Author Topic: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion  (Read 1385958 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #980 on: 02/20/2010 08:50 pm »
Who says they have to manufacture 15 Dragons?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #981 on: 02/20/2010 08:52 pm »
NASA does. They cannot reuse flown Dragons for ISS resupply. SpaceX hence plans to refly them as DragonLabs.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #982 on: 02/20/2010 09:11 pm »
NASA does. They cannot reuse flown Dragons for ISS resupply. SpaceX hence plans to refly them as DragonLabs.

What's the source for that "cannot resuse" issue with NASA. I don't doubt it, just curious.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #983 on: 02/20/2010 09:23 pm »
NASA does. They cannot reuse flown Dragons for ISS resupply. SpaceX hence plans to refly them as DragonLabs.

What's the source for that "cannot resuse" issue with NASA. I don't doubt it, just curious.
I'm pretty sure there is no source. If the Dragons can be safely reused (most likely they can be), they will be for even servicing the ISS.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #984 on: 02/20/2010 09:27 pm »
I'm pretty sure there is no source. If the Dragons can be safely reused (most likely they can be), they will be for even servicing the ISS.

I've seen this claim a couple of times now, it may very well be true.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #985 on: 02/20/2010 09:32 pm »
NASA does. They cannot reuse flown Dragons for ISS resupply. SpaceX hence plans to refly them as DragonLabs.

What's the source for that "cannot resuse" issue with NASA. I don't doubt it, just curious.
I'm pretty sure there is no source.

And I'm pretty sure that statement came right from Max Vozoff's (Dragon programme manager) mouth, although I cannot dig up a reference now.

Online jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #986 on: 02/20/2010 09:40 pm »
And I'm pretty sure that statement came right from Max Vozoff's (Dragon programme manager) mouth, although I cannot dig up a reference now.
I'll second that... NASA wants a new dragon each time..As well not sure where I heard it....

 IMHO I bet with success of the first $1.6 Billion contract and dragon labs are a success(hopefully) NASA will realize a cost saving and "let" Spacex use them for the next wave of ISS supply..
jb

edit:found interview notes from Gwen Shotwell at Hobby space from meeting in April 2009

Quote
"Shotwell: Dragon designed to be reusable, but NASA wants a new Dragon for each mission. SpaceX planning to use old ones for DragonLab."
« Last Edit: 02/20/2010 09:49 pm by jabe »

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #987 on: 02/20/2010 09:40 pm »
Over the next four years, SpaceX needs to build fifteen Falcon 9s and fifteen Dragons for COTS and CRS alone,

Wow...when you put it like that, you realize that's 150 Merlin's, or just short of one a week!
Well that will certainly give some data on the reuse or mass produce debate!

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #988 on: 02/20/2010 09:53 pm »
NASA does. They cannot reuse flown Dragons for ISS resupply. SpaceX hence plans to refly them as DragonLabs.

What's the source for that "cannot resuse" issue with NASA. I don't doubt it, just curious.
I'm pretty sure there is no source.

And I'm pretty sure that statement came right from Max Vozoff's (Dragon programme manager) mouth, although I cannot dig up a reference now.

I think I remember that. I'm more curious about the implied NASA "rule." So the ultimate source I'm wondering about would be something from NASA.

Offline braddock

  • NSF Private Space Flight Editor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #989 on: 02/20/2010 10:27 pm »

Over the next four years, SpaceX needs to build fifteen Falcon 9s and fifteen Dragons for COTS and CRS alone,

But where did all the planned Falcon 1 launches go?

There are only three Falcon 1e flights on the manifest now.  Does anyone have an old copy of the manifest for comparison?

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #990 on: 02/20/2010 11:59 pm »

Over the next four years, SpaceX needs to build fifteen Falcon 9s and fifteen Dragons for COTS and CRS alone,

But where did all the planned Falcon 1 launches go?

There are only three Falcon 1e flights on the manifest now.  Does anyone have an old copy of the manifest for comparison?

In August 08 SpaceX had

SpaceDev 2009
MDA Corp. (Canada) 2010
Swedish Space Corp. (Sweden) 2010

All on Falcon 1

Today they have
Falcon 1e Inaugural Flight 2010
ORBCOMM 2010-2014 (unnumbered flights)
Astrium 2014

Swedish Space Corp went to Depnr
Can't remember the story behind MDA
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #991 on: 02/21/2010 12:01 am »
Can't remember the story behind MDA

It's now listed under F9 2011 for some reason.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #992 on: 02/21/2010 01:04 am »
Can't remember the story behind MDA

It's now listed under F9 2011 for some reason.

Surely that is going to be a multi manifest, or they have decided to sent their spacecraft to Venus.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #993 on: 02/21/2010 02:23 am »
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-02-16/news/os-spacex-rocket-launch-20100216_1_spacex-falcon-two-stage-rocket-international-space-station

"CAPE CANAVERAL — Sometime next month, if all goes well, a 154-foot-tall white rocket will rise from a launchpad at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in a crucial test of the ambitions of upstart space company SpaceX —- and of President Barack Obama's new policy for NASA."

I really hate to see so much riding on the 1st test of a Rocket.  I fear that an entirely reasonable partial failure of this launch could be used as an excuse to keep POR, and not use commercially purchased HSF.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #994 on: 02/21/2010 02:55 am »
I fear that an entirely reasonable partial failure of this launch could be used as an excuse to keep POR, and not use commercially purchased HSF.

As well it should!  It is extremely foolish and irresponsible policy that would have us throw away a proven capability in favor of something that hasn't even begun testing.  We have invested too much in ISS, which needs support now, to put that investment at risk.  Personally I'm holding out hope for a limited shuttle extension, while these commercial providers prove themselves.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #995 on: 02/21/2010 03:40 am »
As well it should!  It is extremely foolish and irresponsible policy that would have us throw away a proven capability in favor of something that hasn't even begun testing.  We have invested too much in ISS, which needs support now, to put that investment at risk.  Personally I'm holding out hope for a limited shuttle extension, while these commercial providers prove themselves.

And if Shuttle has a failure during an extension, which was prescribed partially because of safety issues, it will also be seen as an "extremely foolish and irresponsible policy".

Politically it is safer to allow a gap, than to risk the possibility of being held personally responsible for another 7 lost heroes.

I really wish there was some way for ULA to be the flag bearer for commercial space instead of SpaceX.  Atlas 5 is the much safer and more likely replacement for the shuttle than any SpaceX hardware in the next decade.

No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 597
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #996 on: 02/21/2010 03:51 am »
I really wish there was some way for ULA to be the flag bearer for commercial space instead of SpaceX.  Atlas 5 is the much safer and more likely replacement for the shuttle than any SpaceX hardware in the next decade.

Some suggest that RD-180 operates on the edge of its safety margins and that it's only a matter of time before a combustion chamber fails.  Merlin is a comparatively conservative design, and F9 has better engine-out capabilities. 

Of course, there are several arguments on the other side, but I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Offline cro-magnon gramps

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
  • Very Ancient Martian National
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 843
  • Likes Given: 10995
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #997 on: 02/21/2010 04:02 am »
I really wish there was some way for ULA to be the flag bearer for commercial space instead of SpaceX.  Atlas 5 is the much safer and more likely replacement for the shuttle than any SpaceX hardware in the next decade.

Some suggest that RD-180 operates on the edge of its safety margins and that it's only a matter of time before a combustion chamber fails.  Merlin is a comparatively conservative design, and F9 has better engine-out capabilities. 

Of course, there are several arguments on the other side, but I'm just playing devil's advocate.

my own two cents, is that looking at SpaceX safety record on the Falcon 9 is like looking through a telescope from the wrong end; we haven't had 1 flight yet and your already saying that it isn't safe; wait for at least 10 flights before making such a blanket statement; then you will have proof;

as a historical note, if we had gone on the record of the missile failures that were the rockets that put Mercury and Gemini in the history book, we might never have had those programs; lets give SpaceX the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise; they are doing all the right things in establishing the methodology of building and launching a complex vehicle;

    and no I am not a 110% behind commercial, but I do see that it has a future in Space Exploration, and would like to see it suceed; but I also believe that Gov't has a role to fulfill in advancing leading edge exploration;
     

   Edit - Elon has stated several times that the launch is not scheduled and could only happen when all parameters are right; he sees it happening within an April - May time frame; so the Sentinel is off base with a March Launch Date
« Last Edit: 02/21/2010 04:05 am by cro-magnon gramps »
Gramps "Earthling by Birth, Martian by the grace of The Elon." ~ "Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but it has not solved one yet." Maya Angelou ~ Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Offline zaitcev

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
    • mee.nu:zaitcev:space
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #998 on: 02/21/2010 04:51 am »
I really wish there was some way for ULA to be the flag bearer for commercial space instead of SpaceX.  Atlas 5 is the much safer and more likely replacement for the shuttle than any SpaceX hardware in the next decade.
Some suggest that RD-180 operates on the edge of its safety margins and that it's only a matter of time before a combustion chamber fails.  Merlin is a comparatively conservative design, and F9 has better engine-out capabilities.
Indeed the reliability concerns of RD-180 played the key role for Rus-M to receive a limited engine-out capability, a rather big deal for a tripple-block. Insiders report that an alternative design with 2xRD-0163 in each block is still being in play -- at this late stage! Zenit statistics suggest one explosion in about 30 flights. Atlas-V flew 25 or so; already getting due for one. In fact 25 is so close to 30 that same people speculate that Atlas may be more reliable than Zenit due to a different design on tanks (e.g. not shedding any particles into the engine). Still, from this point of view, and in comparison with the levels of reliability that Soyuz-FG demonstrated, suitabilty of Atlas-V for crewed flights is questioned in Russia until it reaches at least the 50 mark. Falcon-9 seems better on paper, but of course isn't everything? NASA touted completely bogus, inflated estimates for Ares-I too. We'll see the real picture after 50, or 100 flights of Falcon-9.
-- Pete

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #999 on: 02/21/2010 07:42 am »
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-02-16/news/os-spacex-rocket-launch-20100216_1_spacex-falcon-two-stage-rocket-international-space-station

"CAPE CANAVERAL — Sometime next month, if all goes well, a 154-foot-tall white rocket will rise from a launchpad at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in a crucial test of the ambitions of upstart space company SpaceX —- and of President Barack Obama's new policy for NASA."

I really hate to see so much riding on the 1st test of a Rocket.  I fear that an entirely reasonable partial failure of this launch could be used as an excuse to keep POR, and not use commercially purchased HSF.

Well, the quote isn't exactly reality bound. The first F9 launch has nothing to do with Obama's new space policy. It does have a lot more to do with whether to baseline STS-135 or not due to CRS contract flights delays. If we are talking commercial crew, SpaceX is one of many companies that will bid for a contract and it's not guaranteed they will actually get one (it will depend on their F9 performance until contract awards).
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Tags:
 

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