What I hear from my sources is that Dragon XL is going to be launched towards Gateway's NRHO the same way as the logistics module and lander elements: Ballistic Lunar Transfer. Which basically means: no TLI required. Transfer time before capture in the NRHO is 12 to 20 weeks.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/30/2020 08:45 amWhat I hear from my sources is that Dragon XL is going to be launched towards Gateway's NRHO the same way as the logistics module and lander elements: Ballistic Lunar Transfer. Which basically means: no TLI required. Transfer time before capture in the NRHO is 12 to 20 weeks.So S2 delivers Dragon XL to GTO or thereabouts, and Dragon XL burns its Dracos at perigee each orbit until apogee is near lunar orbit?
A couple points:Docking and Berthing are operations, docking is done under spacecraft control, berthing done with an arm under astronaut controlThere are also Docking and Berthing mechanisms, ie IDSS vs CBM.Confusing point that a Docking system could be berthed (I don't think anyone quite knows how to do this yet), but a Berthing system cannot be docked.Also, adding a CBM to Dragon XL would be a massive redesign. Possible you could make an adapter, but it would probably be a very expensive adapter.
If DragonXL does a slow transfer to NRHO (months), how did SpaceX comply with the unique capability of a fast transfer to Gateway (<30 days)? If NASA request this unique capability.The standard DragonXL launch and travel is not a fully expendable Falcon Heavy? And the fast transit is a fully expendable?I' m a little bit lost.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/28/2020 11:53 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 03/28/2020 01:37 amI'm guessing these have to be fully expendable Falcon Heavy launches, to get 5 tonnes of cargo to lunar orbit in a spacecraft that has to weigh 5-times-something tonnes - maybe 20 tonnes at TLI with about 1/4th of that mass needed for lunar orbit insertion. - Ed KyleCan't give you the exact numbers but my source says your mass estimate for the vehicle is way off. As in: your mass estimate for the vehicle is way too high.Is your source counting the mass needed for lunar orbit insertion? Maybe there is an entirely separate stage, or maybe the Falcon upper stage does some of the work. Consider this example. Apollo 17 entered trans-lunar injection at 46.8 tonnes. After its lunar insertion burn, the CSM/LM combination weighed 34.72 tonnes, using 26% of the TLI mass for that maneuver. So, if payload is 5 metric tons (tonnes)(SpaceX number), then the spacecraft plus payload in lunar orbit has to weigh maybe 2.1 to 2.75 times as much (see Cygnus, ATV, HTV, etc), which gets us to 10.5 to 13.75 tonnes. That mass divided by 0.74 for the lunar insertion gives 14.2 to 18.6 tonnes at trans-lunar injection. Of course this assumes a low lunar orbit delta-v maneuver, which I guess isn't happening in this case. From TLI to the Gateway NRHO using a lunar flyby would be something like 420 m/s delta-v, which for a 300 sec ISP Draco assumption would I think require about 13.5% of total TLI mass for the burns, resulting in a 12 to 15.9 tonne TLI mass range.This seems to me to be in the range requiring an expendable Falcon Heavy based on published and proven capabilities. SpaceX may be able to do downrange side booster recovery and achieve this result (while expending the center core), or some of it, but downrange recovery of two cores simultaneously on a Heavy flight has yet to be demonstrated. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/28/2020 01:37 amI'm guessing these have to be fully expendable Falcon Heavy launches, to get 5 tonnes of cargo to lunar orbit in a spacecraft that has to weigh 5-times-something tonnes - maybe 20 tonnes at TLI with about 1/4th of that mass needed for lunar orbit insertion. - Ed KyleCan't give you the exact numbers but my source says your mass estimate for the vehicle is way off. As in: your mass estimate for the vehicle is way too high.
I'm guessing these have to be fully expendable Falcon Heavy launches, to get 5 tonnes of cargo to lunar orbit in a spacecraft that has to weigh 5-times-something tonnes - maybe 20 tonnes at TLI with about 1/4th of that mass needed for lunar orbit insertion. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: rcoppola on 03/27/2020 09:57 pmWonder if this will need the extended faring?Read the thread. No fairing, just a "cap" like D1 has.
Wonder if this will need the extended faring?
Tweet Contents: @elonmusk Is Starship development still on track?Why was a new Dragon variant proposed for Lunar Gateway resupply missions?
Hopefully, Starship will have enough flight history to substitute for Dragon for NASA missions too
Quote from: Karloss12 on 03/29/2020 07:15 pmQuote from: Comga on 03/28/2020 11:22 pmQuote from: Karloss12 on 03/28/2020 11:02 pmEven though the hardware is largely derived from legacy equipment, the Earth-Lunar transfer and docking technology will be an important boost for SpaceX experience.And SpaceX will be making an absolute packet in profit margins for each mission as they know that they are only competing with the astronomically priced Delta IV Heavy.This is going to be a much celebrated mission for SpaceX. They will pocket a lot of cash and also develop themselves a new technology.My boldingCan you site evidence of anyone making a killing on a NASA contract?Even Boeing isn't "cleaning up" on SLS. They are just getting fixed or award fees for the last decade, and that's good enough.The company I work for has done a many instruments and missions for NASA. It's a good business. Higher margin than the commodity stuff. But it doesn't bloat the bottom line.A big issue for SpaceX is that this is seems to be a fixed price contract, IDIQ, for a system involved with astronauts, and at any time NASA can increase the requirements. SpaceX has experience with this, and probably didn't underbid the competition by $1.6B again. But it remains a risk, not a bonanza.I site the laws of capitalism. In particular, competition.The FH costs about $120mil. The Delta IV is $400mil.SpaceX will have bid around $350mil and be making a packet. Good on them. They need the cash to fund R&D.One of the great things about NSF is people posting can have good to great knowledge of the engineering or industry. Just because it doesn’t agree with your intuition is no reason to ignore a post with better background. Mine is not authoritative, but if none of the real experts reading this thread dispute my post, which has happened for others, restating your guess isn’t helping anyone else. I share your hope that Dragon XL generates some of the profits SpaceX needs to fund their amazing ambitions, but it won’t be a big fraction. It doesn’t work that way. Edit: Your concept of how Aerospace contracts are overpriced is interesting but not at all accurate. While some aerospace companies are rapacious, it’s much more sophisticated than pulling prices out of the air. We are all aggrieved by it, but snarling inaccuracies doesn’t help anyone fix anything.
Quote from: Comga on 03/28/2020 11:22 pmQuote from: Karloss12 on 03/28/2020 11:02 pmEven though the hardware is largely derived from legacy equipment, the Earth-Lunar transfer and docking technology will be an important boost for SpaceX experience.And SpaceX will be making an absolute packet in profit margins for each mission as they know that they are only competing with the astronomically priced Delta IV Heavy.This is going to be a much celebrated mission for SpaceX. They will pocket a lot of cash and also develop themselves a new technology.My boldingCan you site evidence of anyone making a killing on a NASA contract?Even Boeing isn't "cleaning up" on SLS. They are just getting fixed or award fees for the last decade, and that's good enough.The company I work for has done a many instruments and missions for NASA. It's a good business. Higher margin than the commodity stuff. But it doesn't bloat the bottom line.A big issue for SpaceX is that this is seems to be a fixed price contract, IDIQ, for a system involved with astronauts, and at any time NASA can increase the requirements. SpaceX has experience with this, and probably didn't underbid the competition by $1.6B again. But it remains a risk, not a bonanza.I site the laws of capitalism. In particular, competition.The FH costs about $120mil. The Delta IV is $400mil.SpaceX will have bid around $350mil and be making a packet. Good on them. They need the cash to fund R&D.
Quote from: Karloss12 on 03/28/2020 11:02 pmEven though the hardware is largely derived from legacy equipment, the Earth-Lunar transfer and docking technology will be an important boost for SpaceX experience.And SpaceX will be making an absolute packet in profit margins for each mission as they know that they are only competing with the astronomically priced Delta IV Heavy.This is going to be a much celebrated mission for SpaceX. They will pocket a lot of cash and also develop themselves a new technology.My boldingCan you site evidence of anyone making a killing on a NASA contract?Even Boeing isn't "cleaning up" on SLS. They are just getting fixed or award fees for the last decade, and that's good enough.The company I work for has done a many instruments and missions for NASA. It's a good business. Higher margin than the commodity stuff. But it doesn't bloat the bottom line.A big issue for SpaceX is that this is seems to be a fixed price contract, IDIQ, for a system involved with astronauts, and at any time NASA can increase the requirements. SpaceX has experience with this, and probably didn't underbid the competition by $1.6B again. But it remains a risk, not a bonanza.
Even though the hardware is largely derived from legacy equipment, the Earth-Lunar transfer and docking technology will be an important boost for SpaceX experience.And SpaceX will be making an absolute packet in profit margins for each mission as they know that they are only competing with the astronomically priced Delta IV Heavy.This is going to be a much celebrated mission for SpaceX. They will pocket a lot of cash and also develop themselves a new technology.
Quote from: pochimax on 03/30/2020 12:52 pmIf DragonXL does a slow transfer to NRHO (months), how did SpaceX comply with the unique capability of a fast transfer to Gateway (<30 days)? If NASA request this unique capability.The standard DragonXL launch and travel is not a fully expendable Falcon Heavy? And the fast transit is a fully expendable?I' m a little bit lost.Can you point to the specific requirement for a <30 days transfer to Gateway? I can't seem to find it.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/29/2020 10:51 pmQuote from: soltasto on 03/29/2020 06:28 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/29/2020 03:40 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 03/29/2020 03:20 pmDoes anyone have a good estimate for Falcon Heavy near-escape capability for core-expendable and booster down-range recovery mode? Such a mode does not yet exist, of course, because SpaceX hasn't demonstrated dual downrange recovery. I know about Elon's 10% payload reduction estimate, but he never said if that was for LEO or GTO, etc. My guess is 10% for LEO, but a bigger reduction for higher energy orbits. My estimate for 5 tonnes cargo to Near Rectilinear Halo (lunar) Orbit (NRHO) is that 12 to 16 tonnes (payload, spacecraft, propellant) would need to separate into TLI, providing 10.5 to 13.8 tonnes to NRHO (13.5% of mass used for the burns to NRHO). The three-core recovery mode for Falcon Heavy only provides 8 tonnes to GTO, while fully expendable Falcon Heavy is listed at 26.7 tonnes GTO or 16.8 tonnes trans-Mars. - Ed KyleCitation needed for just 8 tons GTO with 3 booster recovery. I think the assumptions for that are much more conservative (sandbagged) than those for the 16.8tonnes TMI estimate.Also, center core expended and 2 cores RTLS is a thing.I think that comes directly from SpaceX:https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities Nope!Read again! That’s just the performance you get for $90m; it says nothing about what the mode of launch would be at that price. Secondaries? RTLS for all 3 cores? Extra margin for a softer recovery? Cheaper/lighter payload adapter? Who knows! It isn’t specified!We do know from that page it can do 26.7t GTO in fully expendable mode.Maybe an official slide from Spacex presented at Hans Koenigsman's Ted talk at IAC 2018 (you can find the video on youtube too) will be sufficient. Notice the plus sign on the Expendable Falcon Heavy figure. All these figures could be outdated, but they are the figures SpaceX gave out officially. I think the figures on their website are estimates with close to no fuel margins, which might be ok for an internal mission or for rocket comparison purposes but not for commercial launches or government launches. The NASA LSP figures could also be very conservative, there is no doubt in that.
Quote from: soltasto on 03/29/2020 06:28 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/29/2020 03:40 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 03/29/2020 03:20 pmDoes anyone have a good estimate for Falcon Heavy near-escape capability for core-expendable and booster down-range recovery mode? Such a mode does not yet exist, of course, because SpaceX hasn't demonstrated dual downrange recovery. I know about Elon's 10% payload reduction estimate, but he never said if that was for LEO or GTO, etc. My guess is 10% for LEO, but a bigger reduction for higher energy orbits. My estimate for 5 tonnes cargo to Near Rectilinear Halo (lunar) Orbit (NRHO) is that 12 to 16 tonnes (payload, spacecraft, propellant) would need to separate into TLI, providing 10.5 to 13.8 tonnes to NRHO (13.5% of mass used for the burns to NRHO). The three-core recovery mode for Falcon Heavy only provides 8 tonnes to GTO, while fully expendable Falcon Heavy is listed at 26.7 tonnes GTO or 16.8 tonnes trans-Mars. - Ed KyleCitation needed for just 8 tons GTO with 3 booster recovery. I think the assumptions for that are much more conservative (sandbagged) than those for the 16.8tonnes TMI estimate.Also, center core expended and 2 cores RTLS is a thing.I think that comes directly from SpaceX:https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities Nope!Read again! That’s just the performance you get for $90m; it says nothing about what the mode of launch would be at that price. Secondaries? RTLS for all 3 cores? Extra margin for a softer recovery? Cheaper/lighter payload adapter? Who knows! It isn’t specified!We do know from that page it can do 26.7t GTO in fully expendable mode.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/29/2020 03:40 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 03/29/2020 03:20 pmDoes anyone have a good estimate for Falcon Heavy near-escape capability for core-expendable and booster down-range recovery mode? Such a mode does not yet exist, of course, because SpaceX hasn't demonstrated dual downrange recovery. I know about Elon's 10% payload reduction estimate, but he never said if that was for LEO or GTO, etc. My guess is 10% for LEO, but a bigger reduction for higher energy orbits. My estimate for 5 tonnes cargo to Near Rectilinear Halo (lunar) Orbit (NRHO) is that 12 to 16 tonnes (payload, spacecraft, propellant) would need to separate into TLI, providing 10.5 to 13.8 tonnes to NRHO (13.5% of mass used for the burns to NRHO). The three-core recovery mode for Falcon Heavy only provides 8 tonnes to GTO, while fully expendable Falcon Heavy is listed at 26.7 tonnes GTO or 16.8 tonnes trans-Mars. - Ed KyleCitation needed for just 8 tons GTO with 3 booster recovery. I think the assumptions for that are much more conservative (sandbagged) than those for the 16.8tonnes TMI estimate.Also, center core expended and 2 cores RTLS is a thing.I think that comes directly from SpaceX:https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/29/2020 03:20 pmDoes anyone have a good estimate for Falcon Heavy near-escape capability for core-expendable and booster down-range recovery mode? Such a mode does not yet exist, of course, because SpaceX hasn't demonstrated dual downrange recovery. I know about Elon's 10% payload reduction estimate, but he never said if that was for LEO or GTO, etc. My guess is 10% for LEO, but a bigger reduction for higher energy orbits. My estimate for 5 tonnes cargo to Near Rectilinear Halo (lunar) Orbit (NRHO) is that 12 to 16 tonnes (payload, spacecraft, propellant) would need to separate into TLI, providing 10.5 to 13.8 tonnes to NRHO (13.5% of mass used for the burns to NRHO). The three-core recovery mode for Falcon Heavy only provides 8 tonnes to GTO, while fully expendable Falcon Heavy is listed at 26.7 tonnes GTO or 16.8 tonnes trans-Mars. - Ed KyleCitation needed for just 8 tons GTO with 3 booster recovery. I think the assumptions for that are much more conservative (sandbagged) than those for the 16.8tonnes TMI estimate.Also, center core expended and 2 cores RTLS is a thing.
Does anyone have a good estimate for Falcon Heavy near-escape capability for core-expendable and booster down-range recovery mode? Such a mode does not yet exist, of course, because SpaceX hasn't demonstrated dual downrange recovery. I know about Elon's 10% payload reduction estimate, but he never said if that was for LEO or GTO, etc. My guess is 10% for LEO, but a bigger reduction for higher energy orbits. My estimate for 5 tonnes cargo to Near Rectilinear Halo (lunar) Orbit (NRHO) is that 12 to 16 tonnes (payload, spacecraft, propellant) would need to separate into TLI, providing 10.5 to 13.8 tonnes to NRHO (13.5% of mass used for the burns to NRHO). The three-core recovery mode for Falcon Heavy only provides 8 tonnes to GTO, while fully expendable Falcon Heavy is listed at 26.7 tonnes GTO or 16.8 tonnes trans-Mars. - Ed Kyle
[...]Quote from: butters on 03/28/2020 07:16 pmIf the Gateway comes to fruition, this is a relatively low-cost design evolution for cargo supply. This isn't something that SpaceX would have wanted on their roadmap, and I doubt they anticipate any commercial market for a vehicle like this, but it would have been poor form for SpaceX not to bid. SpaceX has a strategic interest in playing nice with NASA, and while developing Dragon XL would be a distraction, it's not an overly burdensome detour. NASA will pay enough to make it worthwhile for SpaceX even if they're the only conceivable customer.This is indeed a relatively low-cost design evolution. BUTThis is very much something that SpaceX is very willing to build and fly for NASA. Reason: SpaceX needs every dollar it can get to finance the development of Starship and Superheavy. Not just now, but also 10 years from now because, like FH and F9, Starship and Superheavy will be in near-constant development & improvement for at least a decade to come.[...]
If the Gateway comes to fruition, this is a relatively low-cost design evolution for cargo supply. This isn't something that SpaceX would have wanted on their roadmap, and I doubt they anticipate any commercial market for a vehicle like this, but it would have been poor form for SpaceX not to bid. SpaceX has a strategic interest in playing nice with NASA, and while developing Dragon XL would be a distraction, it's not an overly burdensome detour. NASA will pay enough to make it worthwhile for SpaceX even if they're the only conceivable customer.
I am one of those technical and commercial experts who works with multi-million pound projects in various industries including Aerospace. So this is a case of me (an expert) disagreeing with other so called experts.I generate an accurate estimate for the design, fabrication and management of equipment at a customers site and a standard profit margin is applied to my estimate to get a standard bid price. If we know that my company is the only bidder then the project manager will take my standard quote price and multiply it by 2-3. There are other multipliers for whether you want the job.
When you throw politicians into the mix like with Aerospace, the price just gets even worse.
I think people on this forum over exaggerate the governments ability to intergate a suppliers price.
The most recent article says that Dragon XL is a Variant of Dragon 2.Going from the Dragon 1 variant to the Dragon 2 Variant cost over $2bill.
I think with a lack of competition and a tight schedule squeeze, a similar price could be justified for the Dragon XL varient.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/30/2020 08:03 am[...]Quote from: butters on 03/28/2020 07:16 pmIf the Gateway comes to fruition, this is a relatively low-cost design evolution for cargo supply. This isn't something that SpaceX would have wanted on their roadmap, and I doubt they anticipate any commercial market for a vehicle like this, but it would have been poor form for SpaceX not to bid. SpaceX has a strategic interest in playing nice with NASA, and while developing Dragon XL would be a distraction, it's not an overly burdensome detour. NASA will pay enough to make it worthwhile for SpaceX even if they're the only conceivable customer.This is indeed a relatively low-cost design evolution. BUTThis is very much something that SpaceX is very willing to build and fly for NASA. Reason: SpaceX needs every dollar it can get to finance the development of Starship and Superheavy. Not just now, but also 10 years from now because, like FH and F9, Starship and Superheavy will be in near-constant development & improvement for at least a decade to come.[...]I want to point out that this contract gets SpaceX someone to foot the development of rad-hard avionics, deep space GNC, telemetry and environment design, and experience on deep space mission in general. Radiation effect on electronics, heat rejection, power generation, navigation and comms are all different for deep space than what SpaceX has been doing up to now. ...
Different in amount, not in kind. LEO is same as deep space, just different dosing rates. Same order of magnitude rates.
Quote from: baldusi on 03/30/2020 09:49 pmQuote from: woods170 on 03/30/2020 08:03 am[...]Quote from: butters on 03/28/2020 07:16 pmIf the Gateway comes to fruition, this is a relatively low-cost design evolution for cargo supply. This isn't something that SpaceX would have wanted on their roadmap, and I doubt they anticipate any commercial market for a vehicle like this, but it would have been poor form for SpaceX not to bid. SpaceX has a strategic interest in playing nice with NASA, and while developing Dragon XL would be a distraction, it's not an overly burdensome detour. NASA will pay enough to make it worthwhile for SpaceX even if they're the only conceivable customer.This is indeed a relatively low-cost design evolution. BUTThis is very much something that SpaceX is very willing to build and fly for NASA. Reason: SpaceX needs every dollar it can get to finance the development of Starship and Superheavy. Not just now, but also 10 years from now because, like FH and F9, Starship and Superheavy will be in near-constant development & improvement for at least a decade to come.[...]I want to point out that this contract gets SpaceX someone to foot the development of rad-hard avionics, deep space GNC, telemetry and environment design, and experience on deep space mission in general. Radiation effect on electronics, heat rejection, power generation, navigation and comms are all different for deep space than what SpaceX has been doing up to now. ...Different in amount, not in kind. LEO is same as deep space, just different dosing rates. Same order of magnitude rates.