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

Commercial Crew Update

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 7, 2013
Filed under

NASA Commercial Crew Program Status Update
“NASA will hold a status update news conference to discuss the progress of the agency’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) at 2 p.m. EST on Wednesday, Jan. 9. The briefing from Kennedy Space Center in Florida will be broadcast live on NASA Television and streamed on the agency’s website.”

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

18 responses to “Commercial Crew Update”

  1. DocM says:
    0
    0

    Report: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/718

    Dig the fancy SpaceX flight suit! Very Trek-ish. Also a (too small IMO) graphic of an Falcon 9 v1.1 & Dragon with the crew access tower and slide line in their section.

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      Dr.:

      Thanks for the link to the presentation slides.

      Info on the Falcon v1.1 is out there if you go digging. Here’s what I found out that’s not necessarily in writing yet:

      – The new vehicle will do away with strongback umbilical connections completely.  All second stage fuel connections, electrical and data will be fed up from the first stage. They may even be able to fold the strongback back to ground level. Although there’s a weight penalty, it makes hookup easier and streamlines procedures for future reusable Falcon stages.

      – Both the first and second stages of the new Falcon 9 will be longer. The first stage will fire for less time than the original so that it’s moving slower at separation but the extra tank volume will be needed because the Merlin 1D uses more fuel per second and also they’ll need that extra margin for powered landings when the time comes. The second stage will burn longer and need fuel margin for second burns to put geostationary satellites into orbit.

      – The second stage will eventually get a retractable nozzle on it’s single Merlin which will allow SpaceX to reduce the interstage length and weight by half.

      Unlike ‘traditional’ rocket manufacturers, SpaceX not only plans for the future, it’s incorporating designs into it’s launch vehicles now that will can be fully tested before they’re even needed. Atlas V and Delta IV have flown virtually unchanged since they were first launched over the a decade ago.

      tinker

      • Robin Seibel says:
        0
        0

        And look how reliable Atlas V and Delta IV have been.

        • Tombomb123 says:
          0
          0

          Yes and look how expensive they are!

          • Robin Seibel says:
            0
            0

            That’s got nothing to do with my point.  Tinker used Atlas V and Delta IV as support for his idea about SpaceX incorporating designs into it’s launch vehicles that can be tested before they’re fully needed.  Using Atlas V and Delta IV for as much doesn’t support his argument.  It’s just another opportunity to swing at arsenal space to defend what SpaceX does.

            It’s just another example of how critical thought is getting pushed aside in the race to praise SpaceX.  SpaceX is doing great stuff, no doubt, but that fact does mean that others haven’t been doing great work.  It should be noted that nothing was mentioned of the Atlas V’s and Delta IV’s launch success records.  SpaceX’s tally of launches is pretty small right now.  It’s not a given that they won’t have issues, possibly serious issues, down the line.  A little reason, a little perspective, and a little healthy skepticism are always good.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Issues or no, you don’t grow if you don’t take risk!!!

            Safe expensive rockets blah!

            Take another swing at them Tinker

            Perspective is chicken s$&@!

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

             Robin:

            Perfectly good launch vehicles have gone by the wayside because lack of development put them behind the times. The Saturn V got pushed aside instead of being the launch vehicle to carry the Shuttle (Flyback F1). Also, the Delta 2 will be ‘retired’ soon. You could consider the Delta IV as a ‘follow on’ vehicle but it wasn’t exactly incremental. (I like the Delta IV. It’s the only other ‘all American’ medium/heavy launch vehicle next to the Falcon 9.)

            But yes, why waste an opportunity. There is something seriously wrong with the arsenal system, not just the space part of it. Eg. F-35.

            tinker

          • Robin Seibel says:
            0
            0

            Saturn V is a poor example.  It was not economically sustainable. Moreover it’s missions would have been very few and far between as a result of it’s less than versatile design.

            I said nothing about wasting opportunities and am all for what SpaceX is doing, but I won’t abandon objectivity to become a company’s cheerleader.

            There is much wrong with arsenal space, but that absolutely does not mean that arsenal space hasn’t produced some excellent systems, such as Atlas V and Delta IV.  Poopoo them all you like, but the fact is they’ve been exceedingly reliable systems.  

          • Robin Seibel says:
            0
            0

            DTARS, is your response serious?  You should understand it’s not fist fight or something appropriate for taking “another swing”.  

            Objectivity is a virtue in science and engineering.  Blind cheerleading has no place in either.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Robin 

            I am not a scientist 

            I am Joe tax payer that had a dream to see people REALLY live on others planets before I die. I am getting old now. That dream was robbed from me by big business, big government and people that were happy to fly expensive safe rockets provided they received their fat little check. 

            So it is a war!

            A war of a possible future in space which could be key to mans survivial and the statuesque

            Musk and people like him are coming at you. Lolol you better duck.

          • Robin Seibel says:
            0
            0

            DTARS, you’ve not read carefully anything that I’ve said.  No one is coming at me because I’m well aware of what is happening and in support of what SpaceX is doing.  

            There is no war.  We did the “space as a proxy for war” thing with Apollo, and it wasn’t economically viable. 

            Lambasting “safe rockets” makes no sense whatsoever.  None.  

  2. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    Not much new.Blue Origin will have a non funded SAA.SpaceX will use a F9 for the high altitude abort test.Maybe they could test their fly back at the same time.The DC glide tests this year will be fun.

  3. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    Manned spaceflight is alive and well ! Just not NASA manned space flight. Brian Williams characterized it pretty aptly the other night when he said NASA manned spaceflight  is about over. Its too bad but I think they mainly did it to themselves. The price is too high an the products they are developing-well they arent developing much.

  4. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    The SpaceX graphic shows Dragon landing on the beach,for the pad abort in 1 year.Rockets all the way or rockets,parachutes,rockets?They show a little zag to git to the beach.That has to be rockets,unless they are using controllable parachutes.
    The wind tunnel test shows for Blues bi-conic that there is only a small high heat area on the nose and on a fin in the rear.Tiles in the nose maybe and carbon for the wings maybe.Looks good.

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

       S13:

      For pad aborts, I believe they will use parachutes. Dragon could empty it’s fuel tanks in a short period of time during abort. Eight Super Dracos at full thrust would chew through the fuel Dragon would otherwise use for maneuvering for it’s whole mission and possibly landing fuel too. The Dracos would use a fraction of full thrust for landings so they could run for minutes, not seconds like during an abort scenario, and be very reliable by not being pushed to the limits.

      I saw that graphic of them landing close to the beach. I’m sure that’s a flight plan of convenience. A true crew pad abort would want to put them over water for sure.

      tinker

  5. jski says:
    0
    0

    What’s the deal with Blue Origin (Bezos’ company)? I thought they were out of favor … with NASA?

  6. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Speaking of commercial crew (loosely), here’s a cowboy’s eyes view of last months Grasshopper test flight by SpaceX:

    http://www.youtube.com/watc

    tinker

    • TerryG says:
      0
      0

      Would be interested in seeing these video clips shot with an infrared camera….until then, sorry for the newbie question Tinker, but are reaction control rockets (Draco class) being used at the top of the stack to help keep the GH vertically trimmed or is there just one Merlin main engine at work here?