The plan is to fit VASIMR engines to ISS and power them from a 50kwhr battery to enable 15 min bursts at full thrust. Using Dragon as free flying test platform with a 60kwhr battery should be able to achieve same result. Allow 24 HR between tests for batteries to recharge. They could even send it around the moon.
It's funny how, when SpaceX opts for mass production instead of reusability, a lot of people start to tout the benefits of mass production. Streamlining the process, enhancing the design iteratively, etc...
About original topic of this thread: I don't think these dragons will be ever reused.
Quote from: llanitedave on 05/21/2014 01:44 amI think the Dragon and the trunk should be considered two separate entities.No, it shouldn't. Dragon has limited capabilities (mission life) once it sheds the trunk.
I think the Dragon and the trunk should be considered two separate entities.
Quote from: InfraNut2 on 05/18/2014 07:04 pmQuote from: Llian Rhydderch on 05/18/2014 06:18 pmI took clongton's statement just a bit diffferently. Not that there are not now, currently, two different models of Dragon. There clearly are: the crew Dragon currently flying on CRS-3 (which is a "Dragon v2 v1.1" with upgraded power and avionics), and perhaps with others in the production pipeline (as we've seen) for future CRS flights); and the new SuperDraco-included Dragons that will be unveiled late this month, and will participate in the ground-abort test and launch-abort test in the coming months.Dragon V2 is the docking and land-landing capable dragon initially intended for crew transport. CRS-3 dragon is upgraded but not a new main version. It have been called Dragon v1.5 on one occasion, but that seems a bit high a version number, since the only confirmed changes are improved power system that can provide much more power to payloads and more waterproof solutions for electronics boxes in the unpressurized but internal part of dragon. Perhaps the upgrades are much more extensive than what is confirmed -- It would probably be smart to "backport" much of the minor v1.x compatible changes intended for V2 back into v1.x cargo dragons to get them tested early, spread out the risks on more than one flight and avoid unnecessary parallel versions of subsystems.edit: typos etc.I do understand the major distinction between the cargo Dragon and the new, soon-to-be-unveiled, crew Dragon. I thought that Shotwell referred to the upgraded Dragon (new avionics and additional power for the NASA cargos) as "v2". I could quite easily be wrong. (I was wrong, it is v1.1 I know I was surprised to hear her say that as I had been aware of the major upgrades for crew that had been planned for a long time.What is SpaceX formally referring to the particular model of cargo Dragon that just flew on CRS-3?
Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 05/18/2014 06:18 pmI took clongton's statement just a bit diffferently. Not that there are not now, currently, two different models of Dragon. There clearly are: the crew Dragon currently flying on CRS-3 (which is a "Dragon v2 v1.1" with upgraded power and avionics), and perhaps with others in the production pipeline (as we've seen) for future CRS flights); and the new SuperDraco-included Dragons that will be unveiled late this month, and will participate in the ground-abort test and launch-abort test in the coming months.Dragon V2 is the docking and land-landing capable dragon initially intended for crew transport. CRS-3 dragon is upgraded but not a new main version. It have been called Dragon v1.5 on one occasion, but that seems a bit high a version number, since the only confirmed changes are improved power system that can provide much more power to payloads and more waterproof solutions for electronics boxes in the unpressurized but internal part of dragon. Perhaps the upgrades are much more extensive than what is confirmed -- It would probably be smart to "backport" much of the minor v1.x compatible changes intended for V2 back into v1.x cargo dragons to get them tested early, spread out the risks on more than one flight and avoid unnecessary parallel versions of subsystems.edit: typos etc.
I took clongton's statement just a bit diffferently. Not that there are not now, currently, two different models of Dragon. There clearly are: the crew Dragon currently flying on CRS-3 (which is a "Dragon v2 v1.1" with upgraded power and avionics), and perhaps with others in the production pipeline (as we've seen) for future CRS flights); and the new SuperDraco-included Dragons that will be unveiled late this month, and will participate in the ground-abort test and launch-abort test in the coming months.
Elon Musk @elonmusk 2h@QuantumG Dragon V1.1 doesn't have a launch escape system. Probably comparable reliability to Shuttle, but we need to do better.
1. From www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9v1-1.html the empty mass of the second stage is approx 6 tonnes, which should be within the capability of the dragon control system (www.spacex.com/dragon).2. Once berthed, the ISS now has a fuel depot capability able to hold over 40 tonnes each of RP1 and LOX. Power to the second stage (for valve control and stage health monitoring) can be supplied via an umbilical from ISS to what would have been the standard pad umbilical connectors, likewise pump connections for loading fuel or taking it off could be done via it's existing pad connectors.3. Potentially if suitable relocation takes place, the Merlin could also provide ISS reboost and debris avoidance capability (given the 40% throttle capability), though whether a standard second stage / trunk / dragon configuration is structurally robust enough to handle that I don't know.