Space-X DRAGON (manned/unmanned) capsule.

This thread is really more appropriate to www.nasaspaceflight.com There you'll find a lot more people interested in discussing it, and a lot more knowledgeable people. You'll also quickly discover that every possible argument on every possible side has been made over and over again, by smart people and dumb people. If you like arguing about this stuff, that's the place to take it. If you don't like arguing about this stuff, then best to just let it drop. But it's not exactly on-topic for this forum.
 
The company that Orbital "took-over-from" was Rocketplane Global, which had been absorbed by Kistler Aerospace. It wasn't really a surprise though since NASA had tried an "end-run" single-source contract for "data-collection" on RLV operations with Kistler on the K-1 TSTO vehicle a few years earlier. Basically NASA was going to "pay" for Kistler to finish the K-1 and then pay them again to fly data collectors on a few flights. When that fell through it was pretty clear that one way or another someone in NASA wanted to get the K-1 flying. So when COTS came along they were a shoe-in.

Then it turned out that the K-1 being "80%" completed turned out to NOT be the actual case, (from what I understand the vehicle subassemblies MIGHT be "80%" intergrated but the overall vehicle is/was barely started) and Kistler couldn't raise the "private-investment" funds needed to match the COTS award per the COTS funding regulations and they lost the COTS contract.

While the concept of the K-1 RLV seems sound for some reason it has become a "money-sink" non-project that seems to go nowhere no matter how often they manage to get funding.

On COTS itself the overall "goal" of the COTS program was and is (politically and practically) to NOT fund "the-usual-suspects" such as Boeing and LockMart, but to give the smaller and or "newer" space companies a chance at some government funding. Therefor the regulations for funding pretty much preclude using exisisting capability even though the actual terms used is "Commercial-Off-The-Shelf" ;)
So any proposal that used an EELV, (such as Arctus) was prohibited from competing.
"Politically" it also has to pretty much be a company with a majority of its operations within the United States which is why using the European ATV isn't allowed even on an EELV. (And I recall that the ORIGINAL proposal for the system actually was using Russian boosters)

Which, by the way is where things get even 'sticker' than normal politics. Remember I mentioned the Taurus-II design? It's not actually "legal" under NASA regulations either. (Note: Not COTS regs, NASA regs) It's because the "final" stage is a solid rocket, which means it can't be used to deliver 'cargo' to any NASA sponsored manned platform unless it adds ANOTHER maneuvering stage capable of "variable propulsion and delta-V adjustments" which in other words means liquid and/or mono-propellant.
Strangely enough IF the Taurus-II was set up with solids as the launch stages and a liquid "on-orbit" stage it would be "legal' for COTS as long as it didn't use any "surplus" missile motors.
(The issues with the Orbital vehicles which also applies to vehicles like Conestoga is that they use military motors which by COTS regulation has to be considered as included in the COTS award monies. So the more 'government' equipment you use the less money you get from the government and the more money you have to "raise" from outside sources.)

No COTS was (and is) never about "cheap-quick" access to space though that is what it says verbatim in strict technical terms. The language is intended to play to and tap into the public support of such things as the "X-Prize" contest by giving government money to companies that are NOT part of the "standard" aerospace community. This is SUPPOSED to open opportunities for non-conventional and out-of-the-box thinking and concepts. Of course the REALITY it quite different as it will always be when political motivation is included.
'nough said on that...

Lastly let me clarify something, a VERY common mistake that Ryan Crierie brings up:
>Great! SpaceX has managed to.......get to the point where Orbital's been at for the last decade
>-- in fact their entire business model is centered around exploiting the loophole in COTS
>contracting that shuts out proven and already in production launch vehicles.

There is a large community of thinking that somehow assumes that the above is "true" and is in fact the ONLY reason that Space-X is getting any business at all. That without COTS Space-X would fold up and blow away. This would of course "seem" to be proven out since as noted the Falcon-1 flight record is less than 50% successful, and this is often used to 'support' the misconception.

Elon Musk has noted in response to this assumption that in fact Space-X does not NEED the COTS program to compete and this is born out by the fact that the Falcon-1 is ineligible for COTS funding (and in fact Space-X would be disqualified AND fined under COTS regulations if ANY COTS monies were spent on any aspect of Falcon-1 production) yet still has a very large list of scheduled flights that were IN-PLACE prior to COTS even being announced. The Falcon-9 is being used for the COTS program but was IN-DEVELOPMENT prior to COTS due to customer feedback and payload demands. Space-X is in no way 'dependent' on COTS restrictions as they have consistently (and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future according to Musk) "matched" all government funding from COTS (as required by regulations) with internal, non-solicited monies and without the company opening up public stock purchases.

In other words: COTS has NO effect on the Space-X business plan and customers are lining up to buy launches on both the Falcon-1 and the Falcon-9 NOT because those customers have no other choice, nor because COTS allows Space-X to somehow 'undercut' other launch services but because they believe that launching with Space-X gives them some sort of 'advantage' over "proven-and-in-production" launch vehicles!

Space-X has a better business plan, less expensive launch costs, better customer service, is more applicable to market needs, or whatever that meets customer needs BETTER than "proven-and-in-production" launch service providers as is evidenced by their list of scheduled and waiting customers. They are obviously doing SOMETHING different than the other launch services providers even if they ARE "over-hyped" since they continue to GAIN customers.

And you are of course correct Blackstar in that this probably isn't the place for this discussion and if the moderator feels the need to remove this I can handle that. I just needed to get that off my chest :)
(And yes, this "discussion" is still going strong on NSF where I'm not even considered a "fan" of Space-X :) )

Randy
 
Hopefully on a "closer-to-topic" note:
During the run-up to the development and first flight of the Falcon-1 I seem to recall seeing a notional concept for a "Falcon-1 Heavy" similar to the Falcon-9 heavy configuration. Does anyone else recall such and maybe have something to back up my memory?

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
1. Which, by the way is where things get even 'sticker' than normal politics. Remember I mentioned the Taurus-II design? It's not actually "legal" under NASA regulations either. (Note: Not COTS regs, NASA regs) It's because the "final" stage is a solid rocket, which means it can't be used to deliver 'cargo' to any NASA sponsored manned platform unless it adds ANOTHER maneuvering stage capable of "variable propulsion and delta-V adjustments" which in other words means liquid and/or mono-propellant.
Strangely enough IF the Taurus-II was set up with solids as the launch stages and a liquid "on-orbit" stage it would be "legal' for COTS as long as it didn't use any "surplus" missile motors.

(The issues with the Orbital vehicles which also applies to vehicles like Conestoga is that they use military motors which by COTS regulation has to be considered as included in the COTS award monies. So the more 'government' equipment you use the less money you get from the government and the more money you have to "raise" from outside sources.)

2. Space-X has a better business plan, less expensive launch costs, better customer service, is more applicable to market needs, or whatever that meets customer needs BETTER

1. Huh? The propellants for the LV has no bearing on whether the vehicle is usable for ISS resupply. Any vehicle is going to need a maneuvering spacecraft. Planetspace was going to be all solid.

2. None of those are proven.
 
RanulfC said:
HUGE DELETIONS

Elon Musk has noted in response to this assumption that in fact Space-X does not NEED the COTS program to compete and this is born out by the fact that the Falcon-1 is ineligible for COTS funding (and in fact Space-X would be disqualified AND fined under COTS regulations if ANY COTS monies were spent on any aspect of Falcon-1 production) yet still has a very large list of scheduled flights that were IN-PLACE prior to COTS even being announced.

Look, this really isn't appropriate to this board, which is devoted to "unbuilt projects and aviation technology" and not to commercial spaceflight. If you want to endlessly argue over SpaceX and COTS and various aspects of space policy, take it to an appropriate forum. I'm sure you'll find dozens of people willing to spend every waking hour discussing this on websites such as www.spacepolitics.com or www.nasaspaceflight.com Some of us read this forum precisely so we don't have to read the perpetual SpaceX/COTS/Ares 1 fanboy flamewars.

But as to your comment above, it's pretty hard to believe when you consider that over half of the money SpaceX has spent has been government dollars. Musk may have claimed that he never needed that money, but it apparently represents most of the money he has taken and spent.
 
blackstar said:
RanulfC said:
HUGE DELETIONS

Elon Musk has noted in response to this assumption that in fact Space-X does not NEED the COTS program to compete and this is born out by the fact that the Falcon-1 is ineligible for COTS funding (and in fact Space-X would be disqualified AND fined under COTS regulations if ANY COTS monies were spent on any aspect of Falcon-1 production) yet still has a very large list of scheduled flights that were IN-PLACE prior to COTS even being announced.

Look, this really isn't appropriate to this board, which is devoted to "un-built projects and aviation technology" and not to commercial spaceflight. If you want to endlessly argue over SpaceX and COTS and various aspects of space policy, take it to an appropriate forum. I'm sure you'll find dozens of people willing to spend every waking hour discussing this on websites such as www.spacepolitics.com or www.nasaspaceflight.com Some of us read this forum precisely so we don't have to read the perpetual SpaceX/COTS/Ares 1 fanboy flamewars.
My apologies :)
I tend to let some subjects "get-to-me" and I'll refrain from commenting.
(Though I DO sympathize as I've found the "view" more refreshing over here than the drek I have to wade through at the mentioned forums... No matter that I tend to contribute to the depth myself over there :) )

Which is one reason I am trying to change the 'subject' a bit :D
But as to your comment above, it's pretty hard to believe when you consider that over half of the money SpaceX has spent has been government dollars. Musk may have claimed that he never needed that money, but it apparently represents most of the money he has taken and spent.
He does claim that and "technically" any money spent on "improvements" towards the Falcon-9 CAN be applied, somewhat to the Falcon-1 NASA and OMB especially require quite meticulous tracking of the monies spent by the COTS folks...

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
(Though I DO sympathize as I've found the "view" more refreshing over here than the drek I have to wade through at the mentioned forums... No matter that I tend to contribute to the depth myself over there :) )

I am sympathetic. But one of the reasons why this forum is more sane on that subject than some other places is precisely because those people have not brought the flamewars here. I actually think that's a good thing.

nasaspaceflight.com is really the appropriate forum, and it is moderated, meaning that the discussion will not get really out of hand.
 
Back on-topic :eek:
SpaceX has updated their listed flight manifest:


Code:
Customer Target Date* Vehicle Launch Site
NASA COTS Demo 1 2010 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA COTS Demo 2 2011 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA COTS Demo 3 2011 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
Falcon 1e Inaugural Test Flight 2011 Falcon 1e Kwajalein
ORBCOMM - Multiple flights 2011-2014 Falcon 1e Kwajalein
MDA Corp. (Canada) 2011 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS Flt 1 2011 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS Flt 2 2011 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
DragonLab Mission 1 2012 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS Flt 3 2012 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS Flt 4 2012 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
CONAE (Argentina) 2012 Falcon 9 Vandenberg**
Spacecom (Israel) 2012 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral**
DragonLab Mission 2 2013 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS Flt 5 2013 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS Flt 6 2013 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS Flt 7 2013 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
CONAE (Argentina) 2013 Falcon 9 Vandenberg**
NSPO (Taiwan) 2013 Falcon 1e Kwajalein
Space Systems/Loral 2014 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral**
NASA Resupply to ISS Flt 8 2014 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS Flt 9 2014 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS Flt 10 2014 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
Astrium (Europe) 2014 Falcon 1e Kwajalein
Bigelow Aerospace 2014 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS Flt 11 2015 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS Flt 12 2015 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
Iridium 2015-2017 Falcon 9 Vandenberg

*Target date indicates hardware arrival at launch site
**Or Kwajalein, depending on range availability


http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

Randy
 
With all the discussions about future NASA plans and funding for an HLV, it's interesting to see that SpaceX gave a couple of presentations this week on their possible future launch vehicles:


Question is, what demand is there for an HLV in the next few years?!
 

Attachments

  • SpaceX launch family.JPG
    SpaceX launch family.JPG
    123 KB · Views: 138
The only customer is the government.

This is SpaceX's way of saying that if NASA starts development of an HLV, they want a piece of the pie. But their biggest problem right now is proving that they are more than a boutique operation. Can they launch more than one or two mid-sized rockets per year? Taking on development of a very large engine and a very large rocket is probably not realistic for a company with limited experience.

One thing that is interesting from those charts is the performance boost from switching to RP for the first stage. It really gives a lot better performance than H2/LOX. Anybody have a simple explanation as to why that is?
 
Umm "better" is hard to define here.

Basically one somewhat less obvious advantage is the greater thrust to weight in later portions of the flight (if both designs have similar takeoff T/W) leading to lower gravity losses. Though hydrogen stages often use solid rockets because of this (and because of other reasons). The kerosene rocket gets lighter faster.

Since pumps pump volume rather than weight, the hydrogen stages probably need larger engines (less thrust but larger pumps) even when they are lighter in weight.

Different stages optimize differently. Higher ISP is not always better. If you look at solar electric propulsion, there higher ISP is actually worse for many applications, as you get less thrust for the same power - fuel use is negligible anyway.
 
What a somber accomplishment nearly 50 years after Sheppard's first flight we are still designing and flying splash down capsules???????????? I see SpaceX and Dragon as a shinning example of what what not to do. It is an amazing attempt to spend vast sums of money only to set-back US aerospace tech by 50 years. If this is an example of the best "new space" can field then perhaps the US is much better off simply purchasing flights from the Russians. Seems existing Russian capsule designs are far advance to Dragon and can offer proven dry landing capability. It is my hope the Dragon remains as a concept only and never sees the light of day. I'll put my tax money on the Dream Chaser runway landing capable and reusable that is an example of a 21st century spaceship. Sad to see Dragon hogging up much of the funding from more enabling designs like Dream Chaser.
 
airrocket said:
Seems existing Russian capsule designs are far advance to Dragon and can offer proven dry landing capability.

Why do you say that?

What is the crew capacity of Dragon vs. Soyuz? What is the maximum size of the crew members for the two vehicles? What is the internal volume?
 
"return to point of return" Sadly Dragon is missing this key enabling technology required to usher in a paradigm shift in the way we go up down to LEO. Rutan and others have it. Musk selected to ignore it with Falcon/Dragon combo which represent a mere throw back to early sixties "space race, big booster/splash down capsule" knee jerk technology. Perhaps cheaper than what NASA Orion could produce but offering little in technology advancement towards true CATS. Dragon is a shocking example of what now defines the USA pork based space program. Stymied technology development merely going up and down endlessly to the ISS to support an the existance of an entrenched pork based program. Dragon is interesting as a concept in its own regard but hardly an enabling cost effective way to approach transportation to LEO and back. Interesting as a concept saddening as a reality.
 
airrocket said:
"return to point of return" Sadly Dragon is missing this key enabling technology required to usher in a paradigm shift in the way we go up down to LEO. Rutan and others have it.

Rutan does not have an orbital vehicle, nor does he seem to be working on one.

If you want cheap space launch, the secret is *old* technology, used effectively and cheaply, not *new* technology. An effective way to get there is to build something conservative like SpaceX approach, run the hell out of it and make incremental improvements. As the Falcon flies more and more, you learn the system, and learn what can be improved. What weight can be saved, what can be made more reliable, what recovery systems can be added. What starts as a throw-away launcher becomes a parachute/splashdown recoverable booster, becomes a parafoil/runway recoverable booster, becomes a fixed-wing recoverable booster becomes a DC-X/VTOL booster.

The approach that we've seen *fail* thousands of times over the past 50 years is to design your vehicle from the get-go to be reliant upon technologies and operations that have not been fully developed.
 
Orionblamblam said:
airrocket said:
"return to point of return" Sadly Dragon is missing this key enabling technology required to usher in a paradigm shift in the way we go up down to LEO. Rutan and others have it.

Rutan does not have an orbital vehicle, nor does he seem to be working on one.

I think airrocket mean Crew Transfer Vehicle" proposed by `t/Space and Scaled Composites
but that's only a Mock-up and subscale Drop-models
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cxv.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T/Space

[flash=200,200]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GsG-y7dFVE[/flash]

by the way, Could this be reused as "Space Ship Three" ?
 
Michel Van said:
I think airrocket mean Crew Transfer Vehicle" proposed by `t/Space and Scaled Composites
but that's only a Mock-up and subscale Drop-models

t/Space disappeared a few years ago.

I love their vehicle as an example of how goofy some of these ideas are. Picture the astronauts sitting inside that capsule. Which way are they facing during launch? Forward, toward the nose, right? Now what happens during an abort? They go from taking positive gees to immediately taking negative gees and then hanging in their harnesses as the vehicle descends via parachute. Does that make any sense at all?

Look at the names of the people associated with that project and ask yourself what they're up to now?
 
I love their vehicle as an example of how goofy some of these ideas are. Picture the astronauts sitting inside that capsule. Which way are they facing during launch? Forward, toward the nose, right? Now what happens during an abort? They go from taking positive gees to immediately taking negative gees and then hanging in their harnesses as the vehicle descends via parachute. Does that make any sense at all?

From the Astronautix page linked to above :-

"A problem with the use of a Discoverer-type capsule for crew re-entry had always been that the direction of G-forces during launch and re-entry were opposite. t/Space solved this through use of an innovative seat design - a type of suspended semi-rigid hammock - that could rotate 180 degrees within two seconds in order to keep the astronaut correctly oriented regardless of g-force direction. The prototypes were one tenth the mass of space shuttle seats and tested up to 13 G's."


cheers,
Robin.
 
blackstar said:
Now what happens during an abort?

Additionally... if this is to be used as an example of how to design a launch vehicle that can return to the launch site... what happens whe the carrier aircraft drops the rocket, the pilot of the rocket hits the "make rocket go NOW" button, and the engine burps? Can't exactly shut it down, fix the problem and try again in a few hours, as has been done with Falcon.

As to the crew orientation in the t/Space capsule... the seats were to be mounted on pivots, so that the proper orientation would be maintained for the current acceleration vector. That's not a feasible solution for something like the Gemini, Apollo or Soyuz capsules where space was a premium, but for a large, voluminous capsule like this was to be, it might be workable, if clumsy. Straight out of 1950's sci-fi.
 
robunos said:
"A problem with the use of a Discoverer-type capsule for crew re-entry had always been that the direction of G-forces during launch and re-entry were opposite. t/Space solved this through use of an innovative seat design - a type of suspended semi-rigid hammock - that could rotate 180 degrees within two seconds in order to keep the astronaut correctly oriented regardless of g-force direction. The prototypes were one tenth the mass of space shuttle seats and tested up to 13 G's."

Yeah... t/Space "solved" this, without ever building or testing anything. And how reasonable does it seem that during an abort, when all kinds of bad stuff could be happening, they're going to subject astronauts to high G's, rotate them, then subject them to high G's again? Sounds like you'd end up with a lot of astronauts landing with their heads facing in the wrong direction for their bodies.

I put t/Space in the bin with a lot of other paper rocket companies that generated press releases for a couple of years, never built or tested anything, and then just faded from view.
 
Building an HLV without a destination merely to support pork based infrastructure just boggles my mind. But it appears NASA and now perhaps even Musk SpaceX is headed down that road. If it leads to a HLV based manned mars mission in my life time I will certainly revel in the journey and accomplishment. However as the current anointed God of commercial space and the messiah of a proclaimed forthcoming CATS revolution I find what Musk SpaceX is doing as very bizarre and detached from the RLV CATS LEO concepts I have supported for the past forty years. I sense what Musk is doing as simply following fat track to the federal funded money trail wherever that might lead.
 
Orionblamblam said:
blackstar said:
Now what happens during an abort?

Additionally... if this is to be used as an example of how to design a launch vehicle that can return to the launch site... what happens whe the carrier aircraft drops the rocket, the pilot of the rocket hits the "make rocket go NOW" button, and the engine burps? Can't exactly shut it down, fix the problem and try again in a few hours, as has been done with Falcon.
The basic idea was that if you had a problem you abort, period. The pressure-fed design is supposed to be really cheap to manufacture and use so the ONLY important section is the capsule. Air-Drop aborts were supposed to actually be easier and 'safer' than ground-launch aborts for a number of factors that both T-Space and AirLaunch cite many times in their proposals.

As to the crew orientation in the t/Space capsule... the seats were to be mounted on pivots, so that the proper orientation would be maintained for the current acceleration vector. That's not a feasible solution for something like the Gemini, Apollo or Soyuz capsules where space was a premium, but for a large, voluminous capsule like this was to be, it might be workable, if clumsy. Straight out of 1950's sci-fi.
Blackstar wrote:
Yeah... t/Space "solved" this, without ever building or testing anything. And how reasonable does it seem that during an abort, when all kinds of bad stuff could be happening, they're going to subject astronauts to high G's, rotate them, then subject them to high G's again? Sounds like you'd end up with a lot of astronauts landing with their heads facing in the wrong direction for their bodies.
You know that T-Space and a University engineering class actually built and tested the seat assemblies right? Even simulated aborts and multi-g/multi-axis acceleration levels? That they tested and confirmed the lanyard and trapeze system? That they have in fact done advanced work on carrier aircraft so that they now can price modifications of a 747 to allow the carry of a NEW booster design that doesn't need a "custom" carrier aircraft and still can deliver the same payload to orbit as the original vehicle? (8-foot diameter design with a "three-barrel" TSTO design instead of the 13-foot diameter model)

While "T-Space" itself has pretty much gone-away the people who were working on the designs haven't stopped. Despite all the work done for AirLaunch they STILL prefer the T-Space launch system and as of the begining of this year they are STILL working on the program even so.

Scott pretty much hit the nail on the head, while a lot of folks would PREFER something like Dreamchaser as opposed to Dragon the Dragon is being built, tested and will be flown while the Dreamchaser remains JUST a dream and a power-point project.

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
SNIP

so that they now can price modifications of a 747 to allow the carry of a NEW booster design that doesn't need a "custom" carrier

SNIP

While "T-Space" itself has pretty much gone-away the people who were working on the designs haven't stopped. Despite all the work done for AirLaunch they STILL prefer the T-Space launch system and as of the begining of this year they are STILL working on the program even so.

So they're going to build and fly something soon? Even though the company is kaput and they have no money? That's pretty amazing. I love these companies that make great progress even when they have no money and don't fly anything... it's almost like... magic.
 
"Dreamchaser remains JUST a dream and a power-point project"

Same fate as Dyna-soar the fast track capsule and Apollo program nix it and again later the shuttle funding nixed the X-24C. As a result we are still flying around with stone age big boosters and splash down capsules. Can not seem to break the paradigm.
 
airrocket said:
we are still flying around with stone age big boosters and splash down capsules.

If only. Sadly, far too much time, effort and money has been pissed away on programs that went for the coolness factor of the technologies involved (like scramjets, LACE, Sabre, etc.) rather than the hum-drum of engineering that actually works. Imagine if Boeing built the Dash 80 and then annpounced that they wanted to make a commercial liner version of it... but only after they'd made it VTOL, supersonic, and powered by pulse detonation engines with twice the fuel economy of high bypass turbofans.

As for boosters being "stone age:" that's because in the 1960's, the engineering of rocket engines and rocket vehicles reached a very high percentage of the physically possible. If you have a rocket engine that generates 95% of the specific impulse that it is theoretically possible to achieve, really, how much better can you make it?
 
blackstar said:
RanulfC said:
SNIP

so that they now can price modifications of a 747 to allow the carry of a NEW booster design that doesn't need a "custom" carrier

SNIP

While "T-Space" itself has pretty much gone-away the people who were working on the designs haven't stopped. Despite all the work done for AirLaunch they STILL prefer the T-Space launch system and as of the beginning of this year they are STILL working on the program even so.

So they're going to build and fly something soon? Even though the company is kaput and they have no money? That's pretty amazing. I love these companies that make great progress even when they have no money and don't fly anything... it's almost like... magic.
Actually most of the companies that made up T-Space are still around in one form or another, if anyone got the money together they could have the system together and ready for flight testing in a couple of years. Almost ALL the hardware has been built and tested in some form or fashion and they have hard quotes for the equipment and modifications costs. The money, as always, is the major issue.
airrocket wrote:
"Dreamchaser remains JUST a dream and a power-point project"

Same fate as Dyna-soar the fast track capsule and Apollo program nix it and again later the shuttle funding nixed the X-24C. As a result we are still flying around with stone age big boosters and splash down capsules. Can not seem to break the paradigm.
Scott's right again though, every time we attempt to 'break-the-paradigm' it's the attempt that ends up breaking not the paradigm. The Dyna-Soar would have been fine IF it had been kept an "X" plane. But it was pitched as an operational prototype which was heavier and less capable than an already designed and built Gemini capsule was. The lifting-bodies were considered quite closely for the Shuttle program but they ended up being unable to meet the requirements needed when scaled up, especially when the Shuttle lost the "fully-reusable/TSTO" factor and went with a 1.5 stage and drop tank requirements.

Again referring to Scott's post on average rocket engines are fully capable of 95% efficiency and the only thing holding them back is the extreme costs of achieving that other 5% which usually isn't really worth the money.

And even the "crappy" engines we had in the mid-60s were shown to be really, REALLY reusable even when they were NOT designed to be reused!
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=5948
(Quoting Scott again I know but he's GOT a point!)

There really isn't any practical reason why a capsule can't be made reusable, but like ELV's there are some pretty good financial reasons why you wouldn't want to do so for low numbers of flights.

Flight test programs COST money and there is no real way around that. With a soft space-lift market and only vague "hopes" of suborbital and orbital tourism there isn't' a LOT of money around to be had and a lot of what there is has already been tied up in certain concepts. The only way to 'break-the-paradigm' is to show, conclusively, that they way "you" are proposing is better, cheaper and/or has a higher profit margin.
In other words you've got to demonstrate it. I used to think the private sector didn't have the guts to speculatively finance something along those lines but Boeing, (as an example) has been willing to stick their financial necks out for UCAV demonstrator so maybe there IS some hope.

But NASA, DARP, and other government programs are going to be "stuck" as long as Congress keeps cutting funding to innovative and technically challenging test programs when they fail a few times or, worse yet, begin to succeed.

Randy
 
Imagine if Boeing built the Dash 80 and then annpounced that they wanted to make a commercial liner version of it... but only after they'd made it VTOL, supersonic, and powered by pulse detonation engines with twice the fuel economy of high bypass turbofans.

...Yeah, but if they pulled it off, it would have been one fun ride that even Disney couldn't have beaten :D
 
There are a couple of new AW articles on SpaceX. The first article describes on-going preparations for the first Dragon (and second Falcon 9) flight later this year. It includes the following:

“In the long term we intend to land back on land,” Musk says. “For the moment we are landing in the ocean because it is far too difficult to get FAA permission to land on land.” For land recovery, SpaceX is devising a Dragon configuration with four landing legs with shock absorbers or crushable cartridges.

The second article includes come comments from Elon on the recent HLV/Merlin 2 presentations.
 
Several pictures (some attached) and a video on the SpaceX updates page of the first Dragon drop test last week.

Dragon was dropped in a high-altitude drop test (from about 14,000 ft) by air-crane and landed safely on water and was recovered.

This is the last in a series of tests to validate parachute deployment systems and recovery operations before the craft’s first launch.
 

Attachments

  • 20100820_12helilift.jpg
    20100820_12helilift.jpg
    81.5 KB · Views: 47
  • 20100820_5drogues.jpg
    20100820_5drogues.jpg
    59.7 KB · Views: 50
  • 20100820_8dragon.jpg
    20100820_8dragon.jpg
    116.8 KB · Views: 42
Here's a shiny new Merlin engine courtesy of jurvetson at this flickr page.

Ken Bowersox, sporting the STS-73 shirt he wore while on the ISS…
and reflecting on the beauty of a shiny SpaceX Merlin 1c engine this afternoon.

Note photo is made available under a Creative Commons licence.
 

Attachments

  • 2010-08-25 Merlin 1c engine 40pct.jpg
    2010-08-25 Merlin 1c engine 40pct.jpg
    954.8 KB · Views: 53
The second Falcon 9 launch/first Dragon flight still has a regulatory hurdle to clear:

[quote author=http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/111005-spacex-awaiting-faa-approval-license.html]
WASHINGTON — Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) is awaiting U.S. regulatory approval to launch its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon cargo vessel as soon as Nov. 20 after more than a year spent tying up loose ends associated with the recoverable space capsule’s re-entry license application, which the company submitted in final form to federal regulators Oct. 29, according to government and industry sources.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which regulates the launch and re-entry of commercial space vehicles, approved SpaceX’s request for a license covering the launch part of the mission Oct. 15.

However, FAA spokesman Hank Price said the agency is continuing to review the Hawthorne, Calif.-based company’s updated application for the re-entry license, which would be the first ever granted by the agency since Congress gave the FAA authority to license commercial re-entry vehicles in 2004.

[...]
[/quote]

Tend to forget that it's not just technical issues to overcome (at least for the first flight!).
 
SpaceX has issued the following press release on being granted re-entry approval for the first Dragon flight:

FAA Awards SpaceX First Ever Commercial License to Re-Enter Spacecraft from Orbit

Hawthorne, CA – Since the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation was created in 1984, it has issued licenses for more than 200 launches.

Today the FAA has made SpaceX the first-ever commercial company to receive a license to re-enter a spacecraft from orbit.

Next month, SpaceX is planning to launch its Dragon spacecraft into low-Earth orbit atop a Falcon 9 rocket. The Dragon capsule is expected to orbit the Earth at speeds greater than 17,000 miles per hour, reenter the Earth’s atmosphere, and land in the Pacific Ocean a few hours later.

This will be the first attempt by a commercial company to recover a spacecraft reentering from low-Earth orbit. It is a feat performed by only 6 nations or governmental agencies: the United States, Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Space Agency.

It is also the first flight under NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program to develop commercial supply services to the International Space Station and encourage the growth of the commercial space industry. After the Space Shuttle retires, SpaceX will make at least 12 flights to carry cargo to and from the International Space Station as part of a Commercial Resupply Services contract for NASA. The Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft were designed to one day carry astronauts; both the COTS and CRS missions will yield valuable flight experience towards this goal.

The license is valid for 1 year from the date of issue.

Interestingly Gary Hudson has pointed out that the Commercial Experiment Transporter (COMET) had the first re-entry license in 1995. Clark Lindsey has post some further info here. As COMET failed to reach orbit, I hope the forthcoming Dragon flight is more successful.
 
Looks like the shuttle delays aren't going to hold up the Dragon flight any more:

[quote author=http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-168_SpaceX_Launch.html]
MEDIA ADVISORY : M10-168

NASA Sets Coverage For Cots 1 Launch Targeted For Dec. 7

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- The first SpaceX Falcon 9 demonstration launch for NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program is targeted for liftoff on Tuesday, Dec. 7. Liftoff will occur from Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The launch window extends from 9:03 a.m. to 12:22 p.m. EST. If necessary, launch opportunities also are available on Dec. 8 and Dec. 9 with the same window.
[/quote]
 
FutureSpaceTourist said:
Looks like the shuttle delays aren't going to hold up the Dragon flight any more:

Bad news on shuttle is that it could slip to January or even February.
 
Not surprisingly there's a lot of press attention for the Dragon launch (now slightly delayed while they check "two small cracks in the aft end of the 2nd stage engine nozzle extension.") For example an interview with Elon, where he talks about his view of the chances of success for the mission.

SpaceX have released a press-pack for the mission at http://www.spacex.com/downloads/cots1-20101206.pdf. It includes the attached Dragon graphic.
 

Attachments

  • dragon.JPG
    dragon.JPG
    123.1 KB · Views: 96

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom