Author Topic: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2  (Read 220350 times)

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6378
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1605
  • Likes Given: 1411
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #720 on: 08/30/2017 07:02 AM »
It seems to me that he is talking about the possibility of flying a Dragon 2 cargo mission in between DM-2 and PCM-1X (SpaceX's 1st post certification mission; non-official mission notation).

FWIW, my take is that he was referring to flying Dragon 2 cargo under the original CRS contract, prior to the beginning of the next CRS, and that would benefit Dragon 2 flight rate, which is a plus for crew safety.

You think SpaceX would fly Dragon 2 at CRS 1 prices? CRS 2 prices are higher. I also think the payload capacity is higher. Flying a mix of Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 for cargo will also increase cost.

Online Semmel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Germany
  • Liked: 792
  • Likes Given: 2261
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #721 on: 08/30/2017 09:22 AM »
Admittedly, I have not been following this issue closely.  But it occurs to me that the Super Draco pods have to remain on Dragon V2 to provide for an LAS capability, correct?

Therefore, the only thing that would need to be re-engineered onto this vehicle, should SpaceX decide to pursue propulsive landings in the future with Dragon V2, would be some form of landing legs, right?

I mean, it's not like the Super Draco pods are being removed from the vehicle... right?

Its not just the landing legs. As stated many times before, its the qualification process that is expensive, not the engineering and thats the most likely reason for cancellation. So, as you say, if SpaceX decide to use powered landings, it needs to perform the qualification tests which are likely much more expensive than any hardware that needs to be added.

On the vehicle side, its more than the legs as well. Its avionics, control software (BIG part here, more expensive then the legs most likely). Also, on descend, in order to target the landing spot accurately enough they need active guidance and control. Without GPS because the reentry plasma will block the GPS signal. So they will need some other method to determine their position. Dont know how that is going to work but doesnt seem easy. Then there is the active descend control. This can be done with changing the center of gravity of the capsule. So that would need an active sled or bladder tanks with a pump.

All this would have to be qualified additional to the current D2 capabilities. Please dont think of the difference between water landing D2 by parachute and powered landing D2 by Superdracos as "just the legs".

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2485
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1518
  • Likes Given: 2679
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #722 on: 08/30/2017 05:35 PM »
Admittedly, I have not been following this issue closely.  But it occurs to me that the Super Draco pods have to remain on Dragon V2 to provide for an LAS capability, correct?

Therefore, the only thing that would need to be re-engineered onto this vehicle, should SpaceX decide to pursue propulsive landings in the future with Dragon V2, would be some form of landing legs, right?

I mean, it's not like the Super Draco pods are being removed from the vehicle... right?

Its not just the landing legs. As stated many times before, its the qualification process that is expensive, not the engineering and thats the most likely reason for cancellation. So, as you say, if SpaceX decide to use powered landings, it needs to perform the qualification tests which are likely much more expensive than any hardware that needs to be added.

On the vehicle side, its more than the legs as well. Its avionics, control software (BIG part here, more expensive then the legs most likely). Also, on descend, in order to target the landing spot accurately enough they need active guidance and control. Without GPS because the reentry plasma will block the GPS signal. So they will need some other method to determine their position. Dont know how that is going to work but doesnt seem easy. Then there is the active descend control. This can be done with changing the center of gravity of the capsule. So that would need an active sled or bladder tanks with a pump.

All this would have to be qualified additional to the current D2 capabilities. Please dont think of the difference between water landing D2 by parachute and powered landing D2 by Superdracos as "just the legs".

Oh, I get all that.  I'm very clear that it's not just "Hey, add some legs and we're good to go."

I was just confirming my understanding that, from a hardware point of view only, nothing has been done to the Crew Dragon, per this decision, that completely rules out development of propulsive landings later on, if (and only if) SpaceX decides it makes sense to invest the money into its qualification.

I'm not discussing the odds of SpaceX actually deciding to do so in the future, trust me... ;)
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
  • California
  • Liked: 1155
  • Likes Given: 1627
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #723 on: 08/30/2017 11:14 PM »
Admittedly, I have not been following this issue closely.  But it occurs to me that the Super Draco pods have to remain on Dragon V2 to provide for an LAS capability, correct?

Therefore, the only thing that would need to be re-engineered onto this vehicle, should SpaceX decide to pursue propulsive landings in the future with Dragon V2, would be some form of landing legs, right?

I mean, it's not like the Super Draco pods are being removed from the vehicle... right?

Its not just the landing legs. As stated many times before, its the qualification process that is expensive, not the engineering and thats the most likely reason for cancellation. So, as you say, if SpaceX decide to use powered landings, it needs to perform the qualification tests which are likely much more expensive than any hardware that needs to be added.

On the vehicle side, its more than the legs as well. Its avionics, control software (BIG part here, more expensive then the legs most likely). Also, on descend, in order to target the landing spot accurately enough they need active guidance and control. Without GPS because the reentry plasma will block the GPS signal. So they will need some other method to determine their position. Dont know how that is going to work but doesnt seem easy. Then there is the active descend control. This can be done with changing the center of gravity of the capsule. So that would need an active sled or bladder tanks with a pump.

All this would have to be qualified additional to the current D2 capabilities. Please dont think of the difference between water landing D2 by parachute and powered landing D2 by Superdracos as "just the legs".

Oh, I get all that.  I'm very clear that it's not just "Hey, add some legs and we're good to go."

I was just confirming my understanding that, from a hardware point of view only, nothing has been done to the Crew Dragon, per this decision, that completely rules out development of propulsive landings later on, if (and only if) SpaceX decides it makes sense to invest the money into its qualification.

I'm not discussing the odds of SpaceX actually deciding to do so in the future, trust me... ;)
[speculation] If the SuperDracos are only going to need the "gross" control necessary for launch abort and not the "fine" control needed for propulsive landing then they may make hardware changes to simplify the system or to lower costs.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #724 on: 08/30/2017 11:20 PM »
Admittedly, I have not been following this issue closely.  But it occurs to me that the Super Draco pods have to remain on Dragon V2 to provide for an LAS capability, correct?

Therefore, the only thing that would need to be re-engineered onto this vehicle, should SpaceX decide to pursue propulsive landings in the future with Dragon V2, would be some form of landing legs, right?

I mean, it's not like the Super Draco pods are being removed from the vehicle... right?

Its not just the landing legs. As stated many times before, its the qualification process that is expensive, not the engineering and thats the most likely reason for cancellation. So, as you say, if SpaceX decide to use powered landings, it needs to perform the qualification tests which are likely much more expensive than any hardware that needs to be added.

On the vehicle side, its more than the legs as well. Its avionics, control software (BIG part here, more expensive then the legs most likely). Also, on descend, in order to target the landing spot accurately enough they need active guidance and control. Without GPS because the reentry plasma will block the GPS signal. So they will need some other method to determine their position. Dont know how that is going to work but doesnt seem easy. Then there is the active descend control. This can be done with changing the center of gravity of the capsule. So that would need an active sled or bladder tanks with a pump.

All this would have to be qualified additional to the current D2 capabilities. Please dont think of the difference between water landing D2 by parachute and powered landing D2 by Superdracos as "just the legs".

Oh, I get all that.  I'm very clear that it's not just "Hey, add some legs and we're good to go."

I was just confirming my understanding that, from a hardware point of view only, nothing has been done to the Crew Dragon, per this decision, that completely rules out development of propulsive landings later on, if (and only if) SpaceX decides it makes sense to invest the money into its qualification.

I'm not discussing the odds of SpaceX actually deciding to do so in the future, trust me... ;)
[speculation] If the SuperDracos are only going to need the "gross" control necessary for launch abort and not the "fine" control needed for propulsive landing then they may make hardware changes to simplify the system or to lower costs.
Wouldn't that require requalifying them? At this point it is likely cheaper and easier to keep them as is, even if their is some cost savings from a simpler design.

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #725 on: 08/30/2017 11:32 PM »
It seems to me that he is talking about the possibility of flying a Dragon 2 cargo mission in between DM-2 and PCM-1X (SpaceX's 1st post certification mission; non-official mission notation).

FWIW, my take is that he was referring to flying Dragon 2 cargo under the original CRS contract, prior to the beginning of the next CRS, and that would benefit Dragon 2 flight rate, which is a plus for crew safety.

You think SpaceX would fly Dragon 2 at CRS 1 prices? CRS 2 prices are higher. I also think the payload capacity is higher. Flying a mix of Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 for cargo will also increase cost.

From what I gather, pricing is negotiated per mission, because there are always variable costs due to special payload needs. They are already flying reused Dragon 1s, and there may be an equitable adjustment of pricing downward if that saves SpaceX money (it didn't save much on CRS-11, but the prospect is that it will in the future), likewise if they use reflown boosters. If NASA requests Dragon 2 for a mission and are willing pay for it I'm sure SpaceX will oblige them. NASA can do that as long as the maximum cap for the CRS contract is not exceeded by the end of 20 flights.
« Last Edit: 08/30/2017 11:35 PM by Jcc »

Offline IntoTheVoid

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 199
  • USA
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #726 on: 08/31/2017 01:19 AM »
It seems to me that he is talking about the possibility of flying a Dragon 2 cargo mission in between DM-2 and PCM-1X (SpaceX's 1st post certification mission; non-official mission notation).

FWIW, my take is that he was referring to flying Dragon 2 cargo under the original CRS contract, prior to the beginning of the next CRS, and that would benefit Dragon 2 flight rate, which is a plus for crew safety.

You think SpaceX would fly Dragon 2 at CRS 1 prices? CRS 2 prices are higher. I also think the payload capacity is higher. Flying a mix of Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 for cargo will also increase cost.

From what I gather, pricing is negotiated per mission, because there are always variable costs due to special payload needs. They are already flying reused Dragon 1s, and there may be an equitable adjustment of pricing downward if that saves SpaceX money (it didn't save much on CRS-11, but the prospect is that it will in the future), likewise if they use reflown boosters. If NASA requests Dragon 2 for a mission and are willing pay for it I'm sure SpaceX will oblige them. NASA can do that as long as the maximum cap for the CRS contract is not exceeded by the end of 20 flights.

Why is (seemingly) everyone so hung up on flying Dragon 2 under CRS1? The CRS2 contract is awarded. If NASA wants a Dragon 2 cargo mission, they'll fly it under CRS2 even if all the missions for CRS1 haven't been flown out yet. It probably doesn't even require any contract mods; worst case is that they need to extend the CRS1 POP to get the final mission in.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2935
  • Likes Given: 870
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #727 on: 08/31/2017 05:55 AM »
If NASA requests Dragon 2 for a mission and are willing pay for it I'm sure SpaceX will oblige them. NASA can do that as long as the maximum cap for the CRS contract is not exceeded by the end of 20 flights.

Why is (seemingly) everyone so hung up on flying Dragon 2 under CRS1? The CRS2 contract is awarded. If NASA wants a Dragon 2 cargo mission, they'll fly it under CRS2 even if all the missions for CRS1 haven't been flown out yet. It probably doesn't even require any contract mods; worst case is that they need to extend the CRS1 POP to get the final mission in.
There will be no flights under CRS-1 using Dragon 2.
Dragon 2 is for CRS-2 only.
People suggesting otherwise are living in fantasy-land.

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6378
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1605
  • Likes Given: 1411
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #728 on: 08/31/2017 06:33 AM »
Dragon 2 is for CRS-2 only.
People suggesting otherwise are living in fantasy-land.

That would be NASA, it seeems. Suggesting that SpaceX fly cargo Dragon 2. Cargo Dragon 1 will fly until the end of 2019 at least. Meaning cargo Dragon 2 will fly in 2020. Now NASA suggesting that cargo Dragon 2 should fly ahead of crew Dragon would put Commercial Crew flights in late 2020.

Suggesting SpaceX fly a mix of CRS 1 and CRS 2? That would need financial compensation beyond the existing contracts as it would drive cost.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2935
  • Likes Given: 870
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #729 on: 08/31/2017 07:08 AM »
Dragon 2 is for CRS-2 only.
People suggesting otherwise are living in fantasy-land.

That would be NASA, it seeems. Suggesting that SpaceX fly cargo Dragon 2. Cargo Dragon 1 will fly until the end of 2019 at least. Meaning cargo Dragon 2 will fly in 2020. Now NASA suggesting that cargo Dragon 2 should fly ahead of crew Dragon would put Commercial Crew flights in late 2020.
Emphasis mine.
It won't happen because such a wish is outside the scope of the CCP contracts. NASA would have to pay for the delays and reshuffling of the flight manifest outside the current scope of CCtCAP. Not to mention that NASA would have a helluva time explaining why this new "requirement" is not equally applied to the other CCP provider (Boeing).

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Liked: 183
  • Likes Given: 1171
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #730 on: 08/31/2017 08:32 AM »
Unless you guys know something I don't all this talk about NASA requesting a D2 cargo mission before regular crew flights is mis-represented. I believe they said that this may happen, which means it is probably a decision made by SpaceX and not a requirement by NASA. CRS contracts for cargo delivery to ISS are for tons of supplies delivered and prices are not negotiated on a per flight basis. I.E. SpaceX was not paid for the LOM (NASA  paid for lost cargo only). Only restriction for D2 cargo missions is that no large items requiring the larger berthing hatch be included. If SpaceX chooses to use D2 for cargo before crew rotations, they will not, in my opinion, have any extra financial compensation from NASA.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk

Offline hamerad

  • Member
  • Posts: 51
  • South Australia
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #731 on: 08/31/2017 09:07 AM »
Could this talk of cargo before crew just be cargo going up on one of the demo missions? Or would the risk of loss be too great for this to be considered?
« Last Edit: 08/31/2017 09:15 AM by hamerad »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4245
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2844
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #732 on: 09/02/2017 01:38 AM »
Quote
First Look at the Crew Access Arm For Launch Complex 39A
Posted on September 1, 2017 at 8:18 am by Amanda Griffin.

Astronauts Bob Behnken and Eric Boe walk down the Crew Access Arm being built by SpaceX for Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The access arm will be installed on the launch pad, providing a bridge between the crew access tower and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon – or Dragon 2 – spacecraft for astronauts flying to the International Space Station on the company’s Falcon 9 rocket as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.

The access arm is being readied for installation in early 2018. It will be installed 70 feet higher than the former space shuttle access arm on the launch pad’s Fixed Service Structure. SpaceX continues to modify the historic launch site from its former space shuttle days, removing more than 500,000 pounds of steel from the pad structure, including the Rotating Service Structure that was once used for accessing the payload bay of the shuttle. SpaceX also is using the modernized site to launch commercial payloads, as well as cargo resupply missions to and from the International Space Station for NASA. The first SpaceX launch from the historic Apollo and space shuttle site was this past February.

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is working with private companies, Boeing and SpaceX, with a goal of once again flying people to and from the International Space Station, launching from the United States. Boeing is building the CST-100 Starliner to launch on an United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket from Space Launch Complex 41. For information on Boeing and ULA’s work on Space Launch Complex 41, visit: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/crew-access-arm-installed-for-starliner-missions.

This entry was posted in NASA on September 1, 2017 by Amanda Griffin.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2017/09/01/first-look-at-the-crew-access-arm-for-launch-complex-39a/

Caption for photo:
Quote
Astronauts Bob Behnken and Eric Boe walk down the Crew Access Arm being built by SpaceX for Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Photo Credit: SpaceX

Picture was previously posted here but higher res attached.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2935
  • Likes Given: 870
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #733 on: 09/02/2017 05:50 PM »
Note: installation of the CAA is now no longer planned for this year, but for "early in 2018". Previously, it was assumed it would be installed during the stand-down of LC-39A for FH conversion. Now it looks like it will not be installed during that particular stand-down.

Offline ScottMC

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Hamilton, New Zealand
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 204
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #734 on: 09/08/2017 09:27 PM »
New Instagram picture of Crew Dragon.  Shame that guy's standing in the way ;)

https://www.instagram.com/p/BYyvO2WA3Ra/

Questions I have:
 1) Where was that photo taken?  The roof looks kind of lower than expected.
 2) Is that a real Crew Dragon or a mock-up?  It looks a bit different, but it might just be a new angle.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2017 09:33 PM by ScottMC »

Offline IanThePineapple

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • NaN
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #735 on: 09/08/2017 09:31 PM »
New Instagram picture of Crew Dragon.  Shame that guy's standing in the way ;)

https://www.instagram.com/p/BYyvO2WA3Ra/

Questions I have:
 1) Where was that photo taken?  The roof looks kind of lower than expected.
 2) Is that a real Crew Dragon or a mock-up?  It looks a bit different, but it might just be a new angle.

1. The SpaceX Hawthorne facility, with core 1042 and an unknown core in the background.
2. I don't know, it would make sense for it to be real
Proud creator of Ian's Paper Model Rocket Collection:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42383.0

Online Herb Schaltegger

Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #736 on: 09/08/2017 09:51 PM »
New Instagram picture of Crew Dragon.  Shame that guy's standing in the way ;)

https://www.instagram.com/p/BYyvO2WA3Ra/

Questions I have:
 1) Where was that photo taken?  The roof looks kind of lower than expected.
 2) Is that a real Crew Dragon or a mock-up?  It looks a bit different, but it might just be a new angle.

1. The SpaceX Hawthorne facility, with core 1042 and an unknown core in the background.
2. I don't know, it would make sense for it to be real

That outer mold line looks WAAAY too smooth and un-featured for it to be real.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3454
  • California
  • Liked: 2691
  • Likes Given: 1700
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #737 on: 09/08/2017 09:52 PM »
Yes, that is a mock-up for sure.

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
  • Liked: 461
  • Likes Given: 427
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #738 on: 09/08/2017 09:59 PM »
New Instagram picture of Crew Dragon.  Shame that guy's standing in the way ;)

https://www.instagram.com/p/BYyvO2WA3Ra/

Questions I have:
 1) Where was that photo taken?  The roof looks kind of lower than expected.
 2) Is that a real Crew Dragon or a mock-up?  It looks a bit different, but it might just be a new angle.

1) Inside their headquarters, right inside "tankland." SpaceX usually edits all the pictures that come out of their factory to make it look a lot more white and sterile than it really is.

2) Looks to me like the Dragon Reveal mockup they were hauling around campus a few weeks ago.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2709
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 923
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #739 on: 09/08/2017 10:10 PM »
Yes, that is a mock-up for sure.

Where are the connections for life support?

Looks cool, lets see how it works.
Excited to be finally into the first Falcon Heavy flow, we are getting so close!

Tags: