Author Topic: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3  (Read 296081 times)

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4307
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 3420
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #860 on: 03/15/2023 12:46 pm »

It's either flying on the Crew Dragon or no Orbital Reef, IMO. As stated up thread if Bezos waits too long and the Starship becomes operational, could render the Orbital Reef concept moot. As it is, might be already too late for the current Orbital Reef concept to be implemented.

Well that assumes Bezos wouldn't go it alone.  If I have learned anything about him he goes his way at his pace where he wants to go. 
Bezos may not collaborate with others and will pursue his own goals at his own pace. The operational concept of Starship for a long-term orbital station may not lead to a viable market for a true station, making it irrelevant.
The Starship concept of ops for long term orbital style station is not really likely to make a true station, if there is actually a market(s), moot.
All near-term CLDs (your "true stations"?) seem to be built from elements that can be launched on heavy-lift LVs and then assembled in space. But Starship is a superheavy. This changes the game entirely, and AFIAK there are no serious near-term plans that take advantage of it. A custom non-EDL SS designed to be a station core could be larger than any of the currently-planned CLDs. It could be served by CCP-type missions until a crewed Starship can be certified.

Wait, weren't the Starmax guys doing hab modules that use the full payload of Starship though?
Yep. I think it's dumb, because the payload bay of the SS that is carrying that module is by definition bigger than the module, so a non-EDL custom SS would have a larger volume even without much customization, and a non-EDL SS is cheap to build. Whatever they were going to build into the module can be built into the much more robust SS instead.
That assumes that most of the module's cost is in the structure, not the fitout. It also would tie their entire business into a single vendor and a single product, whereas a module that can launch on multiple vehicles mitigates that external SPoF risk.
A company that customizes an SS has an entirely different business model than a company that builds LV-agnostic modules.  It's a different way of thinking about the problem. The concept won't work until SpaceX creates a custom SS department or SpaceX decides to build it themselves.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4954
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1613
  • Likes Given: 1214
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #861 on: 03/16/2023 04:39 am »
<snip>
A company that customizes an SS has an entirely different business model than a company that builds LV-agnostic modules.  It's a different way of thinking about the problem. The concept won't work until SpaceX creates a custom SS department or SpaceX decides to build it themselves.
Will point out that the Moonship (HLS lander) is a customized Starship and the Dragon XL is a LV agnostic module. So SpaceX already does both customized Starship and specialized modules. As long as things are useful for Mars colonization and someone else is willing to pay for them than SpaceX will try to accommodate the customer, IMO.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4307
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 3420
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #862 on: 03/16/2023 02:21 pm »
<snip>
A company that customizes an SS has an entirely different business model than a company that builds LV-agnostic modules.  It's a different way of thinking about the problem. The concept won't work until SpaceX creates a custom SS department or SpaceX decides to build it themselves.
Will point out that the Moonship (HLS lander) is a customized Starship and the Dragon XL is a LV agnostic module. So SpaceX already does both customized Starship and specialized modules. As long as things are useful for Mars colonization and someone else is willing to pay for them than SpaceX will try to accommodate the customer, IMO.
I was talking about CLD business models, but you are correct that HLS shows that SpaceX will build a custom version if it is profitable. If we look at HLS Option B, we see that it's not even very expensive. They bid $1.13 B for Option B, but that included an entire moon mission, not just the HLS spacecraft. We can guess that the other costs of the mission were at least $130M, to the price of a custom SS, designed, produced, and launched to LEO, might be less than $1 B.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #863 on: 03/16/2023 03:05 pm »
<snip>
A company that customizes an SS has an entirely different business model than a company that builds LV-agnostic modules.  It's a different way of thinking about the problem. The concept won't work until SpaceX creates a custom SS department or SpaceX decides to build it themselves.
Will point out that the Moonship (HLS lander) is a customized Starship and the Dragon XL is a LV agnostic module. So SpaceX already does both customized Starship and specialized modules. As long as things are useful for Mars colonization and someone else is willing to pay for them than SpaceX will try to accommodate the customer, IMO.
I was talking about CLD business models, but you are correct that HLS shows that SpaceX will build a custom version if it is profitable. If we look at HLS Option B, we see that it's not even very expensive. They bid $1.13 B for Option B, but that included an entire moon mission, not just the HLS spacecraft. We can guess that the other costs of the mission were at least $130M, to the price of a custom SS, designed, produced, and launched to LEO, might be less than $1 B.

Reminder that SpaceX bid a modified Starship for the CLD program and was not selected.

Starmax makes sense because you want to launch a space station into space and leave it there. The strength of a space station is that it stays in orbit for years or decades, continuously doing work.

The big strength of Starship is that you can launch it, land it, and launch it again, and again, and again. Building a space station into a Starship and putting it into space permanently removes that strength, and makes it more expensive. Starship is best used as a freighter to launch and supply a space station.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4307
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 3420
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #864 on: 03/16/2023 03:25 pm »

The big strength of Starship is that you can launch it, land it, and launch it again, and again, and again. Building a space station into a Starship and putting it into space permanently removes that strength, and makes it more expensive. Starship is best used as a freighter to launch and supply a space station.
If it's cheap enough, is makes economic sense to use a custom non-EDL Starship. This includes Depot and HLS. It may very well be cheaper to build out a large SS-based station before launch than it is to launch modules and mate them in LEO.

Even without a hammerhead the SS would be larger diameter than a module. With a hammerhead a SS might have a diameter of 12 m. It could launch with more than 250 tonne of equipment, fixtures, etc. already fitted out.

Such a station might change the economics of CCP-type service.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #865 on: 03/16/2023 04:02 pm »

The big strength of Starship is that you can launch it, land it, and launch it again, and again, and again. Building a space station into a Starship and putting it into space permanently removes that strength, and makes it more expensive. Starship is best used as a freighter to launch and supply a space station.

If it's cheap enough, is makes economic sense to use a custom non-EDL Starship. This includes Depot and HLS. It may very well be cheaper to build out a large SS-based station before launch than it is to launch modules and mate them in LEO.

Even without a hammerhead the SS would be larger diameter than a module. With a hammerhead a SS might have a diameter of 12 m. It could launch with more than 250 tonne of equipment, fixtures, etc. already fitted out.

Such a station might change the economics of CCP-type service.

I doubt there will be very many depots. However cheap they are, it's going to be significantly cheaper to use a stock tanker as a temporary depot and return it back to Earth afterwards.

Size isn't everything, lol. Capability matters a lot. Wasting a bunch of useless (and expensive) mass on the Starship engines and structure doesn't make sense.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3455
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2456
  • Likes Given: 2110
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #866 on: 03/17/2023 12:39 am »
If it's cheap enough, is makes economic sense to use a custom non-EDL Starship.
Such a station might change the economics of CCP-type service.
Size isn't everything, lol. Capability matters a lot. Wasting a bunch of useless (and expensive) mass on the Starship engines and structure doesn't make sense.

It makes sense if it's significantly cheaper than the alternative.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4954
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1613
  • Likes Given: 1214
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #867 on: 03/17/2023 02:02 am »
<snip>
A company that customizes an SS has an entirely different business model than a company that builds LV-agnostic modules.  It's a different way of thinking about the problem. The concept won't work until SpaceX creates a custom SS department or SpaceX decides to build it themselves.
Will point out that the Moonship (HLS lander) is a customized Starship and the Dragon XL is a LV agnostic module. So SpaceX already does both customized Starship and specialized modules. As long as things are useful for Mars colonization and someone else is willing to pay for them than SpaceX will try to accommodate the customer, IMO.
I was talking about CLD business models, but you are correct that HLS shows that SpaceX will build a custom version if it is profitable. If we look at HLS Option B, we see that it's not even very expensive. They bid $1.13 B for Option B, but that included an entire moon mission, not just the HLS spacecraft. We can guess that the other costs of the mission were at least $130M, to the price of a custom SS, designed, produced, and launched to LEO, might be less than $1 B.

Reminder that SpaceX bid a modified Starship for the CLD program and was not selected.
<snip>
NASA didn't want to appear to be just selecting SpaceX for just about everything. Regardless of the merits of each SpaceX proposal. Especially after the Congressional Critters whining about NASA selecting the Starship LSS as the Artemis Lunar lander.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #868 on: 03/20/2023 09:30 pm »
If it's cheap enough, is makes economic sense to use a custom non-EDL Starship.
Such a station might change the economics of CCP-type service.
Size isn't everything, lol. Capability matters a lot. Wasting a bunch of useless (and expensive) mass on the Starship engines and structure doesn't make sense.

It makes sense if it's significantly cheaper than the alternative.

Which it probably wouldn't be. Everything that would normally go into a space station would have to go into a modified Starship space station, plus the Starship. If it's staying in orbit, the customer is paying for a bunch of Starship mass, tanks, and engines it does not need.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #869 on: 03/20/2023 09:30 pm »
<snip>
A company that customizes an SS has an entirely different business model than a company that builds LV-agnostic modules.  It's a different way of thinking about the problem. The concept won't work until SpaceX creates a custom SS department or SpaceX decides to build it themselves.
Will point out that the Moonship (HLS lander) is a customized Starship and the Dragon XL is a LV agnostic module. So SpaceX already does both customized Starship and specialized modules. As long as things are useful for Mars colonization and someone else is willing to pay for them than SpaceX will try to accommodate the customer, IMO.
I was talking about CLD business models, but you are correct that HLS shows that SpaceX will build a custom version if it is profitable. If we look at HLS Option B, we see that it's not even very expensive. They bid $1.13 B for Option B, but that included an entire moon mission, not just the HLS spacecraft. We can guess that the other costs of the mission were at least $130M, to the price of a custom SS, designed, produced, and launched to LEO, might be less than $1 B.

Reminder that SpaceX bid a modified Starship for the CLD program and was not selected.
<snip>
NASA didn't want to appear to be just selecting SpaceX for just about everything. Regardless of the merits of each SpaceX proposal. Especially after the Congressional Critters whining about NASA selecting the Starship LSS as the Artemis Lunar lander.

No, it wasn't selected because the Starship-modified-into-space-station didn't meet NASA's requirements. Again, we see that capability is very important.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline JayWee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Liked: 933
  • Likes Given: 1661
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #870 on: 03/20/2023 10:14 pm »

The big strength of Starship is that you can launch it, land it, and launch it again, and again, and again. Building a space station into a Starship and putting it into space permanently removes that strength, and makes it more expensive. Starship is best used as a freighter to launch and supply a space station.
If it's cheap enough, is makes economic sense to use a custom non-EDL Starship. This includes Depot and HLS. It may very well be cheaper to build out a large SS-based station before launch than it is to launch modules and mate them in LEO.
Spaceship could do Spacehab-like missions. Install equipment on the ground, fly it, return.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4307
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 3420
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #871 on: 03/21/2023 12:07 am »

The big strength of Starship is that you can launch it, land it, and launch it again, and again, and again. Building a space station into a Starship and putting it into space permanently removes that strength, and makes it more expensive. Starship is best used as a freighter to launch and supply a space station.
If it's cheap enough, is makes economic sense to use a custom non-EDL Starship. This includes Depot and HLS. It may very well be cheaper to build out a large SS-based station before launch than it is to launch modules and mate them in LEO.
Spaceship could do Spacehab-like missions. Install equipment on the ground, fly it, return.
My own preference is a single specialized Starship permanently in orbit for long-term experiments and crewed EDL Starship labs that do 6-month missions. Up to four crewed ships could dock to the permanent ship. Crew would live in their crewed ships and do "short-term" experiments there, but enter the permanent ship to service the long-term experiments.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #872 on: 03/21/2023 01:38 am »

The big strength of Starship is that you can launch it, land it, and launch it again, and again, and again. Building a space station into a Starship and putting it into space permanently removes that strength, and makes it more expensive. Starship is best used as a freighter to launch and supply a space station.
If it's cheap enough, is makes economic sense to use a custom non-EDL Starship. This includes Depot and HLS. It may very well be cheaper to build out a large SS-based station before launch than it is to launch modules and mate them in LEO.
Spaceship could do Spacehab-like missions. Install equipment on the ground, fly it, return.

Spacehab type missions, sure. Some experiments only need on the order of a few weeks to run, and having a capacity to do that would be valuable. A Starship that functions like the Shuttle in that respect would be useful.

However, there's also significant value in the capacity to run long term experiments, sometimes over the course of years. That's why space stations are a thing.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5599
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 8465
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #873 on: 03/21/2023 08:13 am »

The big strength of Starship is that you can launch it, land it, and launch it again, and again, and again. Building a space station into a Starship and putting it into space permanently removes that strength, and makes it more expensive. Starship is best used as a freighter to launch and supply a space station.
If it's cheap enough, is makes economic sense to use a custom non-EDL Starship. This includes Depot and HLS. It may very well be cheaper to build out a large SS-based station before launch than it is to launch modules and mate them in LEO.
Spaceship could do Spacehab-like missions. Install equipment on the ground, fly it, return.
Dragon (both 1 and 2) was also shopped around for a similar mission concept: DragonLab. No takers.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2587
  • Liked: 959
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #874 on: 03/21/2023 09:31 pm »

The big strength of Starship is that you can launch it, land it, and launch it again, and again, and again. Building a space station into a Starship and putting it into space permanently removes that strength, and makes it more expensive. Starship is best used as a freighter to launch and supply a space station.
If it's cheap enough, is makes economic sense to use a custom non-EDL Starship. This includes Depot and HLS. It may very well be cheaper to build out a large SS-based station before launch than it is to launch modules and mate them in LEO.
Spaceship could do Spacehab-like missions. Install equipment on the ground, fly it, return.
Dragon (both 1 and 2) was also shopped around for a similar mission concept: DragonLab. No takers.

That always bothered me. Why were there no takers for DragonLab? What was insufficient? Duration? Size? Vacuum exposure? Why would they not fly on DragonLab, but are apparently waiting in the wings for commercial LEO stations? Is it ultimately the man tending requirement to reduce the complexity of the payload (thus cost)?

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 1555
  • Likes Given: 3940
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #875 on: 04/15/2023 01:29 am »
Latest Commercial Crew Program blog post:
  NASA Updates Commercial Crew Planning Manifest Through 2024 · Jason Costa · Posted on April 14, 2023

SpaceX Crew-8 is now schedule before Boeing Starliner-1.

Quote
Target Launch Manifest

NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test: NET July 21, 2023
NASA’s SpaceX Crew-7: NET mid-August 2023
NASA’s SpaceX Crew-8: NET February 2024
NASA’s Boeing Starliner-1: NET Summer 2024

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11895
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 17203
  • Likes Given: 11261
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #876 on: 04/15/2023 05:30 pm »
Latest Commercial Crew Program blog post:
  NASA Updates Commercial Crew Planning Manifest Through 2024 · Jason Costa · Posted on April 14, 2023

SpaceX Crew-8 is now schedule before Boeing Starliner-1.

Quote
Target Launch Manifest

NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test: NET July 21, 2023
NASA’s SpaceX Crew-7: NET mid-August 2023
NASA’s SpaceX Crew-8: NET February 2024
NASA’s Boeing Starliner-1: NET Summer 2024

Wow! I was expecting NASA to take considerable time to go over the results of the CFT before final certification. But close to a FULL YEAR?

D*mn!

For comparison: the amount of time between launch of SpaceX's crewed demo mission (DM-2) and launch of the first operational mission (Crew-1) was just six months. And the time between the end of DM-2 and start of Crew-1 was even shorter: 3.5 months.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4307
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 3420
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #877 on: 04/15/2023 06:02 pm »
Latest Commercial Crew Program blog post:
  NASA Updates Commercial Crew Planning Manifest Through 2024 · Jason Costa · Posted on April 14, 2023

SpaceX Crew-8 is now schedule before Boeing Starliner-1.

Quote
Target Launch Manifest

NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test: NET July 21, 2023
NASA’s SpaceX Crew-7: NET mid-August 2023
NASA’s SpaceX Crew-8: NET February 2024
NASA’s Boeing Starliner-1: NET Summer 2024

Wow! I was expecting NASA to take considerable time to go over the results of the CFT before final certification. But close to a FULL YEAR?

D*mn!

For comparison: the amount of time between launch of SpaceX's crewed demo mission (DM-2) and launch of the first operational mission (Crew-1) was just six months. And the time between the end of DM-2 and start of Crew-1 was even shorter: 3.5 months.
The situation is very different. NASA needed to fly Crew-1 as soon as it was safe to do so. The US side of ISS had been understaffed since the last shuttle flight in 2011 because NASA was forced to depend on Roscosmos to fly astronauts on Soyuz. Today, NASA can continue to schedule Crew Dragon flights in an orderly fashion. Tentatively scheduling Starliner-1 for Spring 2024, contingent on a successful CFT and evaluating CFT, would require also making Crew-8 contingent, which would disrupt the mission training schedules, etc. It is much simpler to just schedule Crew-8 for Spring 2024 and Starliner-1 for Fall 2024. There is still time all six Starliner missions at a rate of one per year before ISS is decommissioned. There is no implication that the CFT evaluation will take a whole year.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #878 on: 04/21/2023 12:01 am »

The situation is very different. NASA needed to fly Crew-1 as soon as it was safe to do so. The US side of ISS had been understaffed since the last shuttle flight in 2011 because NASA was forced to depend on Roscosmos to fly astronauts on Soyuz.

It was not understaffed. The ISS was built to hold a long term crew of 7 originally(it can support more for short term occupation) but the lifeboat got canceled. Without the lifeboat the crew was limited to 6  total since that was all two Soyuz spacecraft could carry (3 NASA/ect. and 3 Russian). The Original 7 would have been 4 NASA/ESA/JAXA and 3 Russian. The lifeboat would carry a crew of 7 max both to allow space for an injured crewmate to lay flat(and fly with less) or to enable a total evacuation of the station.  The Russians reduced crew to 2 for reasons of budget and it freed some seats for tourist flights(and latter those seats were bought by NASA).

The Shuttle missions were construction missions mostly where the crew of the Shuttle assembled the station and left via the Shuttle. The shuttle did transfer crew early on before it was decided to hand all ISS crew flights to Soyuz to decouple the crewed flights from the cargo flights. However the most crew that could be left on the station at any time was 6(2 Soyuz's).

One poor guy got stuck in space two months due to the Shuttle being delayed and even worse his 90 year old mother died in an accident while he was in space and he had to wait 2 extra months to get home. From the end 2009 till the Start of CCREW, Soyuz would not only be for lifeboat duties but for crew transport as well.

What Dragon did was allow NASA to be able to carry it's full complement of 4 long crew term to the Station--Something the Shuttle could not do as it could not act as lifeboat. Also lifeboat capacity is not the only limiting factor. The ISS originally could only handle 3 due to not being complete and latter limited to 2 due to the Cargo carrying ability of the Shuttle being down post Columbia and finally grew to 6 due to being complete enough to allow 2 Soyuz flights.

What limits CST-100 is not riding upon a partially reusable booster and having a limited supply of Atlas rockets. In addition there is less rush because Dragon provides access to the station where as the US had been dependent on Russia since Day 1 and things had been were starting to get a tad chilly even then.

« Last Edit: 04/21/2023 12:04 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1652
  • USA
  • Liked: 1393
  • Likes Given: 2329
Re: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #879 on: 04/26/2023 03:08 pm »

The situation is very different. NASA needed to fly Crew-1 as soon as it was safe to do so. The US side of ISS had been understaffed since the last shuttle flight in 2011 because NASA was forced to depend on Roscosmos to fly astronauts on Soyuz.

It was not understaffed. The ISS was built to hold a long term crew of 7 originally(it can support more for short term occupation) but the lifeboat got canceled. Without the lifeboat the crew was limited to 6  total since that was all two Soyuz spacecraft could carry (3 NASA/ect. and 3 Russian). The Original 7 would have been 4 NASA/ESA/JAXA and 3 Russian. The lifeboat would carry a crew of 7 max both to allow space for an injured crewmate to lay flat(and fly with less) or to enable a total evacuation of the station.  The Russians reduced crew to 2 for reasons of budget and it freed some seats for tourist flights(and latter those seats were bought by NASA).

The Shuttle missions were construction missions mostly where the crew of the Shuttle assembled the station and left via the Shuttle. The shuttle did transfer crew early on before it was decided to hand all ISS crew flights to Soyuz to decouple the crewed flights from the cargo flights. However the most crew that could be left on the station at any time was 6(2 Soyuz's).

One poor guy got stuck in space two months due to the Shuttle being delayed and even worse his 90 year old mother died in an accident while he was in space and he had to wait 2 extra months to get home. From the end 2009 till the Start of CCREW, Soyuz would not only be for lifeboat duties but for crew transport as well.

What Dragon did was allow NASA to be able to carry it's full complement of 4 long crew term to the Station--Something the Shuttle could not do as it could not act as lifeboat. Also lifeboat capacity is not the only limiting factor. The ISS originally could only handle 3 due to not being complete and latter limited to 2 due to the Cargo carrying ability of the Shuttle being down post Columbia and finally grew to 6 due to being complete enough to allow 2 Soyuz flights.

What limits CST-100 is not riding upon a partially reusable booster and having a limited supply of Atlas rockets. In addition there is less rush because Dragon provides access to the station where as the US had been dependent on Russia since Day 1 and things had been were starting to get a tad chilly even then.
Before crew dragon, the ISS WAS understaffed. NASA routinely said so. There is a fixed amount of maintenance that must happen on station, and it eats up ALOT of crew time. That extra 4th person  has enabled SOO much more science/lab time.

Newer stations won't require as much maintenance, because the iss was built before alot of current automated systems existed. When there was just 2-3 US/ESA/JAXA/CSA people onboard, they spent the majority of their time keeping the station running.

Tags:
 

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