Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) SpaceX and Boeing Developments

[Cosmacelf]

There's not much detail in the reports I've read on this "single-out" chute test. Some of the quotes. "Didn't open fully", "not satisfactory", "did not operate properly". Perhaps there was an entanglement?

Reading between the lines, that would be my guess. The sled hit the ground faster than they wanted meaning all the canopies didn't fully inflate, which usually means line rigging got wrapped over or around a chute or two. They intentionally disabled a chute from opening, but how? Was it a realistic failure scenario?

Frankly the congress critters question was bad intentions. They've done something like 19 parachute tests and of course the bought and paid for politician seizes on one failure that occurred during a simulated failure. Slimeball.

 

[mongo]

Reading between the lines, that would be my guess.

They mentioned chute packing as something to look into, so I'll buy that...

 

[Grendal]

DM-2 capsule to be used for IFA and Crew 1 capsule to be used for DM-2.
NASA Watch on Twitter

 

[mongo]

NASA briefly updates status of Crew Dragon anomaly, SpaceX test schedule – NASASpaceFlight.com
Update, in flight abort in July:

According to Ms. Lueders, SpaceX will have the Falcon 9 rocket and Crew Dragon capsule hardware ready for the In Flight Abort test by the end of July, just two months from now.

DM-2 by end of year, if testing goes well.

“And then we obviously have to get through some more critical tests like the In Flight Abort. Getting that done is a big deal. And then we have parachute testing we have to finish up.

“Right now there is no non-critical test. All the tests are big. But SpaceX is pulling together and working to get that vehicle outfitted and ready to go and have the launch vehicle ready to go by the end of the year.”

 

[Grendal]

NASA briefly updates status of Crew Dragon anomaly, SpaceX test schedule – NASASpaceFlight.com
Update, in flight abort in July:



DM-2 by end of year, if testing goes well.

I'm sensing that what information they've got is saying it isn't some inherent flaw with the capsule design.

 

[Grendal]

Space News article on what we know.
Investigation into Crew Dragon incident continues - SpaceNews.com

 

[e-FTW]

Space News article on what we know.
Investigation into Crew Dragon incident continues - SpaceNews.com

Fav quote:

“It’s pretty sad not to have that vehicle,” she added. “I was hoping that vehicle would be in a museum one day. But, I think this is a vehicle that continues to serve her purpose to make human spaceflight safer and safer. We will learn from this test, and that learning will be applied to the next vehicle.”

 

[ecarfan]

SpaceX Looks At November Launch For Crewed Dragon Mission - NASA Watch

 

[ecarfan]

From the weekly Ars Technica Rocket Report; the first manned Crew Dragon mission is now “tentatively planned for Nov 15, 2019. Interesting, the first crewed Starliner mission is planned for No 30, 2019. And we still have no word on the Crew Dragon test stand anomaly?

QUOTE: NASA updates launch dates for commercial crew. As part of standard planning among the international partners, NASA has revised its Visiting Vehicle plan for all upcoming and long-range missions to the International Space Station, and the update includes new planning dates for the first Commercial Crew launches on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Boeing’s Starliner vehicles, NASASpaceFlight.com reports. These dates should all be regarded as subject to change, especially the crewed flights.
A busy end of the year ... Boeing’s uncrewed Orbital Flight Test of its Starliner vehicle will move to a launch planning date of September 17, 2019. SpaceX's Demonstration Mission-2 is now tentatively planned for November 15, 2019. The flight would see astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley perform a 7-day flight of the Dragon capsule. Then, Mike Finke, Nicole Mann, and Chris Ferguson would launch November 30, 2019, on the first crewed mission of the Starliner capsule. We'll be pleasantly surprised if any of the crewed missions occur in 2019. (submitted by Ken the Bin)

 

[Bobfitz1]

From the weekly Ars Technica Rocket Report; the first manned Crew Dragon mission is now “tentatively planned for Nov 15, 2019. Interesting, the first crewed Starliner mission is planned for No 30, 2019. And we still have no word on the Crew Dragon test stand anomaly?

It's now been 2 months since the Dragon 2 blew up on it's testing pad and there has been no indication from SpaceX or NASA as to why.
Given that a ground test of this would likely have even more data collection happening than a real launch, and both parties would have thrown every technical resource they had into the investigation, wouldn't two months be sufficient to find the root cause by now?

Anyone willing to speculate? How much longer can there be no information/conclusion before it starts to become likely that sure cause will be figured out from the data and physical evidence?

 

[Bobfitz1]

Correcting typo.

How much longer can there be no information/conclusion before it starts to become likely that no sure cause will be figured out from the data and physical evidence?

 

[Nikxice]

Correcting typo.

How much longer can there be no information/conclusion before it starts to become likely that no sure cause will be figured out from the data and physical evidence?

The likelihood that they'll find no known cause seems slim. The DM-2 November launch date might be overly optimistic, but it probably indicates progress with the investigation. It's a relief that the failure occurred before any crewed missions flew. I think it's much more apparent that a Dragon 2 capsule is wrapped in a potential suicide vest. I'm confident they're now rocket scienceing the crap out of this anomaly to ensure it never happens again.

 

[ecarfan]

I think it's much more apparent that a Dragon 2 capsule is wrapped in a potential suicide vest.

I think that is a bit harsh.

Every rocket is a bomb waiting to go off. Hopefully a precisely controlled bomb. But not always. Rockets will never be 100% safe, just like commercial airliners are not 100% safe. Yet almost everyone happily steps on board a jet to take them to where they want to go.

 

[Nikxice]

Every rocket is a bomb waiting to go off.

When judging degrees of harshness individual interpretations may vary. Might add (mostly with their peers) pilots/astronauts are usually ebullient and eager to incorporate humor into conversations about career risk and morbidity rates. Wards off the demons.

Other than the STS crewed rockets have always had an abort system external to the capsule so as to avoid that potential "bomb" scenario. Dragon 2 and Boeing's Starliner are both using wrap-around capsule "push" versus "pull' abort systems. Considering there's no escaping a faulty launch abort system, it's good to see these rocket anomalies getting extra warranted scrutiny.

I don't see the rocket/commercial airline comparison. Agree that neither will be ever be 100% safe, but they're light years apart in risk. Of course airliners are also safer than motor vehicles, with the possible exception of those riding in a Tesla.

 

[Hugh-SG]

We have to remember it was an undiscovered fuel system fault that killed Mars Observer way back in early 2000's. When they fired the pyro isolation valves to open the oxidizer and fuel tanks to ready its Main Engine for Mars Orbit Insertion the spacecraft exploded.

Post explosion analysis done on engineering copy that stayed here at home on Earth determined that mostly cause was some fuel had leaked thru the fuel tank isolation valve and had crept thru the system and was present in the oxidizer line, which caused the explosion when the valve to the oxidizer tank was opened.

I would not be surprised if the plumbing for Crew Dragon's abort motors and its RCS thrusters is under going a drastic redesign.

I feel having had this event occur during static testing is wake up call.

Rushing the production of any type of human carrying transport, be it Ground, Air or Space or taking short cuts to meet a schedule not a smart move. We found this out when Apollo One killed 3 astronauts during a prelaunch ground test.

I can imagine they (SpaceX and NASA) are looking at this very very, carefully and doing a LOT of testing.

.. and now to send Chill's down everyone's spine, with a parting thought.

IF CD-1 and CD-2 are identical as NASA did insist on Standardizing the Design and Freezing the Design at CD-1...

.....then CD-1 carried this fault into orbit, spent a few days docked to ISS and then returned to Earth with it..

... If the Super Draco's instead of the RCS system had been used for a quicker and shorter duratoin DeOrbit burn, this explosion could have happened in space.

Food for thought, Cheers, Hugh

 

[mongo]

We have to remember it was an undiscovered fuel system fault that killed Mars Observer way back in early 2000's. When they fired the pyro isolation valves to open the oxidizer and fuel tanks to ready its Main Engine for Mars Orbit Insertion the spacecraft exploded.

Post explosion analysis done on engineering copy that stayed here at home on Earth determined that mostly cause was some fuel had leaked thru the fuel tank isolation valve and had crept thru the system and was present in the oxidizer line, which caused the explosion when the valve to the oxidizer tank was opened.

I would not be surprised if the plumbing for Crew Dragon's abort motors and its RCS thrusters is under going a drastic redesign.

I feel having had this event occur during static testing is wake up call.

Rushing the production of any type of human carrying transport, be it Ground, Air or Space or taking short cuts to meet a schedule not a smart move. We found this out when Apollo One killed 3 astronauts during a prelaunch ground test.

I can imagine they (SpaceX and NASA) are looking at this very very, carefully and doing a LOT of testing.

.. and now to send Chill's down everyone's spine, with a parting thought.

IF CD-1 and CD-2 are identical as NASA did insist on Standardizing the Design and Freezing the Design at CD-1...

.....then CD-1 carried this fault into orbit, spent a few days docked to ISS and then returned to Earth with it..

... If the Super Draco's instead of the RCS system had been used for a quicker and shorter duratoin DeOrbit burn, this explosion could have happened in space.

Food for thought, Cheers, Hugh

Crew Dragon and Super Dracos have been through 600s or so tests. As far as I am aware, all have been successful except for the one and only Super Draco test performed on a returned capsule. That, along with SpaceX's lack of pyro based systems (full tesability), NASA's recent comments about schedule and the new Abort and Crewed test timing, makes me feel like perhaps this was a reentry/ splashdown/ refurb issue, not a systemic problem for new capsules (which all Crewed missions will be).

Now, if the abort test fails, that indicates a major issue.

 

[Grendal]

We have to remember it was an undiscovered fuel system fault that killed Mars Observer way back in early 2000's. When they fired the pyro isolation valves to open the oxidizer and fuel tanks to ready its Main Engine for Mars Orbit Insertion the spacecraft exploded.

Post explosion analysis done on engineering copy that stayed here at home on Earth determined that mostly cause was some fuel had leaked thru the fuel tank isolation valve and had crept thru the system and was present in the oxidizer line, which caused the explosion when the valve to the oxidizer tank was opened.

I would not be surprised if the plumbing for Crew Dragon's abort motors and its RCS thrusters is under going a drastic redesign.

I feel having had this event occur during static testing is wake up call.

Rushing the production of any type of human carrying transport, be it Ground, Air or Space or taking short cuts to meet a schedule not a smart move. We found this out when Apollo One killed 3 astronauts during a prelaunch ground test.

I can imagine they (SpaceX and NASA) are looking at this very very, carefully and doing a LOT of testing.

.. and now to send Chill's down everyone's spine, with a parting thought.

IF CD-1 and CD-2 are identical as NASA did insist on Standardizing the Design and Freezing the Design at CD-1...

.....then CD-1 carried this fault into orbit, spent a few days docked to ISS and then returned to Earth with it..

... If the Super Draco's instead of the RCS system had been used for a quicker and shorter duratoin DeOrbit burn, this explosion could have happened in space.

Food for thought, Cheers, Hugh

I would thoroughly disagree with the description of "rushing the production" or "short cuts to meet a schedule." There has been an enormous amount of testing of each and every part to almost absurd levels. NASA has observed everything along the way and they have the vast history to confirm all of the tests and testing done. I would not be shocked to hear that the testing done for Commercial Crew is the most thorough testing done in history. It is a huge assumption at this point to make such statements then come to the possible conclusion that "CD-1 carried a fault to orbit" before we hear of any conclusions from the current testing that is happening. It is equally, if not more likely, the capsule went through reentry and somewhere during that intense process caused an anomaly that could only be repeated after a similar situation occurs. Thus making all the current capsules perfectly safe for the one use scenario they are currently paid by NASA to be used for. Testing is the very reason there was anomalous situation in this circumstance. So to blame lack of testing, rushing, and short cuts seems, IMO, to be grossly unfair and judgmental with such a current lack of real information.

In my personal opinion, I think the lack of information is due to the strangeness of this particular anomaly. I think it was not something obvious or simple. Which makes it hard to pinpoint and replicate in testing. If it were easy to understand then we'd already be hearing about adjusted timelines due to redesign needed from a known issue. I think the issue is still unknown and testing of every subsystem involved is not showing replication.

 

[Hugh-SG]

... then why did the Russians order the Russian half of the Crew to with draw to the Russian part of the ISS and close and dog the hatches just before CD-1 arrived?

They never did this for other visiting atonomous spacecraft before on a craft's 1st visit.

 

[mongo]

... then why did the Russians order the Russian half of the Crew to with draw to the Russian part of the ISS and close and dog the hatches just before CD-1 arrived?

They never did this for other visiting atonomous spacecraft before on a craft's 1st visit.

• This was the first use of this international docking adapter.
  
• NASA and ther Russian Space agency had created a new risk assesment list
• 4 hatches on the American side were sealed for docking with the Russian section and Soyuz as the safety route

Roscosmos, NASA Work Out Security Protocols for Docking Crew Dragon at ISS – Parabolic Arc

One could also bring up that the sucess of Dragon and Starliner is bad news for Russian space funding.
Russia's Roscosmos May Have Concerns About Success Of SpaceX Dragon Tests

 

[Nikxice]

Reading Here’s a reality check on NASA’s Artemis Moon landing program posted yesterday by @ecarfan, there's a hint of something perhaps newsworthy. Buried in the comments section Eric Berger responded to this question.

"Eric, is there any news in regard to the SpX-DM1 explosion investigation?"

Eric Berger, "Nothing I'm prepared to write a full-length article on. However, what I have heard from good sources is that the problem was not directly caused by the SuperDraco thrusters, and that resolution of this issue will likely add a "few months" to the schedule rather than a year or more."

Interpreting a "few months" adds more credibility to the scheduled November 2019 DM-2 crewed mission date.