=theverge&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

 

NASA to launch safety review of SpaceX and Boeing after video of Elon Musk smoking pot rankled agency leaders

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/20/nasa-launch-safety-review-spacex-boeing-after-video-elon-musk-smoking-pot-rankled-agency-leaders/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e51870030a57

 

NASA reviews safety at SpaceX and Boeing after Elon Musk smokes pot on video

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/nasa-orders-safety-review-spacex-boeing-elon-musk-smokes-pot-video/

 

comments speak for themselves....

 

along with this...

Tesla’s Elon Musk hailed by astrophysicist: ‘He will transform civilization as we know it’

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-elon-musk-neil-degrasse-tyson-he-will-transform-civilization/

 

NASA will have repercussions due to this...make no mistake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draggendrop    5,747

This sums it up...

 

 

 

 

I'm signing off before I say something that I will regret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,643

I completely agree with ya, DD. It's B.S. of the highest order and someone called this in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,149

Bonkers, and most likely paid for by Boeing so they can catch up.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draggendrop    5,747

Let me guess....rocket mafia... and Shelby has to be involved in this as it has his M.O. all over it.

 

 

There are a lot of unhappy people over this "situation" and the NASA administrator just got thrown under the bus...with the deputy looking pretty good in this one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,643

Of course OldSpace's political support is butthurt over some actual good decision-making.

 

Yeah, it's a helluva lot of money that won't be paid out from the continued supply, logistics & mfg chains if that work is stopped ... but the climate of political retribution simply because someone is doing something better sends the wrong message entirely and is a terrible precedent.

 

:no: Corruption. That's the only thing this can be called. There's NOBODY that will take these pricks to task over it. Messing with OldSpace (including their political support base) IS messing with the Military/Industrial base as well -- and nobody, NOBODY will do it. You can't separate the two. They really answer to no one.

 

/sigh ...

 

This precedent leads down a really unfortunate road, and it makes me sad.

 

We're forked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,149

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,149

OTOH,

 

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2018/11/21/nasas-commercial-crew-program-target-test-flight-dates-5/

 


NASAs Commercial Crew Program Target Test Flight Dates

Marie Lewis Posted on November 21, 2018

The next generation of American spacecraft and rockets that will launch astronauts to the International Space Station are nearing the final stages of development and evaluation. NASAs Commercial Crew Program will return human spaceflight launches to U.S. soil, providing safe, reliable and cost-effective access to low-Earth orbit on systems that meet our safety and mission requirements.

To meet NASAs requirements, the commercial providers must demonstrate that their systems are ready to begin regular flights to the space station. Two of those demonstrations are uncrewed flight tests, known as Orbital Flight Test for Boeing, and Demo-1 for SpaceX. After the uncrewed flight tests, both companies will carry out spacecraft abort tests to demonstrate their crew escape capability during an actual on-pad, or ascent emergency. The final test flights for each company will be crew flight tests to the space station prior to being certified by NASA for crew rotation missions. The following target dates reflect the current schedule as of Tuesday, Nov. 20.

Test Flight Planning Dates:

Boeing Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed): March 2019

Boeing Pad Abort Test: Between OFT and CFT

Boeing Crew Flight Test (crewed): August 2019

SpaceX Demo-1 (uncrewed): January 7, 2019

SpaceX In-Flight Abort Test: Between Demo-1 and Demo-2

SpaceX Demo-2 (crewed): June 2019

SpaceX also completed a pad abort test in 2015. Following the test flights, NASA will review the performance data and resolve issues as necessary to certify the systems for operational missions.  Boeing, SpaceX and the Commercial Crew Program are actively working to be ready for the operational missions; however, as with all human spaceflight development, learning from each test and adjusting as necessary to reduce risk to the crew may override planning dates.

Anticipated Readiness Dates for Operational Missions:
First operational mission: August 2019
Second operational mission: December 2019

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bguy_1986    350
2 hours ago, Unobscured Vision said:

Of course OldSpace's political support is butthurt over some actual good decision-making.

 

Yeah, it's a helluva lot of money that won't be paid out from the continued supply, logistics & mfg chains if that work is stopped ... but the climate of political retribution simply because someone is doing something better sends the wrong message entirely and is a terrible precedent.

 

:no: Corruption. That's the only thing this can be called. There's NOBODY that will take these pricks to task over it. Messing with OldSpace (including their political support base) IS messing with the Military/Industrial base as well -- and nobody, NOBODY will do it. You can't separate the two. They really answer to no one.

 

/sigh ...

 

This precedent leads down a really unfortunate road, and it makes me sad.

 

We're forked.

I don't think we're forked.  NASA would be stupid to give up on SpaceX over this (although it is part of the Government, and stupid seems to be what government is good at).  Elon Musk will get his funding from NASA or somewhere else.  I don't see them being able to stop Elon at this point if they wanted to.  Too many of us are on board with SpaceX.  Too many other companies see $$$$$ when they see what Elon's plans are.  I'd love to see SpaceX schedule their own launch and send Dragon up to do some of their own testing instead of waiting on NASA.  Send up a big middle finger to them - "We'll do it with or without you!".

 

Emotions are telling me SpaceX/Musk should go nuclear on Shelby and Boeing.  Call em out, make em look like fools.

 

That all said, this all could have been avoided pretty easily.  Don't do stupid things on camera.  Don't say stupid things on twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,149

OTOH

 

Crew Dragon DM-1
Date: January 7, 2018 (left 1 day)
Time: (approx) 2355 EST

 

698272317_Falcon9B1050CrewDragonDM-1render(SpaceX)tall.thumb.jpg.9c10364481833a3c431dc2013c9eb588.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,643
9 hours ago, bguy_1986 said:

I don't think we're forked.  NASA would be stupid to give up on SpaceX over this (although it is part of the Government, and stupid seems to be what government is good at).  Elon Musk will get his funding from NASA or somewhere else.  I don't see them being able to stop Elon at this point if they wanted to.  Too many of us are on board with SpaceX.  Too many other companies see $$$$$ when they see what Elon's plans are.  I'd love to see SpaceX schedule their own launch and send Dragon up to do some of their own testing instead of waiting on NASA.  Send up a big middle finger to them - "We'll do it with or without you!".

That's simply not possible.

 

NASA (and by default, the US Government) holds all of the cards regarding the underlying IP and patents on the Merlin engines. Sure, they're a long, long way from what they were -- the LEM descent engine design -- but it could be argued that the Government still technically has ownership of that IP and SpaceX is a licensee of that technology no matter how evolved it is from the original. SpaceX would be prevented from using the Merlin engines.

 

If in the extremely unlikely event that SpaceX were to "pack up" and move operations & hardware outside of the United States they would find themselves targeted by elements and assets that are extremely good at what they do. Depending on which jurisdiction they moved to, of course. It's unlikely SpaceX could even do business with anyone after such a move -- their liquid assets frozen, no trained workforce to assemble new rockets, and so forth ... no. Just, no. It wouldn't work. It couldn't work.

 

9 hours ago, bguy_1986 said:

Emotions are telling me SpaceX/Musk should go nuclear on Shelby and Boeing.  Call em out, make em look like fools.

Won't work. Too much political strength to make something like that happen currently.

9 hours ago, bguy_1986 said:

That all said, this all could have been avoided pretty easily.  Don't do stupid things on camera.  Don't say stupid things on twitter.

True, to a point -- ill-advised activities lead to consequences, I agree completely. But Elon is Elon and does things "the Elon way", and is unlikely to change for anyone or anything. I'm not Elon so I can't speak for him, but I think that this is going to blow over --- this particular incident anyway. What I'm concerned about are the precedents that this matter is setting. It gives politicians free reign to persecute for no reason and cannot be allowed to occur.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,149

One quibble:

 

the IP developed under the COTS, Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew programs Space Act Agreements (SAA) is largely retained by the companies.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/commercial-orbital-transportation-services-cots/

 

Quote

The funded SAAs thus allowed for commercial partners to broadly retain intellectual property rights, another incentive for them.

 

Few exceptions. 

 

Merlin was being developed by Tom Mueller in his garage when Elon Musk took a look, then offered him the VP of Propulsion job. 

 

SpaceX developed a large face-shutoff pintile injector for Merlin internally, something normally used on small engines. Many boomskis. 

 

SpaceX developed the PICA-X (1, 2 & 3), SIRCA-X and SPAM heat shields under SAA's. They are developing a version of the TUFROC heat shield under another SAA for Starship.

 

Friction stir welding? AIUI, they built their own machine.

 

Etc.

Edited by DocM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bguy_1986    350
On 11/21/2018 at 10:40 PM, Unobscured Vision said:

That's simply not possible.

 

NASA (and by default, the US Government) holds all of the cards regarding the underlying IP and patents on the Merlin engines. Sure, they're a long, long way from what they were -- the LEM descent engine design -- but it could be argued that the Government still technically has ownership of that IP and SpaceX is a licensee of that technology no matter how evolved it is from the original. SpaceX would be prevented from using the Merlin engines.

...

Thanks.  Did not know all that.  I assumed Merlin was all SpaceX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,643

It is for the most part. And as @DocM said, the IP is theirs because they developed it past the originating technology.

 

It would, however, be a real [snip]-show if SpaceX were to decide to relocate to non-U.S. territory. I doubt it would ever happen, tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draggendrop    5,747

My take...IP depends on conditions of employment for ownership of the "upgrades" and present "state". SpaceX or Tom/team.

 

As far as relocation..short to mid term...not going to happen. Long term...Mars regional transport office in New Berlin (Star Trek). /s

 

As a side note...remember that Elon is South African/Canadian/American....decisions will not be determined by residence..but business opportunity, the world is a big vibrant place and he knows how to use it.

 

The Senate will eventually stop shooting itself in the foot...one only has so many toes....😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,149

The instigator of this is 84 years old and his current  Senate term ends in 2022.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draggendrop    5,747
22 minutes ago, DocM said:

The instigator of this is 84 years old and his current  Senate term ends in 2022.

Seems like an eternity...but I think he'll get some "blow back" on this one eventually...hopefully not everyone in the senate is that stupid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,149
23 minutes ago, Draggendrop said:

Seems like an eternity...but I think he'll get some "blow back" on this one eventually...hopefully not everyone in the senate is that stupid.

He's been at it from the beginning, and seniority protects congresscritters like Shelby.

 

This 2014 Innerspace article shows how far back his animosity against Musk & SpaceX goes

 

http://innerspace.net/congress-2/richard-shelbys-war-against-spacex/

 

Quote

 

Richard Shelby’s War Against SpaceX

 

Last week, a U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee passed an FY 2015 bill for NASA, one with ominous portents for the Commercial Crew program.  As pointed out in several media sources, the bill contains a “poison pill” provision which appears to be deliberately calculated to increase the administrative costs of the program to contractors, with SpaceX in particular being the prime target.

>

>

While Senator Shelby claims the language is not seeking to target SpaceX, and he is only concerned with “transparency,” his record strongly suggests otherwise.

 

Senator Shelby’s animosity towards SpaceX is no secret, and has been on full display in multiple Senate hearings, including the most recent March 5th hearing featuring testimony by both Elon Musk and ULA President Michael Gass. It goes much further than that however, stretching back to the very first Falcon 9 launch in June of 2010 as then reported by Politico:

 

“Belated progress for one so-called commercial provider must not be confused with progress for our nation’s human spaceflight program. As a nation, we cannot place our future spaceflight on one fledgling company’s definition of success.”

 

And before that

 

“this commercial provider cannot deliver the trash from the space station much less take humans into space and back,”

 

Four trips to ISS later, it might be time to revise and amend his remarks, but somehow that does not seem likely.  

>

Given the close relationship between Shelby and ULA, again on display during the March 5 hearing, it seems rather implausible that the language could have ended up in the bill over the latter’s strongly voiced opposition.  Or is it really all just about the Space Launch System, and the growing fear that as the NRC Mars report pointed out again last week, there is simply no way the nation can afford a SLS flight rate high enough to ensure safety without massive and highly unlikely increases in NASA’s budget?

>

 

 

Yes!

 

I rest my case.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draggendrop    5,747

yikes...

 

time for a comedy routine.....

 

 

saw this on a retweet from Marco Langbroek while looking for payload positional goodies like the X-37B...it's been up almost 420 days now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,149

FAA Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test draft environmental assessment... (PDF)

 

Quote

2.1.1 ABORT TEST OVERVIEW

 

As part of SpaceX’s commercial crew certification process with NASA, SpaceX proposes to conduct an abort test. The abort test is currently scheduled for 2019. The abort test would involve observation, photography, and debris management associated with the breakup of the Falcon 9 first and second stages. 

The purpose of the abort test is to demonstrate the Dragon launch abort system and to facilitate meeting NASA’s human certification plan requirements. The launch scenario where an abort is initiated during the ascent trajectory at the maximum dynamic pressure (known as max Q) is a design driver for the launch abort system. It dictates the highest thrust and minimum relativen acceleration required between Falcon 9 and the aborting Dragon. As the in‐flight abort would occur during the first stage portion of the launch trajectory, the second stage of Falcon 9 would be simplified (see Section 2.1.3). 

The abort test would be conducted from LC-39A. The integration and processing flow of Dragon and Falcon 9 would be similar to that of a standard Dragon launch. Dragon would be integrated vertically with the trunk and then rotated to horizontal position and mated to the second stage of Falcon 9 while in the transporter‐erector. The vehicle would then be rolled out to the pad and moved to a vertical position. The abort test would start with a nominal launch countdown and release at T-0. The Falcon 9 with the Dragon attached would follow a standard ISS trajectory with the exception of launch azimuth to approximately Mach 1. The Falcon 9 would be configured to shut down and terminate thrust, targeting the abort test shutdown condition (simulating a loss of thrust scenario). Dragon would then autonomously detect and issue an abort command, which would initiate the nominal startup sequence of Dragon’s SuperDraco engine system. Concurrently, Falcon 9 would receive a command from Dragon to terminate thrust on the nine first stage Merlin 1D (M1D) engines. Dragon would then separate from Falcon 9 at the interface between the trunk and the second stage, with a frangible nut system. Under these conditions, the Falcon 9 vehicle would become uncontrollable and would break apart. SpaceX would not attempt first stage booster flyback to KSC, CCAFS, or a droneship, nor would they attempt to  fly the booster to orbit. 


Dragon would fly until SuperDraco burnout and then coast until reaching apogee, at which point the trunk would be jettisoned. Draco thrusters would be used to reorient Dragon to entry attitude. Dragon would descend back toward Earth and initiate the drogue parachute deployment sequence at approximately 6 miles altitude and main parachute deployment at approximately 1 mile altitude. Dragon recovery operations would be very similar to actions for normal Dragon reentry and recovery (USAF 2013), although Dragon recovery during the abort test would occur approximately 9–42 miles from shore, and normal Dragon recovery is approximately 200 miles offshore (see Section 2.8.1). The recovery vessel would recover all parachutes deployed by Dragon, as possible, including the two drogue and four main parachutes. Recovery of the drogue parachute assembly would be attempted if the recovery team can get a visual fix on the splashdown location. However, because the drogue parachute assembly is deployed at a high altitude, it is difficult to locate. In addition, because of the size of the assembly and the density of the material, the drogue parachute assembly becomes saturated within approximately one minute of splashing down and begins to sink. This makes recovering the drogue parachute assembly difficult and unlikely.

2.1.2 DRAGON TEST VEHICLE 

SpaceX has developed Dragon to deliver cargo and experiments to the ISS and Low Earth Orbit (Dragon-1) and to transport astronauts to the ISS (Dragon-2) (Figure 2-1). Dragon weighs approximately 17,000 pounds without cargo and is approximately 17 feet tall with a base width of 13 feet. Dragon-2 is composed of the capsule for pressurized crew and cargo, the unpressurized cargo module or “trunk,” and a nosecone. Other primary structures include a welded aluminum pressure vessel, primary heat shield support structure, and back shell thermal protection system support structure. The thermal protection structure supports secondary structures including the SuperDraco engines, propellant tanks, pressurant tanks, parachute system, and necessary avionics. The Dragon test vehicle is intended to represent the final flight configuration of Dragon-2. Systems, subsystems, and components critical to the success of in-flight abort would be in the final configuration. Non-critical systems would either be eliminated or simplified to reduce the complexity of the ground refurbishment process to conduct the abort test. Dragon would contain approximately 5,650 pounds of hypergolic propellant, including approximately 3,500 pounds of dinitrogen tetroxide (NTO) and 2,150 pounds of monomethylhydrazine (MMH). Dragon would contain approximately 2,400 pounds of residual propellant after the abort test.
>

 

Edited by DocM
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draggendrop    5,747

That 's the way to get it done with no messing around....I like.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.