-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Nikxice
Active Member
A critical launch that the NASA schedule doesn't reflect is the planned Dragon 2 in-flight abort test. Assuming the DM-1 flight happens in January, preliminary reports now peg the abort test for May 2019. So this launch would likely occur just a few weeks before the crewed DM-2 scheduled for June. If a May abort holds up it indicates an additional month or two has been factored into the original turnaround time for the DM-1 capsule. Not sure why, perhaps SpaceX and NASA decided to take more time to examine the first flown Crew Dragon capsule while they finish preparations for DM-2.
Soyuz-FG had annomoly on lauch. Capsule was able to detach and land. Both travelers ok.
Will this impact Crew timing?
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/11/europe/soyuz-rocket-russia-nasa-intl/index.html
Will this impact Crew timing?
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/11/europe/soyuz-rocket-russia-nasa-intl/index.html
Maybe it will speed up the NASA paperwork that Hans alluded to in his recent IAC presentation.
The next Soyuz mission to the ISS is scheduled for December. It seems this failure will likely delay that.
Soyuz crew lands safely after emergency launch abort – Spaceflight Now
If SpaceX is really ready for test launches, it may happen sooner that January (my interpretation)
International Space Station May Be Stranded As Boeing, SpaceX Prep NASA Launches | Investor's Business Daily
International Space Station May Be Stranded As Boeing, SpaceX Prep NASA Launches | Investor's Business Daily
Soyuz is currently the only way to get astronauts to and from the ISS. A significant problem is that Soyuz capsules can only stay up for 200 days. MS-9 (which is the capsule with the drilled hole in it) will reach its 200 day limit in December and will have to come back. If it doesn't have the crew on it then the station and crew will have no way to escape an emergency. If it does bring back the crew then the ISS will be abandoned which may be necessary but I doubt anyone will want that to happen.
The current option is to get another Soyuz up and running. Since Soyuz has such a lengthy history, they could probably determine the issue quickly and confirm another launch within the time frame.
Those of us here would probably want them to just send up a Falcon with Dragon 2 but that is unlikely to happen. That said, I wonder if it is possible to send up DM-1 and use that capsule as the emergency capsule. That way the current crew stays on board for the duration.
The current option is to get another Soyuz up and running. Since Soyuz has such a lengthy history, they could probably determine the issue quickly and confirm another launch within the time frame.
Those of us here would probably want them to just send up a Falcon with Dragon 2 but that is unlikely to happen. That said, I wonder if it is possible to send up DM-1 and use that capsule as the emergency capsule. That way the current crew stays on board for the duration.
Interesting.
Does DM-2 then become the inflight abort test capsule? In which case do they have a DM-3 ready for the first crewed flight? Or do they go the Boeing route and say simulation is fine (for now).
What is that limit based on?
I think it is possible that NASA will come up with a rationale for extending that limit.
Yes Roscosmos could probably come up with another Soyuz, but that’s not the issue: the issue is figuring out the reason for the mission failure and ensuring it won’t happen again, correct?
I think it very unlikely NASA would do that, it would certainly violate many rules and make them look bad.
e-FTW
New electron smell
Reading that piece reminds me that the Soyouz has been around for well over half a century. That in itself is amazing.
And only a handful of failures.
Why (on the rules part)?
The only test after the DM-1 is the in flight abort. If the capsule makes it to ISS, that test is irrelevant to the mission. All previous capsules have safely returned, so the main issue would be if modifications for the abort system impacted re-entry performance.
Crew Dragon would then be a viable lifeboat for getting crew from the ISS, a separate function from the getting crew to orbit.
Option 2: launch DM-1 and dock. Launch DM-2 uncrewed. When it gets up there, return DM-1 to validate re-entry. Then DM-2 is a known good return vessel. Meanwhile, refurb DM-1 for the abort test like originally planned and get DM-3 ready to send people up.
The important thing here is for NASA to be talking seriously to SpaceX about possible scenarios for their rockets and capsules. Basically SpaceX has the DM-1 Dragon capsule ready for use whenever needed. According to Hans, it's only paperwork holding it back now. Paperwork can be expedited without compromising safety. There is no way that NASA is going to circumvent safety, so there won't be astronauts suddenly placed on the DM-1 capsule. The exception would be in the most dire of emergencies where rules and safety is thrown out for a rescue mission. We aren't remotely close to something like that. Since DM-1 is a fully functioning and certified capsule that is already planned for a full mission to the ISS then using it as an emergency escape capsule should be acceptable to NASA and the crew of the ISS.
SpaceX also has plenty of boosters ready and probably a current Dragon resupply capsule ready to go. CRS-16 was already due to launch in November.
So overall, SpaceX is in a strong position to assist NASA in almost any scenario they need. That's a good place to be at this time.
SpaceX also has plenty of boosters ready and probably a current Dragon resupply capsule ready to go. CRS-16 was already due to launch in November.
So overall, SpaceX is in a strong position to assist NASA in almost any scenario they need. That's a good place to be at this time.
Nikxice
Active Member
Informative, perhaps it was time for a reality check. After reading the article I think a SpaceX Dragon 2 or even Boeing Starliner ISS lifeboat scenario isn't very likely. The Starliner parachute system and abort engine issues were already known. The failure of Starliner's pyrotechnic initiators for properly separating the crew and service modules is something I hadn't previously read about.
Another unfamiliar concern is with the SpaceX Crew Dragon parachute system. There's news of "unspecified anomalies" noted in both the Dragon cargo ISS mission return flights and Dragon 2 testing. SpaceX must be working hard to get this fixed and avoid a redesign. Also, they're apparently not out of the woods yet with a redesigned COPV 2.0. Although NASA has qualified the new helium tanks, the testing is ongoing. I recall 7 proving flights were needed prior to DM-2. What's disconcerting are statements made by Don McErlean of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. In part, “These causes of various sorts remain under investigation. There are scientific investigations still ongoing looking for root cause analysis. They are working on improved configurations, but there remain open technical issues that still need to be completed and understood.” Not sure how much impact this will have on DM-2's launch date, but it won't be overlooked.
Probably a fair shot taken at Hans Koenigsmann "We continue to hear these things about certification paperwork, and it’s one of my own personal hot buttons,” McErlean said Thursday. “The work is not paperwork in the sense of blindly filling out forms or writing letters or sending each other memos.”.
The unfamiliar concern is with cargo Dragon parachutes that aren't used on Crew Dragon. So it is a ridiculous nothing. The other issue is with COPVs that have already been addressed and dealt with according to everything NASA asked for. B1051 has the new COPVs and it has already been tested at McGregor. There just needs to be launches. Neither issue would prevent DM-1 from being launched and used as an emergency capsule should such a scenario become necessary. It probably won't because Soyuz has a great track record and they will be figuring out the cause and will very likely send up the next capsule as the emergency escape capsule.
To be fair, the stuff from Boeing is also mostly nonsense. Boeing is dealing with the issues they have and should remain on track with their later timetable.
ASAP is full of garbage. I don't really know the reasons for their nonsense but it is probably political, money, or prestige.
From my brief (very brief) experience with government contracting, I'd assign it to CYA.
No one ever gets dinged for delaying or cancelling a worthy project, but making a decision that can be criticized later, whether the project was successful or not, is career ending.
Speaking as someone who has actually worked on aircraft flight safety certification in the past...
That statement is, of course, total nonsense. The "paperwork" he is referring to is "merely" the qualification of the spaceship for safe operation. NASA engineers need to review and analyze SpaceX's analysis, fault trees, test data, etc.
No doubt SpaceX and Boeing have both done their due diligence, but everyone makes mistakes. An independent review is essential to ensure that nothing has been missed.
Would you get on an airliner that didn't have an independent review of it's "paperwork" prior to certification for flight? I think not.
After 200 days the hydrogen peroxide propellant used for the orbital maneuvering thrusters starts to degrade.
It's more accurate to say it *started* degrading the day it was produced. And after 200 days in orbit, it approaches a state of degradation where performance may be affected.
How exactly they arrived at 200 days is an open question. My guess is that it includes very large safety margins, and the propellant would most likely still be fine after 500+ days. Even the fact that it's a very round number suggests it's not a very firm number. I'd be more worried about the state of the propellant if they had a firm limit of say 261 days from date of production. Or better yet - they could have propellant quality sensor, counting down the time until the propellant becomes unusable.
Yes of course. It's more like it's exceeding its "best before" date, and you need to get the Soyuz out of the refrigerator before it goes bad.
This article throws some more color on the Soyuz "expiration date", giving a 210 day life and extending the deadline to Jan 4th.
NASA astronaut unfazed by frightening launch abort – Spaceflight Now
NASA astronaut unfazed by frightening launch abort – Spaceflight Now
Similar threads
