Author Topic: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)  (Read 396570 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #160 on: 02/08/2016 03:29 pm »
Now if you could just finish the petty squabbles.

Something worth talking about out of ses. Do you think there looking at doing extra burns or longer burns? I assume they are going to try and get closer to the final on station orbit.

How close do you think f9ft can get them? How close would they want to get?


Eliminate 1st stage return or boost back and apply the delta V to a super synchronous orbit or reduced inclination or other combinations.

Offline set321go

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Vancouver, Canada
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 305
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #161 on: 02/08/2016 05:26 pm »
So they could achieve a super synchronous orbit with an extended 1 stage burn, would they need to change the number of burns for the 2nd stage?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #162 on: 02/08/2016 05:37 pm »
So they could achieve a super synchronous orbit with an extended 1 stage burn, would they need to change the number of burns for the 2nd stage?

Changes to payload insertion would be done with the second stage.

Offline nadreck

Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #163 on: 02/08/2016 05:46 pm »
So they could achieve a super synchronous orbit with an extended 1 stage burn, would they need to change the number of burns for the 2nd stage?

see the discussion of specifics on the SES 9 thread

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34077.msg1489228#msg1489228

and

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34077.msg1489255#msg1489255

and my specific reply to this one:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34077.msg1489266#msg1489266
« Last Edit: 02/10/2016 05:31 am by Galactic Penguin SST »
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #164 on: 02/09/2016 01:41 am »
The Space Review gives their book review of SpaceX’s Dragon: America’s Next Generation Spacecraft, a book which chronicles the development of the Dragon spacecraft.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2916/1

Offline Arb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • London
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 433
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #165 on: 02/09/2016 05:46 pm »
The trouble with The Space Review is the padding (IMO); most of their articles seem to be of the so-many-words-so-little-content variety. To save you all the tedium, the nub of Jeff Foust's article is:

Quote
Given that important role Dragon plays, its development is worthy of a book. Unfortunately, it probably deserves a better book than SpaceX’s Dragon: America’s Next Generation Spacecraft. Erik Seedhouse offers a history of Dragon’s development for cargo and crew missions, and its potential future on missions to Mars, but there’s very little insight about Dragon beyond what’s already publicly available, and even that information is sometimes wrong.

Offline Baranquilla

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 107
  • Working for a Space Agency in Europe
  • 🇪🇺
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #166 on: 02/09/2016 06:47 pm »
Anyone an Idea about where exactly the dragon itself is fueled on LC 40?
Because it's there - George Mallory

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #167 on: 02/09/2016 07:31 pm »
Anyone an Idea about where exactly the dragon itself is fueled on LC 40?

Not at LC-40 but at the SPIF in the SMAB

Online MechE31

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 156
  • MELBOURNE, FL
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #168 on: 02/10/2016 12:45 am »
Anyone an Idea about where exactly the dragon itself is fueled on LC 40?

Not at LC-40 but at the SPIF in the SMAB

It has also previously been loaded in the SLC-40 hangar and the SLC-40 hangar annex.

Offline Baranquilla

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 107
  • Working for a Space Agency in Europe
  • 🇪🇺
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #169 on: 02/10/2016 08:06 pm »
Anyone an Idea about where exactly the dragon itself is fueled on LC 40?

Not at LC-40 but at the SPIF in the SMAB

It has also previously been loaded in the SLC-40 hangar and the SLC-40 hangar annex.

Okay Thank you both! I heard they are working on the hypergolic system for fueling (plumbing of that system) so I was wondering were exactly that would be right now.
Because it's there - George Mallory

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9683
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #170 on: 02/16/2016 05:20 am »
For the current Falcon 9 Full Thrust, we've seen info that it is 70 m in total length, including the payload fairing.

Have also seen that the length of the Dragon cargo (v1) spacecraft is 6.1 m.

Does anyone have info, even geometric estimates, of the length of the interstage? of the second stage? of the payload fairing? And would the first stage length just be the 70 m minus the (interstage + second stage + PL fairing)?
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #171 on: 02/16/2016 05:40 am »
Interstage: 6.75m 2nd stage 14.3m estimated. Source:  http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/falcon-9-ft/

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #172 on: 02/16/2016 03:33 pm »
Interstage: 6.75m 2nd stage 14.3m estimated. Source:  http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/falcon-9-ft/

It says the 14.3m is separated length for stage 2.  A lot of that (nearly half?) is inside the interstage when the rocket launches, and a little would be sticking up into the payload fairing.  If you're trying to figure out the height of the rocket you would only count the side walls of the propellant tanks on the second stage.

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9683
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #173 on: 02/16/2016 08:33 pm »
Interstage: 6.75m 2nd stage 14.3m estimated. Source:  http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/falcon-9-ft/

It says the 14.3m is separated length for stage 2.  A lot of that (nearly half?) is inside the interstage when the rocket launches, and a little would be sticking up into the payload fairing.  If you're trying to figure out the height of the rocket you would only count the side walls of the propellant tanks on the second stage.

Yes, thanks! 

I was looking for the individual piece-parts dimensions, and for the data where SpaceX has not publicly released specs, the Spaceflight101 estimates are about as good as any.

So I get the vertical dimensions as: first stage: 41.2 metres; interstage: 6.7 m; second stage: 9.0 m visible 2nd stage on the outside of the rocket stack (but 14.3 m total separated  2nd stage length); payload fairing: 13.1 m.  This makes a total of the 70-metres length for the total assembled rocket, with the payload fairing. Rocket diameter is 3.7 m diameter, with a 5.2 m-diameter fairing.

With a Dragon 1 on it, the stack is of course a bit shorter than 70 m, and with a Dragon 2, will be different yet.

I think that sums it the basic dimensions.  I have a friend who imports hand-carved wood carvings from Indonesia, and he was interested in the dimensions.  He's going there next week, and I hope he'll have his guys carve me up a rocket.  We'll see how it looks.  If it is cool, maybe I'll take a photo and share it, as well as see if they want to make some more for others.


Edited to fix typo in diameter; should be 3.7 m
« Last Edit: 02/21/2016 09:46 pm by Llian Rhydderch »
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #174 on: 02/21/2016 08:23 pm »
The Orbcomm OG2-2 launch license has finally been posted on the faa website. It refers to the new vehicle as "Falcon 9 Version 1.2"

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-089%20Rev_1%20ORBCOMM-2%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%20-%20Signed.pdf

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #175 on: 02/21/2016 09:06 pm »
Rocket diameter is 3.2 m diameter, with a 5.2 m-diameter fairing.



Typo on the diameter?  SpaceX web site shows it as 3.7m diameter
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #176 on: 02/21/2016 09:44 pm »
The Orbcomm OG2-2 launch license has finally been posted on the faa website. It refers to the new vehicle as "Falcon 9 Version 1.2"

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-089%20Rev_1%20ORBCOMM-2%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%20-%20Signed.pdf
Typical SpaceX: in the absence of an official name, unofficial names proliferate.

I expect every entity they interact with has a slightly different name for the rocket (we know the USAF uses a different name) since SpaceX won't call it anything but "Falcon 9."

Citing more places where unofficial names crop up didn't make any of them more official.

(Apple had this issue for a while, too, when they insisted that all their versions of the iPad were named "iPad".)
« Last Edit: 02/21/2016 09:47 pm by cscott »

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9683
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #177 on: 02/21/2016 09:46 pm »
Rocket diameter is 3.2 m diameter, with a 5.2 m-diameter fairing.



Typo on the diameter?  SpaceX web site shows it as 3.7m diameter

Yes, thanks!  Fixed in the original post.
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #178 on: 02/24/2016 04:34 pm »
http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-5-new-space-station-cargo-missions-in-nasa-contract-estimated-at-700-million/

Quote
SpaceX wins 5 new space station cargo missions in NASA contract estimated at $700 million

NASA has awarded five additional space station cargo-supply missions to SpaceX in a late-December contract with an undisclosed value that industry officials estimate at around $700 million.
>

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #179 on: 02/25/2016 03:24 pm »
That means CRS-1 mission at least until 2018, adding the usual delay factor, 2019 should be covered. So CRS-2 Dragons should start at late 2019, early 2020. On a different note, at 22, the Cargo Dragon will be the most popular cargo craft after the venerable Progress. By a large margin.

Tags:
 

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