This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

All Eyes on the Dragon

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 1, 2012
Filed under , , ,

SpaceX launch of Dragon capsule to space station to put NASA strategy on display, Washington Post
“If Dragon fails at launch, that’s a bad thing that will get people concerned,” said John Logsdon, professor emeritus at the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University. “But if it gets close but can’t dock, I would say that’s a setback but not a tragedy,” he added. “If they’re able to get close or even dock, then it would do quite a bit for commercial space — a real validation for those in NASA who set this in motion.” While that view is common among officials involved in the effort, it is not necessarily the view of the SpaceX employees trying to make it work.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

31 responses to “All Eyes on the Dragon”

  1. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    Like it or not Dragon launch is a big thing. It attracts almost as much attention as the last Shuttle launch. Even though it is a test launch of a in development robotic craft by a tiny company.

    My hunch, to use Larry Niven’s words, is that the interest is about whether we are “animals” incapable of HSF, or civilized that do, by any advanced culture’s rules. We went “animal” with the Shuttle program conclusion, and Dragon is able to let us revert to Shuttle-level once again.

    • Anonymous_Newbie says:
      0
      0

      I think “it attracts almost as much attention as the
      last Shuttle launch” is a bit of an exaggeration.  Is it important?  Absolutely. 
      But I do not think as important as you think to the general public.  For example, there is no way you’re going to
      see nearly 1 million at KSC to watch the launch.  Significance should not be confused with
      interest.  Sadly, most of the general
      public just doesn’t care beyond the level of that’s a cool picture or video.

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

         Actually, the public has greater awareness of it than the Shuttle.  Apparently the change happened with the recovery of Dragon over a year ago.

        Many are under the mistaken impression that its like Soyuz/Apollo and we are soon to be flying astros on it.

        • Anonymous_Newbie says:
          0
          0

           cite any source that compares Dragon w/ Shuttle

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

            Google dragon space shuttle

            add:
            You’re not worth the time for more – do your own work. Shills like you don’t matter

          • Anonymous_Newbie says:
            0
            0

            “Google dragon space shuttle”

            Are you using Google as a specific source or are you asking me to do a Google
            search to look for non-existent information to support your gratuitous
            assertion because you can’t provide a specific one?

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        A point about videos in todays world with iPhones and IPods in hand. Why should people travel to see a historic launch. Why do I want to travel there to only get a little glemps of it, when I can ride on the booster with my iPod (just like the Hulk lol).

        I was very glad to see the launch test iPod YouTube ready with no download fuss.

        • Anonymous_Newbie says:
          0
          0

           This statement is contrary to the record turnouts at the last shuttle
          launches just last year .  I saw the last few live and then went and
          watched them on video after the fact.  Videos are fine and dandy, but
          nothing compares to experiencing things live and in person.  I’m sure
          I’ve read you shilling for Elon putting a person on the surface of Mars.  Well, if you get the same experience from a video – why bother? 
          We can put plenty of rovers and aerobots on Mars and shoot video back
          and this will be just fine?  Some may make a good case for this, but it
          seems contradictory to your other posts.

          I have noticed over the
          past few weeks of following NASA Watch that there is a select group of
          Space-X hacks that are pro anything that has to do with Space-X (good or
          bad and the bad will always be spun for good).

          I am fully in support of
          Space-X and wish them all the luck in the world.  America’s future in
          LEO is riding on them and Orbital (with a commercial launch in just a
          few months).  But lets be intellectually honest – there is NO evidence
          general interest in Space-X is anywhere as close to what you are
          portraying, because America has lost interest in space.  I am open
          minded though, and will be the first to admit that I may be wrong – I
          hope I am.  So, cite DATA that shows how interested the public is in
          Space-X compared to the dead shuttle program.

          And, as long as I
          am ranting, I would like someone to explain to me what it proves if
          Space-X is successful next week.  The EELVs have been commercially
          lifting for the military for quite sometime.  As far as I see then, the
          only diiference between them and Space-X then is the cost structure? 
          Well, then it is going to take quite a few launches to prove Space-X
          successful, and I’d say they will need to have a success rate on par
          with the EELVs, which is pretty darn good.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            “EELV have been commercially lifting for the military for quite sometime”————

            The dedication and success of the launch program is self evident.  Costs will always be a topic of discussion.

            How successful?  Well depot centric with smaller LVs under okeefe was NASA’s go forward plan until the HLV reset, and redesign, and redesign, and redesign….  In the last leaked study, EELV solution was 57B cheaper than SLS over 20 years. 

            Recall that basically AR&D risk eliminated smaller LVs from contention, and oh, and those “black zones”. 😉

            But there does not appear to be a path forward for the smaller new space (or smaller old space) in the HLV architecture–which creates limited a dead end market for “C”OTS to BEO.

            In addition, the HLV product lines are not common with any other “commercial” LV.

            Note that the use of the word “commercial” with any LV in the world has very little meaning since every one relies heavily on the country’s government.  YMMV.

            Top level issues with EELV are simply costs to crew rate the LVs and of course use of solids with crew if more mass to orbit is required, which may require multiple LAS rather than a common design.

            “What it proves if Space-X is successful”—–

            New ways of conducting business or technology innovation and advancement is the first thing that comes to mind.

            The SpaceX cost model minimizes production lines to lower average annual $/kg to IMLEO. 

            In many ways, it is the exact opposite of the Constellation.

            But the economics of Kero for transfer stages for BEO at any significant volume does not close, but perhaps for a few GTOs.

            In terms of risk, batting 2/5 versus 3/5 make is not all that significant in the long haul–unless the outs were strikeouts vs lineouts to the deep outfield. 

            “America has lost interest in space”———-

            A large part of NASA has lost interest in the program of record, so why should the country also have an interest?  (A L2 gateway depot before a LEO depot, seriously?!)

            Most see the go forward plan of a mixed fleet of smaller LVs and depot as the most practical way to allow the focus to shift to mission hardware and *MORE* launches.

            But on a grander scale the interest in space is still there!  NASA simply has to start working the Top Technical challenges, because the real accomplishment excites, enabled by making the extremely difficult launches look easy, but cost effective.  Without low cost IMLEO, there is very little exploration to be had.

            As per video games, “We are underestimating the
            power of technology in re-wiring our childrens brains”.  Which is a whole different topic.

  2. Nox Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    It is a big thing to those who don’t know the space flight business and the history of space flight.

    I am a SpaceX fanboy, and I will love it if it all goes more less to plan!

    However, if it doesn’t that’s not entirely uncommon either. It fails I won’t be entirely surprised, they don’t call it rocket science for nothing.

    If the launch or mission doesn’t complete, I will be slightly disappointed.

    But I really will be disappointed in NASA doesn’t fund SpaceX to try again and get it right with the commercial resupply contract.

    I think at this point SpaceX has enough other contracts to continue commercially viably if it is a failure. So I’m not worried about SpaceX giving up.

    If people gave up on complex endeavours, we’d never have stuff like routine safe commercial aviation. There were many failures that happened before it reached the maturity we now take for granted when we book a flight online.

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

       Nox:

      Actually, NASA is only paying Spacex for a three test flight program and only after ‘milestones’ are successfully achieved. This is only the second flight. The first was to test flight and recovery of Dragon. I Spacex pulls off this flight with flying colors they will be paid in full for meeting those milestones thus saving money by not having to launch a third Falcon 9. That’s why Spacex lobbied NASA to combine COTS flights 2 and 3. NASA knows that Spacex will roll that savings right back into it’s development program so their investment will be well spent.

      If the COTS milestones take more than three flights then Spacex foots the bill and may even lose money on COTS. But once completed to NASA’s satisfaction, they can look forward to years of steady revenue stream. Once they start commercial launches they’ll have two revenue streams. Selling Short Falcon 5s to StratoLaunch gets them another. That should get them to a point by the end of the decade when they can start to sell reusable launch vehicles and spacecraft to ‘Spacelines’ just like Douglas did in the nineteen thirties.

      Don’t worry, Spacex will do just fine.

      tinker

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Tinker,

        I basically agree with your analysis, but I think we also have to consider that SpaceX has, without intending to I would think, become the poster boy for commercial access to space, and all that might follow.  So they have the added pressure that they need to continue succeeding.  It’s not fair, but there it is.  Even if this flight goes absolutely perfect, SpaceX, COTS and commercial access to space will not yet be a done deal.  There are still forces working against them.  The sad part is that those “forces” are not the other aerospace companies.  Always remember, there is no success so final that politics and greed working together can not drag it under and drown it.

        Steve

  3. nasa817 says:
    0
    0

    This launch will be a success in my mind no matter what happens.  Even if it blows up on the pad (and I hope like hell it doesn’t), they will be accomplishing more that NASA HSF ever did with CxP and it’s progeny.

    I predict a successful launch that achieves orbit and delivers it’s payload to ISS.  I also predict a successful docking (or will it berth?), separation, deorbit, reentry and recovery.

    • JJ says:
      0
      0

      … this is my problem with the SpaceX cult, there is no measure of accountability.  Anything is a success.  In my mind, there is no reason for SpaceX not to have a successful mission. If not now, later.  My measure of success for SpaceX is if they can become a sustainable company with a proven business model … and we won’t know the answer next week or in months but in years.

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

         I agree. This also includes a sustained launch rate of the Falcon 9 with the consistent assembly rate and high attention to quality. It’s one thing to spend tons of time preparing a vehicle for launch, but doing that several times a year increases the stress in a company’s process.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Spacex will succeed in the long run for sure.
        I you know why????

        Because they have a good PLAN!!!

        Time for NASA to make a PLAN to do more good cots plans to support guys like these and become the old NACA like NASA was years ago!

  4. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    Godspeed to the Dragon and Space X!!!
    I hope it is successful, but it is a test flight.
    Interesting that the Washington Post article does not highlight just how little this flight has cost NASA in comparison to the exorbitant costs of Constellation, Orion and SLS over nearly the same timeframe, and with almost nothing to show for it.

  5. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    I agree. This is still an early launch and the likelihood of failure is significant. But as long as the problem can be understood and the cause corrected in the design, a single failure should not affect the program as a whole.

  6. CadetOne says:
    0
    0

    Elon tweeted the other day “Pucker factor increasing…”

    No matter how many test firings they’ve had, no matter how many simulations they’ve run, no matter how many calculations they’ve made, there is nothing as real as an actual launch. There are some things you can only learn by actually flying. I wish them good fortune!

  7. James Smith says:
    0
    0

    I personally think many make this out to be something bigger than it actually is.  In the world of aerospace did Boeing h 

  8. Michael Mahar says:
    0
    0

    It’s really too bad that so much is riding on this launch.  The Post article points out that the whole commercial launch strategy could be in jeopardy if this fails.  This is nuts.  Consider an analogy.

    You own an American football team and your first round draft pick throws an interception and loses the Super Boll.  The pundits jump all over you for your offensive strategy being wrong.  In the case of commercial access to space, however, the pundits would question not that you got the wrong quarterback but that you have a quarterback at all.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Michael,

      Succeed or fail, I personally don’t think it will change too many people’s minds about commercial access to space.  I have the feeling that most people (who have any idea about what’s going on) have already made up their minds long ago and will find excuses and explanations for whatever happens.  Consider that one of SpaceX’s competitors in this “commercial space race” has already dumped more than one payload into the ocean, a significant failure, yet they’re still in the game.  This launch will make people crow a little louder for a day or two, but I don’t think it will change anybody’s mind or significantly affect the COTS Program, no matter which way it goes.  Only a major disaster, say loss of life, will affect SpaceX’s leading position in the COTS Program.

      For what it’s worth, I think Congress and NASA safety people are the only real threats to SpaceX or COTS, the only parties actually working against them, which, if true, is a sad state of affairs.  Representatives of “new” and “old” space companies alike have been basically positive towards COTS and one another.  It’s only those entities who seem to think that they’re going to lose “power” under the commercial scheme who are being petty.  At least, that’s how I see things.

      Steve

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        Congress and NASA safety people are the only real threats to SpaceX or COTS

        With Congress its all about the nature of political embarrassment – which can be fatal to a Congressman.

        With NASA its a very mixed bag – NASA is not just one thing/group. To succeed here, you need to be good at negotiating though double talk and group think. Never underestimate the presence/effect of well-wishers (or the opposite).

        a sad state of affairs
        Yes. Some don’t want America to succeed, except by own narrow minded way. Or not.

        Representatives of “new” and “old” space companies alike have been basically positive towards COTS and one another.
        No surprise. Because its just a means to an end. They think they can cut a deal with who/what works for more anyways.

        It’s only those entities who seem to think that they’re going to lose “power” under the commercial scheme who are being petty.
        When you divvy up pork in DC, you’re basically attempting to predicate a very specific future – this is “power”. If it doesn’t work out that way, … it wasn’t “power”.

        When the “rules change”, they don’t have a “track record” to divine the future – perhaps the rules are still changing more or changing back? So they double down on the past “winners and losers”(!) and blame the newbies for screwing up the game. “SpaceX you’re making me spend money on ATK/PWR/Boeing because you’re teasing me with something new I can’t factor in!”

        At least, that’s how I see things.
        20/20.

        Add:
        Steve, you are always thoughtful / insightful. I hope my efforts to answer you encourage you in our shared pursuit of better HSF.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          Thank you, Mr. C.

          I appreciate you sharing what you know and what you’ve seen.  I’m definitely along for the whole ride.  I promised my grandson that we’d be on our way out into the solar system within his lifetime.

          Steve

  9. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Sad but true, it’s clear that we’ve lost The Washington Post as a well written and trustworthy news source.

    After reading this editorial…

    Phasing out nuclear

    …I find it hard to trust anything in The WP as being unbiased.

    As for the article linked above (read it), not only is it poorly researched, they seem to go out of their way to make it sound like ‘amateur hour’ on the launch pad.

    tinker

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Tinker,

      I dismissed the WP long ago as a news source.  I’m convinced that their writers are required to spread the opinions of their bosses, and not to let the facts get in their way.  They are totally biased, in my opinion.

      Steve

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        All news sources seem to be going that way. 🙁 Tune into the news source that agrees with you CLICK

  10. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    I say even if worst happens (rocket blows up on pad) I say NASA give them some bucks and continue. In early days 1950s rockets blew up all the time but we didn’t stop. NASA help a commercial company build a rocket? We’ve been doing that since the early days (there is no US Govt Rocket Factory). One thing SpaceX has is actual hardware that can succeed or fail (CGI and PPT do neither). And talk to 20-somethings, at least the ones I talked to are totally excited about SpaceX and want to work for them (I don’t seem to pick up that kind of enthusiasm from them about working for NASA/Boeing/Lockmart).

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      “I say even if worst happens (rocket blows up on pad)”

      That’s not the worst. The worst is if Dragon crashes into ISS with enough force to open it up and kill everyone aboard. Or activates lateral thrusters while hard-docked, spinning the whole station, causing it to break up, killing everyone on board. Or variations on that theme.

  11. Yohan Ayhan says:
    0
    0

    Please correct me but I thought they already had a dragon capsule launched into space and came back. Why is the second flight taking so long. Are we saying the first flight has many problems that needed to be fixed and was not told to us.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Yohan,

      The first flight was basically a launch and a dragon recovery mission, and little more (a great deal more at the detailed level, of course).  This time, they have to approach ISS and then do an assortment of trajectory changes and stop/starts to prove that they have absolute control over the Dragon and can make it abort, if necessary, instead of approaching close enough to be captured for berthing.  If it gets through all of that, then it can get permission for berthing.  To put things into perspective, what SpaceX is trying to do on their second COTS flight is comparable to what NASA accomplished with the combined Gemini 6 and 7 missions, except that all maneuvering control is being done by programming/remote control, instead of by human pilots which I would consider to be much less forgiving than having an on-board human pilot in control.

      Note: If there’s still any confusion out there: berthing in not docking.  When a spacecraft docks, it approaches and connects to the station under its own control.  When a spacecraft berths, it flies in close and stops pointing 90 degrees away from the station port (as a failsafe against a run-away spacecraft ramming the station), at which point an arm that’s part of the station grabs the spacecraft, rotates it 90 degrees to line up with the station port and then brings the two together.  This is something that the Russians came up with years before ISS to eliminate the ramming threat.

      Steve