Quote from: Jim on 07/25/2017 11:20 pmQuote from: Basto on 07/25/2017 11:09 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/25/2017 09:38 pmQuote from: woods170 on 07/25/2017 09:10 pmNone for STS but multiple for others. NASA is using double standards. No, that was more than 35 years ago and NASA learned the error of its ways. Orion was not manned for its first flight.My understanding is that since it's a test mission, they just want to test the rocket and see how it performs. Sure, money would have been needed for the ECLSS and other stuff to get humans on it, but the unexpected can't be bought.Really? The main reason that NASA is not pushing away at a manned EM-1 right is money. If congress and the administration opened up the check book they would be on that path now. I agree with woods on this one. Major double standard.Wrong. Even with money they would not have done itI get the impression that the manned EM-1 study was due to pressure from outside NASA, and that NASA was pretty broadly opposed to the idea (hence the ultimate rejection). Is that more or less right, Jim?
Quote from: Basto on 07/25/2017 11:09 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/25/2017 09:38 pmQuote from: woods170 on 07/25/2017 09:10 pmNone for STS but multiple for others. NASA is using double standards. No, that was more than 35 years ago and NASA learned the error of its ways. Orion was not manned for its first flight.My understanding is that since it's a test mission, they just want to test the rocket and see how it performs. Sure, money would have been needed for the ECLSS and other stuff to get humans on it, but the unexpected can't be bought.Really? The main reason that NASA is not pushing away at a manned EM-1 right is money. If congress and the administration opened up the check book they would be on that path now. I agree with woods on this one. Major double standard.Wrong. Even with money they would not have done it
Quote from: Jim on 07/25/2017 09:38 pmQuote from: woods170 on 07/25/2017 09:10 pmNone for STS but multiple for others. NASA is using double standards. No, that was more than 35 years ago and NASA learned the error of its ways. Orion was not manned for its first flight.My understanding is that since it's a test mission, they just want to test the rocket and see how it performs. Sure, money would have been needed for the ECLSS and other stuff to get humans on it, but the unexpected can't be bought.Really? The main reason that NASA is not pushing away at a manned EM-1 right is money. If congress and the administration opened up the check book they would be on that path now. I agree with woods on this one. Major double standard.
Quote from: woods170 on 07/25/2017 09:10 pmNone for STS but multiple for others. NASA is using double standards. No, that was more than 35 years ago and NASA learned the error of its ways. Orion was not manned for its first flight.
None for STS but multiple for others. NASA is using double standards.
There doesn't seem to be a way to test the Dragon's propulsive landing short of an orbital or sub orbital flight on a Falcon.
And it too heavy for helicopter drop (plus probably not high enough)
The Shuttle had 5 ALT flights before STS-1. There were many never tried before things done on STS-1 but the landing part was tested beforehand pretty well. There doesn't seem to be a way to test the Dragon's propulsive landing short of an orbital or sub orbital flight on a Falcon. Looks like NASA doesn't want to risk its cargo or crew and SpaceX doesn't want to pay for a number of dedicated test flights to prove it out.
Suggest the lack of anything beyond water landing is due to mutual lack of interest by NASA and SX, for different reasons.SX reasons don't need to be remarked upon. NASA's do, but are unacceptable to have a professional discourse on.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/26/2017 05:00 pmSuggest the lack of anything beyond water landing is due to mutual lack of interest by NASA and SX, for different reasons.SX reasons don't need to be remarked upon. NASA's do, but are unacceptable to have a professional discourse on.I wanted propulsive Dragon, but I never liked the idea of last second hoverslam propulsive landings. It just seems like too much risk when you can have a system of retroburning high above the atmosphere then triple redundant parachutes for landing, and maybe just using propulsion to guide it, or using that as a last resort if parachutes fail. Perhaps using an inflatable heat shield as well. I just know I would want more safety systems on a human rated vehicle. Having said that, for some cargo missions, you can take a chance, so I'm still disappointed that they completely axed it since that will push back the day when we will truly have a fully reusable, easy to refurbish system. They might not even be the first ones to achieve that goal now, depending on how long the new ITS will take to complete.
Quote from: notsorandom on 07/26/2017 02:59 pmThere doesn't seem to be a way to test the Dragon's propulsive landing short of an orbital or sub orbital flight on a Falcon.What? A drop test would be a fine way to test the landing, easily equivalent to Shuttle ALT flights.
Quote from: Jim on 07/26/2017 06:58 pmQuote from: abaddon on 07/26/2017 03:30 pmQuote from: notsorandom on 07/26/2017 02:59 pmThere doesn't seem to be a way to test the Dragon's propulsive landing short of an orbital or sub orbital flight on a Falcon.What? A drop test would be a fine way to test the landing, easily equivalent to Shuttle ALT flights. how are you going to drop a spacecraft with hypergols? It is too heavy for helicopterhttp://www.helipress.net/schede-708-the_top_5_heavy_lift_helicopters_video
Quote from: abaddon on 07/26/2017 03:30 pmQuote from: notsorandom on 07/26/2017 02:59 pmThere doesn't seem to be a way to test the Dragon's propulsive landing short of an orbital or sub orbital flight on a Falcon.What? A drop test would be a fine way to test the landing, easily equivalent to Shuttle ALT flights. how are you going to drop a spacecraft with hypergols? It is too heavy for helicopter
Quote from: LooksFlyable on 07/26/2017 05:40 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/26/2017 05:00 pmSuggest the lack of anything beyond water landing is due to mutual lack of interest by NASA and SX, for different reasons.SX reasons don't need to be remarked upon. NASA's do, but are unacceptable to have a professional discourse on.I wanted propulsive Dragon, but I never liked the idea of last second hoverslam propulsive landings. It just seems like too much risk when you can have a system of retroburning high above the atmosphere then triple redundant parachutes for landing, and maybe just using propulsion to guide it, or using that as a last resort if parachutes fail. Perhaps using an inflatable heat shield as well. I just know I would want more safety systems on a human rated vehicle. Having said that, for some cargo missions, you can take a chance, so I'm still disappointed that they completely axed it since that will push back the day when we will truly have a fully reusable, easy to refurbish system. They might not even be the first ones to achieve that goal now, depending on how long the new ITS will take to complete.Soyuz has always done partially propulsive "land" landings. No reason Dragon 2 couldn't as well.Should be professionally discussed w/o childish issues. Really, really annoying.
Quote from: Jim on 07/23/2017 08:15 pmQuote from: woods170 on 07/23/2017 07:27 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/23/2017 06:23 pmPeople are taking NASA to task and don't know what they are talking about. Nobody is stepping back and looking at what the issues are.I don't have inside knowledge about this but it seems easy to figure out.The issue is qualification of the landing system. Let me ask how many flights is it taking the Falcon 9 to be qualified as a crew launch vehicle?And how many flights of a propulsive landing Dragon would be required to qualify it (hover tests don't count)?Propulsive cargo landings were going to pave the way for propulsive crew landing. However, NASA said "No" to those as well.Same issue, how many qual flights.None for STS but multiple for others. NASA is using double standards.
Quote from: woods170 on 07/23/2017 07:27 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/23/2017 06:23 pmPeople are taking NASA to task and don't know what they are talking about. Nobody is stepping back and looking at what the issues are.I don't have inside knowledge about this but it seems easy to figure out.The issue is qualification of the landing system. Let me ask how many flights is it taking the Falcon 9 to be qualified as a crew launch vehicle?And how many flights of a propulsive landing Dragon would be required to qualify it (hover tests don't count)?Propulsive cargo landings were going to pave the way for propulsive crew landing. However, NASA said "No" to those as well.Same issue, how many qual flights.
Quote from: Jim on 07/23/2017 06:23 pmPeople are taking NASA to task and don't know what they are talking about. Nobody is stepping back and looking at what the issues are.I don't have inside knowledge about this but it seems easy to figure out.The issue is qualification of the landing system. Let me ask how many flights is it taking the Falcon 9 to be qualified as a crew launch vehicle?And how many flights of a propulsive landing Dragon would be required to qualify it (hover tests don't count)?Propulsive cargo landings were going to pave the way for propulsive crew landing. However, NASA said "No" to those as well.
People are taking NASA to task and don't know what they are talking about. Nobody is stepping back and looking at what the issues are.I don't have inside knowledge about this but it seems easy to figure out.The issue is qualification of the landing system. Let me ask how many flights is it taking the Falcon 9 to be qualified as a crew launch vehicle?And how many flights of a propulsive landing Dragon would be required to qualify it (hover tests don't count)?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/26/2017 07:37 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/26/2017 06:58 pmQuote from: abaddon on 07/26/2017 03:30 pmQuote from: notsorandom on 07/26/2017 02:59 pmThere doesn't seem to be a way to test the Dragon's propulsive landing short of an orbital or sub orbital flight on a Falcon.What? A drop test would be a fine way to test the landing, easily equivalent to Shuttle ALT flights. how are you going to drop a spacecraft with hypergols? It is too heavy for helicopterhttp://www.helipress.net/schede-708-the_top_5_heavy_lift_helicopters_videoToo heavy for number 4 & 5. Musk is not going to use Russian copters, plus I doubt they are certified in the US.
The CH-53E can carry slung loads of up to about 36,000 lb, while the Dragonfly test article was about 14,000 lb.What's your basis for stating that Dragon would be too heavy for it to lift?
how are you going to drop a spacecraft with hypergols? (Snip)
[Steps up on soapbox]Been stewing this over for the last few days. I am very sad to see Dragon's propulsive landing be cancelled, not because it was sexy or anything like that. It is because like Musk said back at the D2 Reveal: "This is how spaceships are supposed to land". I believe that with all my heart - I *always* have believed that. Splashdowns were done because back in the day we didn't have a clue how to do anything else. To go back to them 50 years later as the primary recovery is so retro, so 1960's, so chickenshit. We have perfected propulsive landing on Mars for Pete's sake! The Soyuz actually uses it for the final seconds before they hit the ground. Legs coming out through the heatshield scares them? Where are the men who designed Big Gemini with a crew access hatch through the heatshield? NASA actually approved that design. We learned how to do and perfected propulsive landing on the Moon with crew onboard. Remember the LM? Yea, propulsive landing. Now this. What the hell is NASA thinking? It feels to me like they put on their brain-dead hats and told SpaceX to delete it. No guts. No forward thinking. Absolutely no desire to innovate! No wonder we spent 30 years going around in circles. There aren't any forward thinking people in leadership position at NASA anymore. As far as I am concerned there isn't any leadership at all at NASA anymore. Everybody is afraid of their own shadow. They remind me of the cowardly lion on the Yellow Brick Road. The NASA I grew up with is dead and gone. The NASA I was proud to serve doesn't exist anymore. Instead all we have is this shadow thing.[Steps off soapbox]