Re-enter The Dragon
The Dragon Has Landed
“This morning, at approximately 8:42 AM Pacific/11:42 AM Eastern, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) completed its historic mission when the Dragon spacecraft splashed down safely in the Pacific. The vehicle will now be recovered by boats and start the trip back to land.”
Folks:
Sooo… NASA ordered all new Dragon capsules for COTS, according the John the Dragon Mission Director. What, NASA didn’t want to demonstrate some reusability when the opportunity was right in front of them? At least Spacex might re-purpose some of them as Dragon labs but it looks like they’re going to have a whole wing of Dragons just laying around on the shop floor pretty soon. But wait…
Slightly Used Spacecraft For Sale Or Lease!
Almost new! These fully operational spacecraft have only flown once on a government mission. Dozens of flights left in ’em! Can be converted to carry crew (for a price) including docking adapter and upgraded flight computers.
Hurry, limited time offer! These babies will fly off the lot!
Make it so.
tinker
Too soon after Shuttle, maybe. They’ll get over it.
Richard:
I hear ya. It just rankles me to think that Spacex is going to be mass producing Dragons for NASA without any solid plans for their re-use. Smells more like Apollo to me.
tinker
Dragon spacecraft is just getting started. But they might be part of this project…. http://arstechnica.com/scie…
NA:
Yes, I saw that story. Bigelow will need cargo delivery too. And let’s not forget about StratoLaunch.
tinker
It’s a slightly conservative plan; fulfilling the contract is not dependent on unknowns about challenges of capsule reuse.
SpaceX has done a lot more work on reuse than NASA, even trying to recover the first stage booster at sea. NASA has concluded that “we tried reuse with the Shuttle and it didn’t work”, superficial as that statement seems i have heard it from many civil servants, though not from the USA workers who actually prepared the Shuttles for reflight.
Many of us suspect that the only reason for walking away from reuse was to allow the primes to spend more on expendable HLV, so they could charge the equivalent of a aircraft carrier cost every time it flew.
Other customers for Block One Dragons will emerge. Bigelow, is a good candidate already, and as Bigelow habitats need resupply, I suspect some or all of these Dragons will be reused. Certainly no reason not to do so, and Bigelow is a man who keeps his eye on overhead.
It depends on how the contract is written. If NASA owns them as specified by the contract, then they’re government property. NASA may let SpaceX buy them back or NASA may choose to send them to museums.
John:
Spacex owns the Dragons. That’s in the contract. NASA only wants to use them once. But hey, this might just be part of NASA’s backplan. This way, the COTS program get to subsidize a fleet of private spacecraft that can be used dozens of time. Knowing Elon Musk, he’ll find something for them to do. The man apores waste and he’s in a hurry to make us multi-planetary.
Hmmm. Sneaky.
Sorry for blowing your cover, NASA! 😉
tinker
Or – NASA wants to be able to launch frequently enough that they want several dragons on hand for outfitting at once. Either they can order x resuable Dragons cuing congress to ask “why not just 1?,” or x single use Dragons, then “qualify” for multi-flight when they’re all built…
I believe I asked the question who owns the dragons in an earlier post lol. How about water damage on the dracos is that any big deal? I wouldn’t think so? Right?
Ah! Yes, it makes sense as a subsidy.
Or surplus them for $300 bucks like the spare Viking lander…
Dragon reuse has unknown cost/reliability issues. Because capsule reuse is thought to be “new” (its been done once before).
Likely after the CRS contract gets renewed, vendors will bid with options involving reuse, NASA will inventory the accumulated flight history as pertains to the effects of flight, the refurhishment required, and the requalification procedures used, to chose which options it desires.
This data will be extremely valuable to a provider in selling services to customers, because it will allow them to knowledgeably understand the value of reuse and the degree to which flight rate is coupled to cost for their specific needs.
Possibly where the game changes in the launch services provider business for HSF, if the numbers support such.
noofcq:
Always astute. Spacex could get data on refurbishment costs by flying COTS Dragons during Falcon qualification flights. One low cost, low risk option would be to do a high-toss of a Dragon on the inaugural flight of Falcon Heavy. Either a simple mission to test BEO reentry, lasting no longer then Dragon could run on batteries with no trunk, or a full blown glory run like a lunar swing-by or loitering at L1.
Dragon’s basic design lends itself to refurbishment. Beyond fully understanding the durability of Dragon’s ‘airframe’, most of it’s other systems are easily accessible or removable. The Dragon system also takes advantage of low cost disposable systems to avoid complexity like the foam covering the parachute straps and the shattering chute door.
tinker
One low cost, low risk option would be to do a high-toss of a Dragon on the inaugural flight of Falcon Heavy. Either a simple mission to test BEO reentry, lasting no longer then Dragon could run on batteries with no trunk, or a full blown glory run like a lunar swing-by or loitering at L1.
Excellent. Take the existing (currently in reentry) Dragon, refurbish, refly as BEO inaugurating FH – might even shorten FH schedules than a mass simulator, …
… and have multiple reasons to be in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. Probably as the front exhibit. Would take a lot of nerve – something we could use about now.
Gotta say that would really chap some hides …
Great suggestion, as always tinker.
add:
DTARS:Why does that take nerve?
Because we are in a chickenshit culture, where you’re considered stupid for doing anything novel, because you’re asking for tons of ridicule like SpaceX got/gets. You just ask for abuse.
Funny how some of Tinkers great suggestions are so obvious and simple. Kinda like Spacex architecture. 🙂
Why does that take nerve? Fear of losing a JUNK capsule for some old museum?? I say enough with museum talk send that sucker around the moon. When they think falcon heavy will be ready to fly????
Oh here are some Spacex thoughts that could happen soon we really got behind Spacex and went for it. Just more thoughts on another one of Tinkers obvious ideas below
TINKER TANKERS
I have a prediction to make.
I believe that well before 2525 spacex will build a version of you lifter. Here’s how I think it might happen.
This year they plan to build something like the falconxx which will fly using Merlin 2s around 2016
Also during the same time frame they will achieve fly back of falcon heavies two strap-ons and the second stage as you have suggested/easiest
About 2015 or 16 they will be attempting to do fly back with falcon xx core diameter which will have the tool box complete to build your tugs. I would think that Spacex already sees the wisdom of the thrust frame large tank/FUEL DEPOT to Leo idea, so well before 2020 some form of your big lifter will be in the Spacex plans to create infrastructure to the moon and to mars.
Just thought of that after you talked about large diameter on your tugs.
Just seems natural and not all that difficult don’t you think??????
All it takes to build your giant lifter that builds the inner solar system infrastructure is four, falcon xx diameter, recoverable tugs! As you said, your last TINKER TANKER post, the last pair could be sold to the customer to power his depot in deep space plus that way you could weasel out of the higher speed booster recovery if you wanted/or needed too right????
Isn’t the killer app for your lifter fuel depots first, space stations second. Complete one launch explorer missions third.
Doesn’t take a rocket scientistt
Mr. Tinker I have decided that you should use the name I gave your lifter when I first heard it. Our solar system will need big fuel depots if we are to make flights to and from the moon normal stuff, and since your idea would most likely be the cheapest way to place large fuel tanks in space I think TINKER TANKER is a good name
Lol even if Bigelow or some one else does the inflatable fuel thing.
Humm ever thought about the tanks on your lifter being inflatables using your thrust frame to give them structure.
Shame it’s easier to unpack an inflatable than it is too pack one lol hummmm I’ll have to think about that lol
If your trying to sell volume your tank could be part solid part inflatable designed to inflate to quadruple it’s volume once in space.
Joe joked about coke making rockets but what if your large tank was made out of the same plastic and then coated in some way or covered in a Bigelow fabric. A two liter plastic bottle sure seems to be great tank or tank liner.
Sorry to be a little off subject, but with this flight completed maybe we can afford to dream and plan a little more about a bold Space future.
Parallel lines
To listion to ELONS comments I did have to suffer through an Orion commercial first. Lol
SpaceX likely will want to launch a “pre-flown” Dragon on a test flight of the forthcoming Block Two/v.1.1 Falcon 9, since this will probably not be destined for the ISS (though who knows for sure).
It makes sense to reuse an existing capsule for this, perhaps as part of a stress test, perhaps a simulated Lunar or Martian r-entry to prove up the PICA heat shield as well as gather data on reuse, as such.
Edit- thought you meant heavy. My bad.
I doubt there will be any test flights of the V1.1. The only test flight in the near future will be the heavy and it will have a fairing.
Another possibility is to take one of the COTS Dragons and use it over and over for any non-customer test flights that require a dragon/payload. Data on the time/cost and how many times a Dragon can be reused would be powerful marketing material.
I hope they come up with a standard mark on the capsules to show how many times that particular one has been used. So that their reusability is visible in every picture.
I believe the core body of Soyuz capsules are reused , or were.
They also reused a Gemini after some time in the water. (The Blue Gemini mission.)
… with a hatch cut into the heat shield too! For the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, RIP.
Unclear – I’ve heard they’re not.
But you bring up an interesting point for us all to watch – is the refit of a Dragon more like extensive remanufacturing (which *had* been Soyuz that you cite) or a short stripping/reapplication of TPS, structural test, control disassembly/inspect/reassembly, requalification(how?), and back to launchpad.
This is why NASA didn’t pop for “reuse”. Shuttle orbiter was very costly reuse indeed.
I can see Elon Musk, in a polyester suit, selling these on the used space capsule lot…. (^_^)
Belatedly…
If I were SpaceX, and assuming they retain the rights to the used capsules, after donating one to an Air & Space Museum, I would donate used cargo-capsules to companies like MDA to allow (but not pay) them to build a mini-Dextre to go inside the dragon cargo vehicle, to unload cargo via tele-op on unmanned commercial space-stations, or to reduce crew-load on manned commercial space-stations.
SpaceX wouldn’t pay for it, nor specifically “work with” the other companies, it merely provides samples of actual hardware for third parties to build their own business-cases around, which in turn increases the potential market-base for future SpaceX flights.
Paul,
Open source hardware. Great idea. I recall the Apple II computer with its pop-off lid and a a row of card slots. Thousands of people/companies were born and flourished making cards to plug into the Apple II. The idea has been repeated time and again, almost always with success.
If I were SpaceX, Paul, I wouldn’t stop with a mini-Dextre. I’d publish the data necessary for people to propose designing all kinds of Dragon/DragonLab add-ons. I would encourage ISS and Bigelow to do the same. One problem — SpaceX would have to develop a cost-control scheme for handling add-ons since they would be outside of their vertical integration. This would be just one more “better way” that they would have over the old-school cost-plus/arsenal companies.
Steve
Steve Paul
Isn’t this what tinker had in mind when he suggested dragon trunks as satellite buses???
Steve I agree, lol Spacex should open source all their hardware. And or sell it to the customer and let him make his own modifications.
Steve lol rovers dropping out of the bottom of dragons on mars lol
Imagine
If NASA got Mr Cs ISS research plan cooking and Spacex was flying ever two weeks. Leaving them with 24 capsules per year. To be rented out sold or, to new customers and boeing had a similar number 🙂
I wouldn’t go as far as “open source”. Indeed, I would expect everything to be under NDAs.
The Apple II’s addon cards are the perfect metaphor, though.
“One problem — SpaceX would have to develop a cost-control scheme for handling add-ons since they would be outside of their vertical integration.”
Well, that was kind of my point of doing it this way. I don’t mean for SpaceX to pay for development, any more than Apple paid for Apple II addons. It’s other companies producing novel hardware, and creating business cases, and gaining clients, off their own back with no involvement from SpaceX other than the donated capsule. SpaceX wouldn’t even need to release specs, since the companies use the spent capsule to base their developments on, knowing that it will then plug’n’play with any in-use capsule.
I used MDA as an example, since they seem to have the NewSpace mentality of trying things themselves without waiting for a specific government contract. But with 12 cargo flights, say two donated to museums and half the rest used by SpaceX to study refurbishment options, that leaves 5 to donate to five different secondary NewSpace players to let them build novel hardware around, without costing SpaceX a cent but potentially creating whole new markets.
(Same thing could happen with the first generation Dragon Crew capsules under the Commercial Crew contracts.)
How many more times are we going to have to endure another variation of the “Enter the Dragon” pun?
Oh the humanity…
That’s just the way of the Dragon.
He’s just having fun, don’t flame him for it.
More about this particular Dragon capsule and future reuse possibilities from Space X Mission Manager John Couluris here :
http://www.spacepolicyonlin…
I have been scouring all sources online. Does anyone know if the Dragon had any goodies for the Astronauts/Cosmonauts on the ISS? Don Pettit requested fresh fruit, but they couldn’t do that because the Dragon was closed 2 weeks+ before it launched.
so astronots are not considered significant cargo???
Livestock.
I applaud Space-X for their tenacity in doing “the hard stuff” (cargo return). I also like their “made in America” mantra. As far as their cost models… reminds me of a post I had on my office wall in the 80’s (Odie and Garfield sitting in a tree… Odie with his typical blissful look)… Caption: “It’s amazing what one can do, when one doesn’t know what one can’t do”
Does anyone know if the Russians were allowed to enter the Dragon Capsule up in orbit?
If SpaceX wishes to test Dragon re-usability they could offer NASA an additional CRS flight at $5 million less than the normal price.
SpaceX gets some money for the flight, certifies its reuse procedures and information about component wear. SpaceX’s accountants can also work out the fixed and variable costs of reuse – needed for negotiating the next supply contract.
NASA gets to tell Congress that they saved money, determines if reuse is viable using capsules and can request information on what components need replacing and which parts show wear.
I assume that NASA would supply a test cargo of water, clothes and food.
I think that we can expect something like this in the second round of resupply flights.
OldScientist,
Agreed. I’d be very surprised if they haven’t been planning that all along. What will be interesting to see is the price variations for new vs. used, and for different customers/payloads. I don’t see any way for SpaceX (or anyone else) to published fixed launch prices, which is going to muddy up the comparisons and price wars that we know are coming.
Steve
How come there is no LIVE de-orbit animation as well as spash down. With all the technology I would think that it would be easy to create an animation of de-orbit, trunk separation, heatup and spash down instead of just watching people watching LCD monitors.
ComplainComplainComplain
It was in the COTS budget until Senator Shelby and his magic red pen lined it out 🙂
Take that you socialist waste monger you!
Don’t mess with the drag aaa aaa ooo on. Ozomatli, fun band from LA 😉
Action speaks louder than words. Today SpaceX spoke, definitively….
Keith should consider a blog name change from NASA Watch to SpaceX Watch, as it seems that’s where the action is at.
I’m definitely looking forward to Curiosity landing on Mars in August. Let’s keep it NASA Watch for a little bit longer. 🙂
Congrats to SpaceX on successful completion of mission. Going off without a hitch, the mission looked routine. Even the pre-launch pressure valve problem was dealt with professionally and efficiently. A lot of hard work by the SpaceX team paid off today.
Man, those post videos for the Dragon in the water are just pathetic. I can’t see anything. They need to fix this in the next Dragon launch.
Complain
Complain
Complain
Is that gash down the center normal?
People on the SpaceX website are commenting that the “gash” is part of the parachute system. The capsule does look a bit toasted though.. waiting to see the photos from the barge and hear if there was any unexpected damage.
Yes, the gash is normal. You can see it in the factory:
http://twistedsifter.sifter…
And in space:
http://www.universetoday.co…
And after the previous landing:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q…
But I’ve no idea what it is for nor why it changes state between each photo.
Yes, that is exactly how it is supposed to look. It is not a gash it is how the parachute deploys.
Monroe:
The gashes in Dragon’s sides are indeed part of the parachute deployment system. The two diagonal gashes hold the two drogue chute straps. The drogues are located at the ends of the diagonals near the heat shield. They are deployed with mortars (small ones) first to stabilize the capsule. Then an anchor at the top of the capsule is released and the drogue chutes pull the main chutes out of the bottom bay where the straight gash leads. The drogues are released once the main chutes have unfurled.
The trick is that after the parachutes are stored before launch, the gashes are filled in with an ablative insulation with protects the chute harnesses during re-entry but doesn’t even slow down the straps when the chutes deploy. Protection when and where it’s needed then it gets pulled out by the chute straps after it’s safe. Elegant solution. You can see the same material used around the Draco thrusters and around the hatch.
hope this helps.
tinker
Thanks again Tinker 🙂
Is it me or it looks like the Dragon has a crack in its side and is it supposed to look like that, all burned up around it?
That’s the parachute line “Z” embossed in the side. Its actually a very interesting approach to solving the problem of how to pack the parachute where the hatch needs to be …
I came to the comments looking for that exact answer. I notice what looked like a huge gash but it appeared symmetrical and looked like parachute lines were attached at the top of the gashes/cracks. Thanks for confirmation.
You win “troll of the day” award.
I can imagine just what the Soviets are thinking now that the flight returned successfully and what’s on NASA’s minds now as a result of this. Theirs smiles are just fronts for their failings and you can bet they’re worried as to their future. Space X has plans and they are big,monumental. If they come to reality then NASA’s programs could be just a “flash in a pan” such as the well taunted SLS system.
Congratulations to Space X on their success and to their future endeavors.
Long term, unless NASA gets better and smarter support from Congress, part of what it is famous for will seem diminished by SpaceX’s achievements. If I were part of NASA management, I would be making contingency plans for maximum use of what appears to be a potential new space infrastructure. There is no disgrace in taking advantage of a farsighted company advancing the technology. Continued success for SpaceX and other commercial companies could be a game changer for NASA, allowing it to drop disadvantageous programs like SLS and spend its resources on true deep-space missions. The question is whether Congress and K Street will let this happen or insist on retaining NASA as a pork and jobs agency.
OldScientist,
Even if Congress were to back away even a little from SLS, which I can’t imagine, and free up some money with which NASA could make use of this new infrastructure, you can bet (based on past experience) that it will be too little, too late, and they’ll start cutting it back even before NASA can start using it. They did it with COTS and CCDev (and their precursors), so I would only expect them to do it again.
Steve
If NASA wises up, they’ll be thrilled with this.
Developing the first truck was an R&D challenge. I have a collection of old auto industry magazines from the beginning of the auto era, and the War Dept. held a similar competition.
WWI was in full swing, though we hadn’t entered yet. The Army wanted to replace horses with trucks, etc.
the basic R&D for internal combustion engines was done. Now it was just a matter of applied engineering, building a cost-effective, reliable truck.
A contest was held and trucks from various makers set out on the then rugged roads to travel to DC. The winner got the contract to supply the US military with trucks.
It would make no sense for the US Military to be designing and manufacturing the vehicles they use to deliver supplies between bases.
That time has come, or sloe to it, with space. Now is the time for NASA to stop being a cargo van manufacturer and operator, and move on to new challenges – IF congress and the NASA culture and public opinion allows that shift to take place.
I am definitely not one of the “privatize everything” people, but there’s a reason the post office doesn’t build its own delivery vans.
I’m not sure that’s right. I think the whole plan for NASA from the start was supposed to be that as certain operations became routine there would be technology and job transfer to private industry. The idea of NASA becoming the equivalent of a monopolistic national airline would be terrible, which is what some people seem to want. I really think (and I work for NASA) that we should be concentrating on new and harder things. The unmanned program still makes great strides – if we could somehow transfer that mindset.
cb450sc,
I agree with you that “as certain operations became routine there would be technology and job transfer to private industry.” NASA, as I understood it, was to operate the same way that NACA had previously, and that places like Dryden still, more or less, do. They were to be R&D and industry enablers. I think it’s fair to say that Kennedy’s Moon challenge changed that early on and it never reverted.
Steve
If that was the original intent it was hijacked by generations of managers within NASA and their old guard contractors, who made carefully certain that space access *never* became routine enough for open market suppliers and operators. They benefited from the space-is-so-incredibly-difficult-and-expensive-that-only-we-can-do-it mindset. What SpaceX has done was technically feasible for decades. It didn’t happen before now only because of mind set.
During a side conversation today and after learning of the SpaceX Success. Someone mentioned that the SLS stands for SO LONG SUCKER!
SLS: SpaceX Launches Sooner.
NASA is a big place, it would be like a platoon in a military op fails and you say the military failed.
From posts on this blog and others it seems there are many, to quote Madison from the federalist paper #10, factions inside NASA.
So I would imagine there are some inside NASA that really like seeing SpaceX succeed and others, like you say, are worried.
One thing we need to remember is that reuse to destinations other than the ISS will require either an arm on the new destination station to grapple and pull it in, or an autonomous docking capability on the part of Dragon. The latter should not be insurmountable as ATV already has an autonomous docking capability, and avionics upgrades already are planned for Dragon.
No – the software works for docking as well. You do it this way to minimize risk and “theory of culpability”.
ATV could do it because it was a government backing up the deal, and because it aligned with plans to use ATV as a fall back mini space station that “self assembles”. HTV didn’t bother to avoid unnecessary cost/”blame”.
Or, if the Dragon is converted to a manned/piloted vehicle, they can dock it the old-fashioned Gemini way (if the Russian Controllers allow it). No “auto” software required; just radar and something to reflect it off.
Steve
Berthing just seems better. Docking using thrusters is inherently messier and more dangerous.
Still will do an R-bar approach/departure. For the reasons the Russians painfully learned on Mir.
Nothing special was included in the cargo flown to the station (i.e., no cheese or other items) according to Musk during the post-splashdown presser. Played it safe, I guess.
He wants to be considered “serious”. Not be opened up to one liners from the Shelby “peanut gallery” – example: “He just delivers cheese to space”.
Not be opened up to one liners from the Shelby “peanut gallery” – example: “He just delivers cheese to space”.
As compared to “Shelby just delivers pork to Alabama”.
One said “it had that new Zil smell.”
I hope everyone appreciates just how hard it is to make it look so easy. Much blood, toil, tears, and sweat went into this, and like an iceberg, most of it was invisible.
So … are we going to hear about how COTS/SpaceX is like Solyndra?
Of course. K Street never sleeps.
Yeah, I think Dragon has flamed them pretty thoroughly.
It’s normal. Part of the geometry of parachute deployment. Not to worry.
During today’s press conference Alan Lindenmoyer mentioned that statistically for the first three test flights of a new launch system it is quite normal to have at least one failure. Using different words he basically said that it was abnormal what SpaceX just did.
If you compare the burn markings against the first Dragon you’ll notice this Dragon took much more of a beating during descend. Could it because of the payload that it was bringing down? I believe they stated that about 1500 lbs was bring brought back.
http://www.flickr.com/photo…
Congrats to SpaceX, nice work on an apparently flawless mission.
I’ve been reading NASA Watch for years and it amazes me how many people do not know or understand NASA’s role for the people of this country. SpaceX’s Dragon technology was researched and tested by NASA for free- SpaceX did not spend a dime on research, research that started the day NASA was created. All that NASA does is free to American industry. I, for one, am ecstatic that private commercial space flight has finally jumped into fray. Now NASA can get out of the business of being a space taxi and ferry service and get back to what it was created for…aeronautical and space RESEARCH. NASA has plenty of projects, so many in fact that NASA personel have a difficult time supporting them all- i.e. On August 8th of this year a one ton SUV sized rover, called Curiosity, is going be landed on Mars in an effort to explore the Gale Crater. NASA provides needed research in aeronautics to support U.S. companies and aid them in keeping American companies the leaders in space and earth flight technologies—and all for free— paid for by the American people.
One of the challenges is that it has been so long since NASA/NACA really worked to help American industry succeed that it has trouble remembering how.
I disagree, maybe some part or parts of NASA has forgotten, not all. The private venture Dreamchaser (an X-38 copy) is using technologies researched by NASA JSC and Dryden and will be supported by the some of the same peoples.
OK, the vast majority has. Just count the successes over the last 5 years and look at the roadmap for the next 5. What is NASA actually doing these days?
I would suggest doing a research of all the NASA centers to see “what is NASA actually doing”. Looking at two of the smallest NASA Centers there are over 22 on-going flight research projects at Dryden (some of them in support of space missions) since 2007 and Wallops listed between years 2000 and 2011- 227 rocket launches and between the years 2006 and 2008 over 46 Balloon flights..28 of them science flights. These are conservative numbers to the actual amount of work being done and considering there are 13 other and much larger centers, NASA has been doing a lot in the last five years. As for the future five year roadmap, what NASA does is totally up to congress, and from what I’ve seen NASA is supposed to be pretty busy.
That’s going back a long time, now… NASA should have been working for a long time since on technologies for fully-reusable and SSTO launchers; for example, non-expendable heat shield systems and altitude-compensating nozzles (e.g., aerospikes, etc.). It’s not too late for them to get back into the technology R&D business, not until private industry invents its own proprietary solutions. But heck, at this late date maybe that’s the better answer anyway.
No – the X-38 used the X-24A shape.
Dreamchaser uses HL-20 / BOR-4 shape.
By the way, the X-37’s shape/wings is a far better choice for volumetric efficiency, dry mass fraction, stability, landing … just about every measure.
add:
BOR flew multiple times, X-24A once. It is about shape and stability.
X-38 was more stable at high speeds, but required a fast, difficult landing thus a pilot unless you used the unique automated concept it has. It had a higher CG than X-24A for more passengers.
X-38 never flew in space unlike the other two. X-37B is in space as we speak.
However HL-20 did not fly, my comparision was to its requirements as a lifting body both X-38 and Dreamchaser carry 7 people…X-24A carried one…X-38 flew relatively recently and there are working personal still avialable that will support Dreamchaser.
Correct. It’s because NASA got used to being an arm of the arsenal system – a peculiar relationship with a weird kind of give and take. IMHO why things screwed up with Loral / China leading to the creation of ITAR, was a variation on the give/take with arsenal systems, irrespective of WHICH country! Which is why I take great pleasure in pointing out when those like Shelby act to prefer Russian arsenal system products(!) over “commercial space”.
NACA’s greatest accomplishment was in discovering flaws in civil/military aircraft through “flying qualities” assessment and analysis of flight dynamics. One of my mentors (he’s approaching 90) was a part of this.
Thanks for reminding us NASA’s role. Below is text I saved from years ago, I didn’t save name of the author but he/she had a great summary of what NASA is (again, I am not original author):
—Quote:—
I wonder if anyone in NASA management has ever heard the tale of Narcissus. We spend so much time looking at our selves damned little else gets done. It seems that management (at KSC from personal experience and apparently at HQ as well) just loves looking at the agency. For my evidence I reference this loony exercise, ISO 9000 and all the rest. OK guys…once and for all…What is NASA about? Look at our name National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Let’s break it into simple bits ANY manager can handle: N is for “National”. It refers to the good ol’ US of A. Not the world. Not the Moon. Not Mars. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, got it? The first A is for “Aeronautics” NOT “And”. It refers to Aircraft. Not “Spacecraft”, be patient we’ll get to those things in a minute. We were supposed to work with all things relating to flight in the atmosphere. The S is for “Space”. Not taking up space, but Space outside of our atmosphere. Like Star Trek. So we are also supposed to deal with things related to flight OUTSIDE the atmosphere too. The LAST A is for “Administration”. Note how management related things come LAST in our agency name. That’s a HINT guys. So let’s put it all together: For the benefit of OUR COUNTRY (first, that is, and our friends secondly…IF they ask us politely) we should be advancing the state of the art in Aeronautics and ASTROnautics. HOW we go about doing that is for the politicos to decide. —End Quote—
That’s a prime reason I feel that the crewed version will take longer than the 3 years continuously quoted. While the current technology they’ve used has been extensively developed in the past, their LAS system has not. There’s been some experimenting, but not as a LAS. The same goes for reusing their boosters.
While I think they’ll be successful, I feel it will cause some delays, not being ready for crews to space until around 2017 towards 2020. The problem with that is that I think 2020 is the latest end-of-life planning date for ISS. I wouldn’t be surprised if it could be extended to like 2035, but there would likely be significant budget pressures to not extend the ISS life significantly.
I’m sure the SpaceX fanboys will claim this is a views of a SpaceX hater and not a forward thinker, but it’s really just being realistic. I hope I am proven wrong, but our country needs to be realistic when planning our space future. If you plan on taking advantage of that crewed access at a particular time in the future and it’s not there when you scheduled it, it can cost you big time.
That is why I feel we should fly dragon with crew without Las les being completed. To suddenly require 10x fold safer than we have EVER flown it CRAZY and foolish!!!!!!!!!! Fly dragon falcon few more flights and put seats, air in there and get on with it!!!!!!!! Once again our leaders shoot our Space future in the foot over chicken s$&@ foolishness. Plus commercial should get more money to throw a little help at getting system going sooner!!!! Maybe even some cost plus R and d money or NASA team working to hurry Spacex project.
This is good stuff. The gap is halfway closed: we now have an American capability to deliver cargo to the ISS. Although I’m still extremely skeptical of the demand side of commercial crewed orbital spaceflight, it’s good to see that the supply side is proving that they have the technical chops to be making strides. At the very least, this will free up NASA from having to focus on taxi and delivery service, and will let them get on with the fun stuff, like pushing crewed exploration past LEO.
If you listen to the way Bigelow talks, the demand from 2nd and 3rd tier countries to have a full up, manned LEO space program, is high enough for him to abandon smaller habitats and focus on the just the large ones and build a factory that can pump out multiple units a year.
“and focus on the just the large ones and build a factory that can pump out multiple units a year.”
Launched with…? Don’t the 2100’s mass over 60 tons? That’s above even the Falcon Heavy.
Why Bigelow doesn’t make hab just the right size for falcon heavy is beyond me???? Maybe scared not know what the falcon heavy recoverable will lift.
I wish when the reporter said “what will you do with this capsule Mr. Musk” that he answered. Well next year I’m going to put it on our first falcon heavy and shoot it around the Moon!!!! Others here say he boasts blah
What would it hurt if he said that!!!! The press would go crazy with it! It would be a rage. People would wait to hear if that bold boaster could do it or not! Maybe he can. maybe he can’t. So less than a year from now Spacex tries!!!! Better press than now!!!!
If he fails, put another capsule in the grand space museum and next to it write a GREAT tale!! About the man that blowup the first capsule that changed everything.
Lol
Let that mockup be in the first space museum on MARS!!!!!!!
Ps I know
I think Spacex should put some extra Draco fuel tanks in dragon and use an extra second stage as service module to put that dragon in orbit around the moon and then fly it home!!
It’s easy! It’s been done!
Then our old space Hero s can say well he hasn’t landed humans YET!!!!!!!!!!
Zzzz
ZZZ PARACHUTE holes are shaped like Zs
Threes ZZZs for three Chutes zzzs or one Z for three chutes???
While trying to find video on today’s landing I read that space x had signed its first customer for falcon heavy. But what was so cool was that the customer was to help Spacex in the development of falcon heavy to have it better meet their payload needs.
Seems the real commercial satellite community sees there could be a market for bigger cheaper satellite payloads.
Is that another myth being exposed????
Doesn’t larger satellites mean cheaper satellites, easier to manufacture, coupled with cheaper lift mean cheaper product to their customer, Lead to more future business that adds to our growing space economy or is this wrong?????
Seems the Satellite community hasn’t been so keen on driving Ferraris if they can have a big roomy VW bus instead. Lol maybe a mid size Uhaul truck would be a better example.
ZZZ for three chutes
Love those 3 chutes
Or more fuel for manuvering away from space junk.
We need to clean up space junk good public mission money
zzz
Many will compare Falcon 9’s launch success ratio to Atlas V.
So they have a hard act to follow, attempting to upscale to match not only launch rate but success ratio and time on pad. While still doing so at a fraction of development, fixed, and processing costs.
Folks:
Great video of Dragon’s splashdown:
Chase Plane Video Of Historic SpaceX Splashdown
It’s been so long since some of us have seen a real splashdown! A lot of you have never seen one. Until Shuttle, it was a tradition of the American space program, deriving it’s own rituals and ceremonies. Seems sad that by the time Spacex starts launching crew they’ll be making ‘helicopter precision’ landings on an ‘X’ somewhere. But, until then, doesn’t it remind you old folks out there of the glory days of spaceflight?
BTW: Spoiler Alert! The video doesn’t actually show the splashdown, they just miss it through the clouds… but, it does show Dragon get taken for a little ride by the chutes once it was in the water. You can even see wake behind the Dragon before they snipped the chute harness. 8)
tinker
Folks:
Two note for the bottom of a long and fulfilling thread… if anybody sees them :).
In lookin’ ’round, I’ve put two otherwise unrelated facts together. Elon Musk said that the reusable launch system Spacex proposes for the Falcon, with both stages making powered landings, would consume 40% of their payload mass to orbit. I guess that’s for landing legs, extra Dracos and fuel.
Enter the Falcon 9 v1.1 that Spacex will inaugurate on Falcon Flight 6. It will be fifty percent longer than the present Falcon 9 and forty percent more powerful. Capable of orbiting 16 tonnes of payload or the same payload as the original Falcon 9 with a recovery system.
Maybe the first flights of Falcon 9 v1.1 won’t have a recovery system installed but it’s a good guess that it will be the platform they are planning to use for it’s implementation.
Who knows, Spacex may be flying reusable Falcon 9s before the NASA cargo contract comes up for renewal.
A fully reusable Falcon Heavy with cross-tanking and four strap-ons would put SLS (and it’s ilk) to bed for good.
As I type, two pioneering test vehicles are making their way atop barges on both coasts of America. Atmospheric test vehicle Shuttle Enterprise is headed for it’s new home at the Intrepid Museum in New York. COT2+ Dragon is headed for unpacking and debriefing in Texas via L.A. after it’s splashdown in the Pacific.
Both vehicles performed similar missions for their programs. Funny how things work out, eh?
tinker
Congrats SpaceX.
(Irony switch: ON) But don’t you know that NASA is the enemy and must be destroyed? (Irony switch:off)
NASA Ames just lowered the bar for entry to space activity, by open sourcing our next generation mission ground ops software, Mission Control Technologies (MCT). Certified for ISS ops, already adapted for seven NASA spacecraft mission systems at three NASA centers, simply by writing small plugins. Non-NASA spaceflight organizations should use it, too! Free, per Apache 2.0 open source license. Needs only 440 megs of RAM. It’s a general-purpose platform, not just for space ops. Great for students to use as a base for darn near anything. Please spread the word. sites.google.com/site/openmct/