Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) SpaceX and Boeing Developments

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Yes. Along with a lot of other things mentioned. So this confirms the demands NASA made with Commercial Crew have been implemented and, more importantly, thoroughly tested: the new turbopump blades and improved COPV. Octoweb 3.0 is one of the major changes to allow for multiple reuse. Full burns and testing of the block 5 Merlins is another big thing.
Am past due on some of my sleuthing. New turbo pump blades? Octoweb 3.0? Blisk turbine wheel?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Am past due on some of my sleuthing. New turbo pump blades? Octoweb 3.0? Blisk turbine wheel?
The blisk turbine wheel is the new turbopump blades. A couple years back there was mention that examination of the turbopump blades showed there was cracking that NASA felt was unacceptable. Granted that those cracks were able to be examined because SpaceX could recover their boosters. The cracking was happening on everyone else's turbopumps too when tested. So it wasn't something unique to SpaceX. Block 5 has the new blades and they seem to remove the issue since they've been tested.

We'll see the Block 5 booster launch for the first time in just a couple weeks. So we'll see all the new equipment in action then.
 
The accomplishment bullet points are a sign of progress. A lingering question is whether SpaceX and NASA have worked out a resolution for the Falcon 9 boarding procedure. SpaceX's preference is known as "load and go". The plan is (or was) to get the astronauts on board, commence the approximate 30 minute fueling procedure, then launch. This method facilitates keeping the super-chilled oxygen in a denser liquid state. I know former Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford was on a NASA advisory committee that voiced strong opposition to this procedure. I've linked a letter he wrote highlighting concerns dated 12/09/15. Worth noting that this was written 9 months before the COPV launchpad failure.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/FOIA/17-HQ-F-00079-ID.pdf

The method of boarding proposed by Stafford's committee is to load crew only after the Falcon 9 is fueled and stabilized. Then the astronauts and essential personal would be allowed near the rocket.

Does anyone know if this issue has been settled? My understanding is that the two major drawbacks to late boarding could either be limiting payload or possibly affecting booster RTLS/ASDS capability.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: e-FTW and Grendal
What is up with pushing test flights beyond what they are meant for?
That article explains it as follows, quote: “...NASA is running short of ways to get its astronauts to the ISS. NASA astronauts currently fly to the station on Russian Soyuz rockets, and the space agency has seats booked on flights of the vehicle for the next two years. The last Soyuz that will carry NASA astronauts will take off in fall 2019. After that, NASA will need to rely on its Commercial Crew partners to take astronauts to and from the ISS.”
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: e-FTW and Grendal
Speculation time.

I expect this may be in response to the recent political upheavals happening with Russia. It is quite possible that at any moment either the USA or Russia prevents US astronauts from launching on the Soyuz rockets. Up until now, NASA has reserved (as ecarfan mentioned) seats to the ISS on Russian rockets up to fall 2019. Since those seats are already reserved it removed the need for either Boeing or SpaceX to be absolutely ready. Which has allowed NASA and oversight committees to get extra nit-picky about safety. There is/was no extra pressure to push for a launch with astronauts. That has suddenly changed. Boeing, being a long time government contractor, reacted quicker than SpaceX to volunteer to have their first test launch with astronauts to have the option of an "extension."
 
  • Like
Reactions: e-FTW and mongo
SpaceX is requesting to switch capsule recovery to the Gulf of Mexico. Currently, all capsule recoveries happen on the West Coast. This makes sense if you plan on reusing your capsules as SpaceX intends to do. That way you don't have to ship them across the entire USA every time you recover one.

SpaceX proposes to conduct Dragon splashdowns in Gulf of Mexico - SpaceNews.com

Still disappointed that NASA (apparently) has not even set some stringent series of metrics which if successfully achieved would permit SpaceX to land Dragon 2s on land as planned.

Prior to BFR going operational, if SpaceX has F9 or FH missions with crews with no NASA astronauts, will it still be prevented from landing Dragon propulsively on land?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Prior to BFR going operational, if SpaceX has F9 or FH missions with crews with no NASA astronauts, will it still be prevented from landing Dragon propulsively on land?

Yes. I'm pretty sure that is true. For one, SpaceX would need to fully test the landing system. That is work they would need to spend a lot of money on to test and confirm it works. I certainly hope that SpaceX has something in place just in case the parachute system completely fails but since it isn't tested then trying to use it otherwise is too dangerous. I expect that there is some regulatory agency that would prevent SpaceX using the system without signing off on it. We know there is a lot of regulations needed to make a rocket acceptable for human use. SpaceX isn't even bothering to get FH human rated even though F9 will be. I can't imagine that getting FH human rated would be incredibly more difficult than just F9.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: e-FTW
Yes. I'm pretty sure that is true. For one, SpaceX would need to fully test the landing system. That is work they would need to spend a lot of money on to test and confirm it works. I certainly hope that SpaceX has something in place just in case the parachute system completely fails but since it isn't tested then trying to use it otherwise is too dangerous. I expect that there is some regulatory agency that would prevent SpaceX using the system without signing off on it. We know there is a lot of regulations needed to make a rocket acceptable for human use. SpaceX isn't even bothering to get FH human rated even though F9 will be. I can't imagine that getting FH human rated would be incredibly more difficult than just F9.

I may be misremembering (maybe I'm thinking Red Dragon), but I thought the latest version of crew dragon didn't have landing capable thrusters, only the emergency abort ones.

Is there any use for a NASA crew rated FH? Unless they made a super heavy version of Dragon (in which case send the people on F9, and cargo on FH) the only purpose I see is a moon pass.
 
I may be misremembering (maybe I'm thinking Red Dragon), but I thought the latest version of crew dragon didn't have landing capable thrusters, only the emergency abort ones.

Is there any use for a NASA crew rated FH? Unless they made a super heavy version of Dragon (in which case send the people on F9, and cargo on FH) the only purpose I see is a moon pass.

As far as I am aware, the Super Draco thrusters used for the emergency abort are exactly the same ones used for landing purposes.

I also think that the rules for human rating pertain to both NASA astronauts and commercial tourism customers. NASA does have oversight for Commercial Crew and (I expect) they are being extra picky beyond just a human rating needed by whatever regulatory rules that apply. Falcon Heavy would need that rating for the tourists to launch on it. Falcon Heavy is necessary to get the tourists around the Moon. F9 can get them to orbit and maybe even further but not a free return trip around the Moon.

NASA could spend the money and ask SpaceX to send NASA astronauts around the Moon. The money would need to include the steps necessary to rate the FH for humans just as Commercial Crew has done for the F9. Unless there is a directive from Congress to fund such a trip and those needed steps then it will not happen. It's been a huge chore to get Congress to fund Commercial Crew. Most of the multiple year delays are because Congress wouldn't give SpaceX or Boeing the money to do what was needed.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: mongo
Yes. I'm pretty sure that is true. For one, SpaceX would need to fully test the landing system. That is work they would need to spend a lot of money on to test and confirm it works. I certainly hope that SpaceX has something in place just in case the parachute system completely fails but since it isn't tested then trying to use it otherwise is too dangerous. I expect that there is some regulatory agency that would prevent SpaceX using the system without signing off on it. We know there is a lot of regulations needed to make a rocket acceptable for human use. SpaceX isn't even bothering to get FH human rated even though F9 will be. I can't imagine that getting FH human rated would be incredibly more difficult than just F9.

We had some discussion some time back about how much money it would take to confirm Dragon 2 can land repeated and successfully using latest Draco thrusters.
My assertion then, and now, is that with all they have learned from the Grasshopper testing and the huge amount from tests of Dra.gon 2 and Draco commercial escape, it should not cost a great deal to prove that Dragon 2 can land safely and reliably. They could use the already paid for Dragon 2 test capsule, and test it using Dracos to go up a few hundred feet and return and then a few thousand feet and
back down to land. Really, how much would that cost in staff time and fuel?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal