Author Topic: SpaceX discusses progress toward human missions of Dragon/Falcon 9  (Read 43767 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Great article by Chris Gebhardt - via quotes gained by Derrick Stamos, with super L2 renders by Nathan Koga. Bit of a dream team for an editor like me! :)

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/06/spacex-progress-human-missions-dragonfalcon-9/

Taken a while to collate and do some checking, but it's still pretty recent per the cycle of how companies like this update status. Yes, the suit is notional (from L2 in early 2015, but since sneaked out and has been used out of context. Context is unofficial and notional - and has since evolved, but needed something for the paras on that).
« Last Edit: 06/23/2016 06:10 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline AndyX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 602
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 594
Great read and I really enjoy it when Garrett talks. I do like how the commercial providers have installed Shuttle people in high positions.

Online Chris Bergin

Related:

SpaceX ‏@SpaceX  13m13 minutes ago
Backbone of Crew Dragon, the crew-carrying version of Dragon 2 spacecraft, undergoing structural load testing
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Confusador

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 381
Very nice!  Is it safe to assume that pressure vessel is intended for the Demo 1 flight?

Offline rst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
Very nice!  Is it safe to assume that pressure vessel is intended for the Demo 1 flight?

Structural test articles are sometimes reconditioned into service as flight hardware (Space Shuttle Challenger started out as one), but it's not universal practice -- particularly since test loads often exceed anticipated loads in flight, and they're sometimes tested to destruction.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
It is quite clear from the wording, that two test articles are built and two flight articles.

Offline whitelancer64

Very nice!  Is it safe to assume that pressure vessel is intended for the Demo 1 flight?

SpaceX has posted this on Facebook with a picture:

In 2017, Crew Dragon, the crew-carrying version of the upgraded Dragon 2 spacecraft, will restore the United States’ capability to fly humans to orbit.

The backbone of Dragon 2 is a metallic welded pressure vessel. SpaceX has completed manufacturing of the first two pressure vessels to be used for ground testing, and is currently manufacturing two Crew Dragon flight articles. The pressure vessel is the primary structure of the spacecraft that protects astronauts during ascent, while in outer space, and during entry and landing to provide a safe and controlled environment in which to travel and work.

Here is a picture of the first test article undergoing structural load testing. This demonstrates the spacecraft’s ability to withstand the tremendous forces it’s exposed to during space flight.

When we transport astronauts on Crew Dragon to the International Space Station next year, it will be within one of these pressure vessels that over the coming months will turn into a fully functional spacecraft.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2016 09:37 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Liked: 1272
  • Likes Given: 2317
I don't understand this part of the article:
Quote
Once the Demo 1 flight is complete, SpaceX will proceed forward with parachute qualification before performing an in-flight abort test.

The Demo 1 flight includes parachute landing.  Don't parachutes have to be qualified before that?

Offline Moderas

  • Member
  • Posts: 19
  • Illinois
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
The qualification standards for demo-1 may be different as it is an unmanned mission. The parachutes just need to slow the vehicle enough that it doesn't break, you don't have to worry about fleshbags inside.

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 319
If the parachutes work perfectly as designed on Demo-1, do they get a free pass on qualifying them (or at least the air drop portion of it, I'm sure there's still paperwork and such), or do they still have to do all the same air drop tests or whatever is needed regardless of whether they work on Demo-1?

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Liked: 1272
  • Likes Given: 2317
More importantly, are these new chutes, different than what's been used for going on 6 years now?

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
More importantly, are these new chutes, different than what's been used for going on 6 years now?
There will be four, instead of the current three.  Don't know if they are different other than that.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
I thought the drop tests were qualifying the 'chutes.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
They are different because the way they are stored are different. They are more because the need better failure tolerance. And qualification usually need to demonstrate that it works even with failures. Please see the lastest Blue Origin suborbital flight were the capsule landed with a failed on purpose chute.

Offline rpapo

As I understood it at the time, the drop tests they held off the California coast were of the new parachute system.  Though it used a Cargo Dragon body, it already had the parachute location and harness reworked in what was thought at the time to be the arrangement for the Crew Dragon.

See this video. 

Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
As I understood it at the time, the drop tests they held off the California coast were of the new parachute system.  Though it used a Cargo Dragon body, it already had the parachute location and harness reworked in what was thought at the time to be the arrangement for the Crew Dragon.

That was under CCiCap; primary focus was risk reduction for pad abort test (also CCiCap).  Those tests helped to demonstrate some aspects of the new design.  Unfortunately the CCiCap amendment with the details appears to no longer be available on NASA's site (attached for reference).

Additional human rating requirements and certification are needed for CCtCap (pdf pg. 207).  Those stipulations could not be levied under CCiCap.  There are quite a few differences in detail between the CCiCap and CCtCap milestones.

When SpaceX determined to change to four parachutes is unclear. That they did not do it under CCiCap is likely because they were not required to do so.  SpaceX did complete a CCtCap four-parachute qualification test earlier this year with a mass simulator.

edit: oops; correct link to four-parachute test link.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2016 04:15 am by joek »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
Related:

SpaceX ‏@SpaceX  13m13 minutes ago
Backbone of Crew Dragon, the crew-carrying version of Dragon 2 spacecraft, undergoing structural load testing

Trick of the eye, or does the base have an additional section vs. cargo/v1 (among a few other changes)?
(edit: or maybe the top frustum has been shortened a bit?)
« Last Edit: 07/03/2016 03:12 am by joek »

Offline a77

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Why does it take so long to develop and bild crew Dragon when cargo Dragon is already flying and is "mature" technology? Or human rating requires so much more?

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Why does it take so long to develop and bild crew Dragon when cargo Dragon is already flying and is "mature" technology? Or human rating requires so much more?

Not so much human-rating, but human-supporting.  There are a lot of systems Crew Dragon needs that Cargo Dragon doesn't, including life support, crew stations and enhanced communications systems.  These simply didn't exist in the Cargo Dragon.

And then there are upgrades from Cargo to Crew Dragon, that aren't specifically necessary to support humans inside the capsule, but that SpaceX wanted to add to provide new capabilities they wanted Crew Dragon, and all future Dragon variants, to have.  Specifically, adding the Superdraco engine system for both a crew escape capability and for propulsive landing.

While the former is required in some form, SpaceX could easily have chosen a tractor LES tower system, which is long-standing and well-understood technology.  But since they want to be able to land Dragons on other planets, as well as propulsively back to Earth, they chose to develop a new system, completely absent on the Cargo Dragon, to provide both capabilities.

It wasn't just a matter of tossing in some seats and giving the crew a few oxygen bottles to sip off of.  Except for the mold line, it's nearly a complete redesign of the capsule and its systems.  Of course it's going to take a while...
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline Oersted

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2897
  • Liked: 4098
  • Likes Given: 2773
Great article, thanks a lot! - Have already shared the link widely.

Related:

SpaceX ‏@SpaceX  13m13 minutes ago
Backbone of Crew Dragon, the crew-carrying version of Dragon 2 spacecraft, undergoing structural load testing

Trick of the eye, or does the base have an additional section vs. cargo/v1 (among a few other changes)?
(edit: or maybe the top frustum has been shortened a bit?)

Very nice side-by-side, thanks. The changed shape reflects the added thrusting and fuel capabilities, I believe. More room for thrusters and tanks inside the mold line. Dragon Two is a real spaceship, not just a capsule.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1