SpaceX Delays Launch of Dragon
Keith’s note: According to SpaceX; “May 7th launch appears unlikely. We are continuing to work through the software assurance process with NASA. We will issue a statement as soon as a new launch target is set.”
Keith’s note: According to SpaceX; “May 7th launch appears unlikely. We are continuing to work through the software assurance process with NASA. We will issue a statement as soon as a new launch target is set.”
Sounds all too familiar for a big software project. No point in shipping until everything meets the quality bar.
Round, and around, and around she goes … When she launches, nobody knows.
I don‘t think this changes anything that any of us said in the previous thread.
Steve
Steve
Do you think NASA is being over causous? Or is this right on???
Is this NASA safety people just being extreme as you suggested in the other thread??
I’ll blame the Russians for 500.
Having it work is worth a delay. It’s impossible to tell, at this distance, whether they are fixing real problems or addressing “what if?” scenarios that are unlikely to manifest in the real world, but several very high profile missions have failed due to software glitches (first launch of Ariane V, for example), so, given the number of eyes watching this one, it’s worth it to take the extra time to be sure.
Thanks
I agree, it’s impossible for us to tell without more information if this delay is really justified. If there is some real risk, it’s worth it.
However, at some point being over-paranoid is counterproductive. If you have lots of people spending time on things that are ridiculously unlikely to be problems, they have less time to notice other potential problems. If people get over-worked and tired or frustrated by a drawn-out process, they’re not at their peak and may be more likely to miss things right before the actual launch or during the mission.
I hope it’s SpaceX that wants to do this delay and that they’re not being delayed by over-zealous NASA people.
It is justified.
There is significant risk with the first attempt at rendezvous, but if unforeseen failure modes do exist it is unlikely all these reviews will find them. It’s hard to look at code and see what’s not there. I personally would have been happier with the originally planned additional test flight.
DTARS,
Without the facts I can only guess, but my guess is that this was a SpaceX decision, and at this point the NASA people are trying to support them, rather than joggle their elbow while breathing down their neck. I agree with what Geoff and Chris have said below. At this point, NASA and SpaceX both have a lot on the line — not in terms of major concerns about the hardware, or even the software, but rather the damaging comments of the ignorant media. It’s an inescapable fact that those who understand an issue the least can do it the most damage. In his Dune books Frank Herbert states this idea as “he who can destroy a thing controls it.” To me this means we can never ignore the media (or Congress).
In short, Geoffrey has it nailed: “Having it work is worth a delay.” I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with that.
Steve
It sounds like SpaceX is requesting the delay, not NASA. I suspect NASA is requesting testing and SpaceX is finding problems as a result of the testing.
I saw one quote from Musk “SpaceX founder Elon Musk said the delays are a result of the software
used to control Dragon being too sensitive. “Essentially Dragon got
scared and ran away, when it shouldn’t have,” Musk said.”
Sounds like the software that automatically causes the Dragon to back away when there’s a problem is having problems. One report labels the delay as indefinite which is probably better than continually setting a date before testing is complete.
Better safe than sorry. After all, this is the system with the best short-term chance of getting Americans back into LEO from US bases. I won’t begrudge them a few days, or bad-mouth them for taking pains.
Important to remember that not only is Elon betting the company, but this flight is too important to the advent of commercial space as a whole for them to play fast and loose with issues they can control.
No. He’s not betting the company. Its a test launch.
Why its such a big deal … why it draws attention.
Its the possible beginning of a new era. Don’t want to screw it up.
Many want to see … what comes next … after Shuttle.
Few days try like 6 months and counting
The ISS window is pretty narrow. Like 5-10 minutes, right?. Makes it extra hard to bring a new system with little history online. It may take a while to iron those kinks out.
For Dragon, ISS launch window is instantaneous
That’s why they have “built-in holds”.
How sad, but not as sad as it launching North Korea style. I’m very eager to see it fly. Can’t wait.
Steve
Since I’m never sure if a post/question gets lost in a disqus net. Thought I’d leave this NASA goes boldly question here.
5/1/12 NACA Steve
You have said that NASA should do R and D
Others here have said that NASA should do NACA type support for the new Space providers.
Could you help me to understand what that means by making a list of programs or tasks that NASA / NACA should do to support the provider sector to settle and explore Space in the near future.
I’m playing what if here.
You know what if we could get NASA to play their proper rule.
What would the projects be. What NASA jobs would that create. What jobs would have to go.
Seems to me that if we were to try to persuade NASA to change, that painting a picture of that new NASA/NACA role with respect to Spaceflight would help.
Humor me should you have the time.
George
Though you did not ask me, here is my partial incomplete answer: NASA should pursue actions that extend our technology. Examples are the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission using new propulsion (which was cancelled) or serious advances in airline travel. Long range programs should be followed through with and international cooperation should be insisted upon.
While not excusing presidents or the congress, Keith has correctly pointed out that NASA itself deserves some blame for the lack of vision or an enthusiastic advocate. I am tired of the “We won’t do anything in the next few years, but boy do we have an exciting program 30 years out!” I just graduated 10th grade when we landed on the moon. I will soon be 60 and our species has not been beyond low earth orbit since 1973. I want to have some hope for the future even if I do not live to see it.
Any of my questions are meant for anybody.
The cots NASA Spacex NACA like relationship fills me with lots of hope. I just love when Paul has repeatedly told someone they don’t get paid till they complete the set milestones. 🙂
First, I have met many of the administrators and HQ personnel over the years, and worked with the mid level management on/off for decades, the space scientists, lawyers, those that “interface” to Congress, aeronautical engineers (including ones that knew about the NACA to NASA transition), the flight systems technicians, machinists (30 years back), and flight directors.
They really want NASA to play its proper role. They are the most vexed on the planet when it doesn’t. Which is far too often.
Expectations for NACA were very low – results far exceeded them. As a result, aircraft manufacturers, government agencies, military, and “others” … found NACA a requirement not an obstacle. Also, its field of action … was very constrained. And its budgets weren’t high, because it was consultative in nature. Not building “weapons systems” – basically thats what aerospace engineering is.
Expectations for NASA were / are very high. Extremely so given budget and scope mismatch (origins of misunderstanding that NASA means everything space to America). A history of great successes (hard to calibrate against any earthly scale) and great failures. Like NACA, many agencies/companies depend on it. But part of its legacy is that it got its hands dirty by necessity to obtain those successes for national security reasons at a time the technology was unproven and the program/schedule risks were extreme. It has a mixed history with damn near everything on the planet in one way or another as a result. It was shrunk down after its great successes, and it can’t cope with all the midlife crisises this has brought on.
The benefit of NASA doing commercial space is primarily that it gets to function in a reduced role – that of consultant to the effort, of “gatekeeper” / “referee” in the process of a mission, and in being a customer of said service. That means it can relearn its own mission apart from the distractions that it thought was its mission. This is how it gets the clarity that it desperately needs.
Those that oppose “commercial space” do so because they fear this process results in tremendous loss, and that the loss isn’t worth the clarity.
Some of us believe that its worth the risk to gain the clarity, and that selectively parts of the legacy come back afterwards, arranged quite differently and in a more enduring and dynamic manner. But we can’t prove any of this, for obvious reasons.
Made worse by political elements that use this for gain. Along with public neglect/misunderstanding that has grown because NASA’s complicated mission further complicated by legacy.
Hmm what could NASA do to help New Space other than build an HLV in an inflexible to COTS architecture? ……
The delay is music to ears to many, but not in the way you may imagine…..
Recalll the NASAWatch article on “NASA Studies Show Cheaper Alternatives to SLS: http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
First recall that ESAS excluded AR&D events since it was deemed to
risky, and all events more than 3 were excluded from further study. IOW: Smaller LVs need not apply.
Now follow the links to the NASA .pdf, and head to the *last* page entitled “Advantages of Propellant Depot over Transfer Stages”
++ Most expensive hardware/capability can be located on the depot to be re-used over and over again rather than expended every flight
++ The expendable CPS and delivery tankers can be made as dumb/cheap as possible
++ Mass of the CPS that has to be pushed through thousands of m/s delta-v can be reduced
++ All of the important and costly avionic/software/IVHM can be on the depot
++ The prox-ops and rendezvous and docking systems can be on the depot, rather than the CPS
++ ……..
So NASA could build or procure a Zero Boiloff LEO Depot to be filled by numerous LV providers or fuel others wanting to travel BEO with high ISP prop and do all the risky AR&D and not throw away lots of hardware each flight.
SpaceX: Take your time! Once demonstrated, would you consider selling the AR&D equipment to a depot provider so you the tankers do not have to carry it with them each flight? 😉
You are hired
Inner Solar System Railroad Inc.
I remember back in the seventies that one of the original missions of the Space Station (then called the “Space Operations Center” to emphasize that it wasn’t for research) was refueling and servicing vehicles going to higher orbits, i.e. a fuel depot.
I wonder if something showed up in the data from their test fire the other day?
(Side note: the freedom to delay when something looks weird is why I like a target other than Mars for our focus. The Mars windows shuts and you have to wait two years)
(Side note 2: SolarCity (Musk is chairman of the board) has filed for an IPO. I look forward to more cash in Musk’s pockets just in case SpaceX needs some more runway)
Glad I didn’t win the NASA contest to go see the launch on April 30th…I see Rocketdyne is up for sale for a mere $3B, guess SpaceX will put some others out of business if they, the old guard, can’t control costs and compete.
This is the real SpaceX revolution, cost control.
Cost control hu you have not seen the true cost yet, thats part of the problem behind schedule and over budget
These delays are to be expected. My primary comment is that it’s things like this that make previous claims of crewed flight in 3 years unrealistic, especially for a new comer like SpaceX.
Given continued support by Musk and limiting any stupid mistakes they might make, I think they’ll be successful providing crewed access to space. I just think it will be 2017 to 2020 before they do. And that’s assuming they still receive funding from NASA. We should plan accordingly and not base decisions solely on PR hype.
Maybe three years is unrealistic, but I would guess not by much. In fact I am pretty sure that Musk considers this upcoming test flight as the second test of his manned capsule, with twelve more test flights to follow. He didn’t have to recover Dragon on COTS-1 but he did, it didn’t have to be a precision landing, but it was. He didn’t have to shoot the second stage up to 6,800 miles after it released Dragon, but he did. He’s always thinking several steps ahead. If Musk has his way I’ll bet he will try and fly ECS and maybe even SuperDracos on at least one of the cargo flights.
Steve, I agree with you. If we look at the complete history of American HSF we see an unmistakable trend. In the beginning, the Vanguards blew up on and over the pad, over and over again. Since then, each program built on what came before and now things move in bigger steps and with fewer major setbacks. Even as early as Project Mercury there was pressure (from the astronauts) to move faster, stop repeating tests and mission, just to be sure. So, considering how many decades HSF has been muddling along now, it seems reasonable to me that things will progress faster than in the good old Apollo days. Of course, I’ll temper that opinion by repeating what many of us have written lately — tests are tests, and things don’t usually go perfect during tests; that’s how we learn. Steve
Aim for 3 years, make it in 5. I consider that pretty good, when the trend is to aim for 7 years and make it in NEVER
Being a newcomer is not a disadvantage. None of the programs have people who worked on a new manned spacecraft. Nor does NASA.
The main advantage of the legacy companies is that they have processes and procedures in place covering all facets of hi-rel production and testing that have been developed over many years.
Some might complain that that’s why SpaceX can do it cheaper. It can also lead to failures that had already occurred and corrected at these legacy companies. For instance, if this software testing did uncover a bug in their software, would this testing normally have been performed by a legacy company?
John,
I would say that it’s not a matter of legacy vs. new companies and/or procedures. It all comes down to the software and QA teams on a given job. That’s just my experience.
Steve
Steve,
My experience is that for hi-rel work, to have uniform repeatable quality, you need to have standards and procedures to guide workers. You might have a leader with experience that makes decisions based on his experience, but that person can’t be everywhere at once and either gets overworked or things get overlooked when the workload (such as higher flight rate) increases.
I’m holding onto my Causeway Pass, hoping it will coincide with a Jun 2~6 date I’ll be in Orlando
SpaceX had an unanticipated software issue during the hotfire, causing a premature abort, and they would have missed the instantaneous launch window had they been doing that for real. One more hard-won experiential data point on the learning curve and it’s probably sent them looking for more bugs to quash on the ground and up in the virtual sky . If you’ve read the mission profile you see that NASA is making Dragon perform like a circus poodle, running all manner of ramps and leaping thru all kinds of hoops ( i . e orbital approach and abort maneuvers ) before they’ll let Dragon come in to actually berth . It really is an extraordinarily demanding flight plan to prove Dragon is flexible enough to get out of trouble and/or maintain supreme precision in the vicinity of the station. The SpaceX controllers, the Johnson Space Center mission managers, and even the astronauts on ISS all need to be able to grab the yoke and steer Dragon if need be. I’m sure it’s the bureaucrats at Houston who are making the most fuss, but like it or not that is their job : Astro-Nanny.
I’d rather see SpaceX take more time and be cautious of it’s own accord , even if NASA is being fussy. I just hope the next 25 lb. wheel of cheese destined for the Cupola observation lounge on ISS doesn’t rot in the Florida sun while waiting to loft…
Regarding all of the intricate tests, it all seems very familiar to anyone who remembers following the first ATV flight. Before the docking there were five days of demonstration maneuvers, abort tests and a lot of interaction with the ISS crew, including having them control ATV at various times.
For some reason there were relatively few tests during the first HTV flight. Perhaps that was because HTV only maneuvered within 30 ft. of ISS before being grappled. But so will Dragon, yet it will be required to run through a suite of demonstration tests similar to ATV. Not that I think that’s a bad idea, it’s not only a good safety test but it’s also good practice for all of the teams involved who will be doing this a dozen more times over the next few years. Even better for SpaceX is that all of these different tests will give them a whole bunch of additional data that they can later analyze about the maneuvering capabilities of Dragon.
That’s not true re: an unanticipated software issue, during the press conference after the FRR Elon Musk clearly stated they had issues with the software initiating aborts even though things were within the limits. This delay shouldn’t really come as a surprise either- at that same press conference they admitted they actually done combined software and hardware integration tests which is something that would be, ya know, useful before you tried to launch things.
This is getting fishy ….
From Wherner to Elon….USA reinvents rocketry…..
*yawn* Wake me when someone can tell us the reasons for the delay.
It seems highly likely that Spacex will survive these teething pains and transform the way we travel to and from Earth orbit.
So far as I can tell, so far no actual changes have been required in the software. Even if there are changes, we probably won’t get enough information to know if they were really needed. NASA wants to approve it but may have nobody left that understands it, so the contractor has to provide viewgraphs that make NASA think they understand it.
I get a kick out of people that complain about Elon Musk boasting about having dragon rider ready in three years.
In high school I was a miler and two miler and as a sophomore ran a ten minute 2 mile. After years of training I didnt get much faster. In my señor year for the county meet my coach and I set a goal. The goal was to run a 9.36 that meant I had to run each quarter mile at just 72 second pace. So I trained at that pace over and over increasing the distance with each practice, but I could only hold that pace for about a mile and three quarters before the big race.
On race day the coach reminds me, don’t go out to fast.
The gun goes off! I try to run my pace. At the quarter mile I am dead last and I hear one of the time keepers say this guy is out of it, as another yells 67 seconds and I panic thinking dam, I’m way to fast! After that I get on pace and instead of having to try to pass anyone I just step out into the second lane as they appear to be running backwards. At the mile and half mark without ever applying any extra effort to pass anyone, to my surprise, I find myself in third place, tucked in right behind the leaders.
Well I didn’t win the big race cause the two leaders kicked a 55 second last quarter but I did run a 9.41, which was 12 seconds better than my previous best.
While attempting to create the safest human launch system ever built, Elon is trying to have humans on dragon in three years. Maybe he gets some breaks and does it faster. Maybe it will take 4 or 5 years.
Well guess what. If he paces himself for 5 years he will have no chance at being ready in 3.
The guys going for it!!!
Why not stop being critical and negative and just enjoy watching the race!!
Elon is setting an aggressive pace while, compared to him the primes still appear to be running backwards.
Using Mr. C’s robots first, humans next model, already he’s flying a human capable design, making safety upgrades a breeze.
Sure looks like a great race plan to this old runner.
It’s the best space race I have seen since the race to the moon!
Image where we would be now if Elon had not decided to run?
Playing shuffle board with congress and the primes in some expensive old folks home, being served pork every night, being told like it or lump it, with a day out on the town, now and then, to visit a few museums. 🙁
Go Elon!!!!! Gooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Image where we would be now if Elon had not decided to run?“Beautiful comment, George! It puts things right into proper perspective.Steve
DTARS:
Bravo! I’m with ya on that! ‘That’ being I’m happy to watch Spacex go for it… at their own pace. They may have to go it on their own anyway if the lawmakers have their way:
“House pares NASA’s 2013 spending back to 1959 levels…”
Also, look at things this way. Spacex has already started it’s Dragon Rider program. Every flight of cargo Dragon will bring incremental improvements that will directly effect crew Dragon design. Over the next dozen flights Spacex can test life support, docking systems (as apposed to berthing) and even SuperDraco powered aborts and landings. All this can be done before Orion or Boeing’s capsule have their first flights.
Can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
tinker
🙂
not easy days here in the real world for now. You two please comment on my miles o Brian Changing NASA back to NACA and see if you can improve on it and maybe get somebody to make some noise.
HeyHey zzz
Well in planning our nation’s spaceflight capabilities, it’s usually good to have a good estimate of when a company will actually be capable of providing a service. If a company such as SpaceX promises a certain date and you plan on that date and then they’re not ready then, you waste a lot of money waiting. And if they are the sole source, then you’re stuck.
You seem to believe that those of us that want some realism in a company’s promise means that we don’t want him competing or trying to provide any launch capability. They are two completely different issues.
Believing everything they say and complaining about those that point out the unrealistic claims is a bit like believing cost estimates for the Mars Science Lander and criticizing those that point out how unrealistic they are based on previous overruns. Do you believe that those that would criticize a low ball bid on MSL do not want any flights to Mars?
Failed!!! Launched postponed indefinitely.
Time to give up and switch to Orbital Sciences launch of Antares coming in August! Go Cygnus!!!
May 16 with a back up a few days later doesn’t seem like summer to me.
Actually the latest is May 19 with backup May 22.
Folks:
Rumors of Spacex’s indefinite launch delay have been greatly exaggerated ;).
From The ‘Bee:
NASA Issues Statement On New SpaceX Launch Date
tinker
when falcon whatever number can pick a launch date and go that day like clockwork then they will become a serious player. right now their claims of being competitive with Atlas or even Delta IV are ludicrous. and no, elon musk is not in the category of Von Braun since Musk is not even remotely in that category of technical competence. he’s a very good business guy so that helps but the SpaceX/trw turkey burner injector design has limits in terms of ultimate thrust and combustion efficiency. they will have to embrace higher complexity higher efficiency designs to go beyond where they currently are and they will have an enormous challenge competing with Rocketdyne and Aerojet in this arena…
RF:
I beg to differ. While Von Braun had the complete backing of two powerful nations, Germany when Von Braun was building weapons with slave labor and the USA for the Moon Program, Elon Musk started from scratch and did way more with so much less then Von Braun could have dreamed. I agree with you that Elon Musk is no Von Braun… but for entirely different reasons.
tinker
I would argue that Von Braun is no Elon Musk either. All people are very different. As I argued before seems a key ingredient to doing great things is to be very determined.
Is Elon really a rocket scientist?? I don’t know what ever they both had/have I’m glad they do.
Lol doesn’t take a Rocket Scientistt if you can hire 1700 of them, clear the crap out of the way get them to create a good plan and motivate them to work their Asses off and go make history lol.
Old construction Super lol
I built lots of buildings lol
No never built one building lol my crews did. Lol
uh, elon musk hired some technical people from the primes and good for him. and he hired some business people to run the business and not ex NASA clowns so even better for him. but no, he’s not even remotely in Von Brauns class as far as technical competence. and by the way the longer he sticks with the TRW spud injector concept in hopes of pumping it up to a large thrust engine the longer he proves he’s not even remotely in the technical class of any 3 or 4 dozen guys in the old launch biz. he will also find soon that the dot com model of working twenty somethings to death as a business model has risks in our business. and they can be much more serious than the servers went down for an afternoon…
TRW spud ejector concept!
The more musk tries make a large thrust engine?????
What do you mean by large thrust? More efficient or bigger merlin2?
Rockofitters
Please explain why this is so and what is better and if more efficient rocket engines can be as cost effective. I have been lead to believe here that the more efficient/power rocket engines are just get too expensive. At this time to be cost competitive.
Want to understand your comment.
Thanks
Not a rocket scientist
More efficient engines show their cost savings at the vehicle level. yes it’s true that you can develop Musks architecture cheaply. because its open cycle and the injector is an inherently low performer, it’s very dumb and cheap to make. and that’s fine if you can produce a ton of them cheaply and find enough customers to buy rides to whatever altitude you can reliably take them to. right now Atlas V uses a two barrel 3/4 million pound liquid engine. Musk claims he’ll beat that with a 27 engine configuration because those 27 dogs are cheaper than Atlas. good luck, maybe, we’ll see. but that’s not a solution if you want to go to 1 mlbf thrust. for that you must go way way up in combustion efficiency. and to do that he’ll absolutely need to change the architecture. and then he’ll be far far out of his league and his business model. I realize that he thinks he can boost the combustion efficiency of a spud above 90% and then just make it bigger to get to 3/4 – 1 mlbf but he is wrong. and it’s another reason why you can’t just substitute arrogance and political connections for actual technical knowledge.
Man, I’ve been reading similar garbage about SpaceX for longer than I can remember. Seems like nothing rouses the old guard from their slumber like success.
If the space program was run by such people, we’d be sitting around, wasting billions on Congressional pork, with no native launch capability and having to beg the Russians for a ride.
Oh, wait.
It sounds like you’re a mixture of angry and afraid. You are right to be afraid. Things are changing, and you have a choice: adapt, or be left behind.
no junior i’m not afraid. and i’m not angry. I’m stating facts. it’s funny how the spacex cheerleaders and elon musk jock sniffers get angry when anybody points out physics. good luck though Adork I know you firmly believe that everything other than spaceX is astro pork but don’t lose sight of the fact that musk is trying and succeeding in buddying up to Obama which is pretty clearly pork advantage. so it’s not just a matter of he’s the henry ford of space. and we’ll see how arrogant all you amateur observers are the day they kill somebody…