Speculation into what future versions of Dragon will involve

[meekGee]

... which is what we all thought up until Elon dropped a few comments that didn't jive with that outlook.

This is the guy that went from parachutes to propulsive landing of an entire first stage inside of a year, right?

And now is talking about "didn't know what we were doing so it looked like what everybody else was doing" and "spaceship" and "2.0" and "looks really cool" and what-not.

So something doesn't quite fit, and we need more information.

[Lars_J]

... which is what we all thought up until Elon dropped a few comments that didn't jive with that outlook.

This is the guy that went from parachutes to propulsive landing of an entire first stage inside of a year, right?

And now is talking about "didn't know what we were doing so it looked like what everybody else was doing" and "spaceship" and "2.0" and "looks really cool" and what-not.

So something doesn't quite fit, and we need more information.

It fits if you look at the hard data, and ignore the exaggerations by Musk.  You can't quantify what "cool" looks like to Musk, nor can you determine what he meant by them not knowing what they are doing, and now knowing what they are doing. That's just off-the-cuff fluff talk.

In short, Dragon v2 == Dragon Crew == Dragon CTS == Dragon cargo with minimum changes.  That is the basis of SpaceX's CCiCap proposal; that is a key reason for NASA selecting SpaceX for a CCiCap award; and thus that is what SpaceX needs to deliver to meet their CCiCap commitment, minimize risk, and stay in the running for a CTS contract.

SpaceX is not going to increase risk and jeopordize their CCiCap/CTS commitments and position by haring off into some completely new Dragon configuration--nor would I expect NASA to fund or tolerate it.

Exactly.

[meekGee]

... which is what we all thought up until Elon dropped a few comments that didn't jive with that outlook.

This is the guy that went from parachutes to propulsive landing of an entire first stage inside of a year, right?

And now is talking about "didn't know what we were doing so it looked like what everybody else was doing" and "spaceship" and "2.0" and "looks really cool" and what-not.

So something doesn't quite fit, and we need more information.

It fits if you look at the hard data, and ignore the exaggerations by Musk.  You can't quantify what "cool" looks like to Musk, nor can you determine what he meant by them not knowing what they are doing, and now knowing what they are doing. That's just off-the-cuff fluff talk.

If he had mentioned the specifics, there wouldn't be a doubt, now would there...

And we don't really have "hard data" that says changes were minor. 

I'd say it just about balances out

[Jim]

Lars and Joek are right.

[meekGee]

Lars and Joek are right.

I didn't say they weren't - I said we're lacking data, or rather that we have weak and conflicting pseudo-data.

Do you have any other source of information here?

[king1999]

SpaceX has successfully demonstrated a complete integrated space transportation system. The Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 launch vehicle along with our ground and mission operations infrastructure form the basis of our proposed crew transportation system. The Dragon has flown to orbit on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle and safely returned to Earth on two successive missions.

In short, Dragon v2 == Dragon Crew == Dragon CTS == Dragon cargo with minimum changes.  That is the basis of SpaceX's CCiCap proposal; that is a key reason for NASA selecting SpaceX for a CCiCap award; and thus that is what SpaceX needs to deliver to meet their CCiCap commitment, minimize risk, and stay in the running for a CTS contract.

SpaceX is not going to increase risk and jeopordize their CCiCap/CTS commitments and position by haring off into some completely new Dragon configuration--nor would I expect NASA to fund or tolerate it.

Well NASA had no problem amending their contract for Falcon 9 v1.1 which has a lot of difference from v1.0.

"Falcon 9 launch vehicle along with our ground and mission operations infrastructure" will not change for the Dragon 2.0.

The shape of Dragon 2.0 may change, but many of its subsystems will stay the same. And the main reason the shape changes is to accommodate the escape/landing SD system which is a milestone of the CCiCap.

I don't see any reason NASA would not support Dragon 2.0.

[Jim]

Well NASA had no problem amending their contract for Falcon 9 v1.1 which has a lot of difference from v1.0.

Meaningless, the contract isn't for a launch vehicle.  And also, it didn't really change, only tank lengths and upgraded engine with a different pattern.  Anyways, V1.0 vs V1.1 is minor compared to Atlas vs Delta with CST-100

[Lobo]

I wonder if DRagon 2 might incorporate ECLSS for long duration independant operation, or at least incorporate the capacity for long duration ECLSS to be developed and added to it after such a time as it might be servicing the ISS. 

And Perahps designed to accept a future service module for BLEO missions?

I don't think it's too unreasonable to think Elon might be interested in sending people around the moon, or to L points.  Might raise some interesting press if Elon were to send a crew around the moon before NASA did on FH.  A FH stack is no taller than a F9 v1.1 stack, so if SpaceX modifies their LC-40 to launch crews to the ISS on Dragon 2, it should be able to also service crews on a DRagon2/FH stack. 
I'd think a FH should be able to throw around 20mt through TLI?  That should be enough for Dragon 2 with a BLEO service module attached.
A super draco would probably make a good SMME as it can deeply throttle. 
If mass is tight, they might get creative and design the LAS/Landing propellant to be able to be used to fuel the SMME for LOI and TEI burns in the case of a successful launch where the LAS system is not needed.  And then the capsule could do a water landing instead of a ground landing.  That way they don't have to put the LAS/landing propellant and the SMME propellant both through TLI, and could save a few tonnes if the propellant could be shared. 

But I digress...just wondering if DRagon 2 might actually be designed with allowances for a BLEO version.

[Dalhousie]

Thanks joek & zodiacchris for the comments on biconics.

[joek]

Well NASA had no problem amending their contract for Falcon 9 v1.1 which has a lot of difference from v1.0.

What Jim said.  Also, what makes you think the contract required amendment for Falcon 9 v1.1?  The only stipulation in the CRS contract is (note absence of detail as to launch vehicle and spacecraft configuration)...

IV.A.1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE
Second, SpaceX will rely upon space vehicles manufactured in the United States in accordance with U.S. Space Transportation Policy... Specifically, SpaceX will rely upon its Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft, both of which are manufactured by SpaceX at facilities in the United States and use minimal foreign components or technologies in a manner consistent with U.S. laws and regulations.

I don't see any reason NASA would not support Dragon 2.0.

NASA has demonstrably supported development of the next version of Dragon, aka "Dragon 2"; specifically, Dragon Crew as proposed and represented by SpaceX for CCiCap and presumably CTS.  However, that does not mean NASA is going to support development of a solution that signifantly increase CCiCap/CTS program risk as suggested in some previous posts.

There's a contract (SAA) based on specific stipulations and representations by SpaceX and expectations by NASA, and a potentially lucerative contract (CTS) hanging in the balance.  That constrains Musk's options for Dragon v2.  Contrast that with a lot of speculation based on a few open-to-interpretation statements by Musk, and unwarranted assumptions about SpaceX's freedom to maneuver--assuming SpaceX still intends to meet their CCiCap commitments and win a CTS contract.

Dragon v3...v47?  Maybe... biconic, wings, flying saucer,... whatever. Feel free to speculate.  However, that speculation belongs in the same category as MCT, not Dragon v2.

[pathfinder_01]

I wonder if DRagon 2 might incorporate ECLSS for long duration independant operation, or at least incorporate the capacity for long duration ECLSS to be developed and added to it after such a time as it might be servicing the ISS. 

Given that Apollo technology could support 3 people in a smaller capsule for 14 days and was latter used in early shuttle missions I don't think long duration independant operation will be a problem.

[CuddlyRocket]

There's a contract (SAA) based on specific stipulations and representations by SpaceX and expectations by NASA, and a potentially lucerative contract (CTS) hanging in the balance.  That constrains Musk's options for Dragon v2.  Contrast that with a lot of speculation based on a few open-to-interpretation statements by Musk, and unwarranted assumptions about SpaceX's freedom to maneuver--assuming SpaceX still intends to meet their CCiCap commitments and win a CTS contract.

Unless of course SpaceX has already cleared any design change with NASA. And that depends on how significant NASA thinks any changes are. Basically, all that seems to be changed is the shape of the capsule; everything else is either the same (pad, launcher, trunk, avionics) or has still to be designed/developed/tested in any event. If NASA has taken the change from F9 1.0 to 1.1 and Merlin 1C to 1D (and possibly to Raptor) in stride, why would they have kittens over a change in capsule shape (especially if it's to a shape that NASA has already tested and verified)?

And there is still the possibility of testing the new shape in a cargo version multiiple times before the first manned flight.

Still, I don't think we can read too much into Elon's 'flying saucer' comment. He probably means 'UFO' and there are lots of alleged shapes for UFOs. I think it's better to think of what design objective might warrant a change in capsule shape. The one I can think of is to reduce the angle the sides of the capsule make with the vertical. This would increase internal volume, giving more room for equipment (assuming you're not increasing the number of crew) and make it easier to reduce cosine losses on the SuperDracos.

[Jim]

If NASA has taken the change from F9 1.0 to 1.1 and Merlin 1C to 1D (and possibly to Raptor) in stride, why would they have kittens over a change in capsule shape (especially if it's to a shape that NASA has already tested and verified)?

Because

a.  Raptor is not flying near term for crew

b.  NASA is basically launch vehicle agnostic.  It isn't the primary crew (or cargo) interface.

c.  The changes from V1 to V1.1 are minor and will have more flight time than V1.0

[Jim]

The one I can think of is to reduce the angle the sides of the capsule make with the vertical. This would increase internal volume, giving more room for equipment (assuming you're not increasing the number of crew) and make it easier to reduce cosine losses on the SuperDracos.

No, it is already shallow.

[go4mars]

I don't think we can read too much into Elon's 'flying saucer' comment. He probably means 'UFO' and there are lots of alleged shapes for UFOs.

I believe the quote was that it will look "like something from the future."

Unless there's another interview I'm not aware of, Elon never said flying saucer.

[CuddlyRocket]

Unless there's another interview I'm not aware of, Elon never said flying saucer.

You're very probably right - another good reason for not reading too much into it!

Because

a.  Raptor is not flying near term for crew

b.  NASA is basically launch vehicle agnostic.  It isn't the primary crew (or cargo) interface.

c.  The changes from V1 to V1.1 are minor and will have more flight time than V1.0

OK, but they are changing engines from Merlin 1C to 1D. And given everything that needs to be developed and tested etc it's the capsule shape that's going to be a step too far for NASA? Given that it has to be test-flown in any event, and the new shape may even be used for cargo Dragons beforehand with more missions than the present version.

Ultimately, Elon is no fool and he wouldn't risk his contract by changing to a new shape without taking soundings from the relevant people at NASA as to their attitude.

No, it is already shallow.

It's not as shallow as it could be.

[Jim]

It's not as shallow as it could be.

Unsubstantiated

[Jim]

Because

a.  Raptor is not flying near term for crew

b.  NASA is basically launch vehicle agnostic.  It isn't the primary crew (or cargo) interface.

c.  The changes from V1 to V1.1 are minor and will have more flight time than V1.0

OK, but they are changing engines from Merlin 1C to 1D. And given everything that needs to be developed and tested etc it's the capsule shape that's going to be a step too far for NASA? Given that it has to be test-flown in any event, and the new shape may even be used for cargo Dragons beforehand with more missions than the present version.

Ultimately, Elon is no fool and he wouldn't risk his contract by changing to a new shape without taking soundings from the relevant people at NASA as to their attitude.

So what?  It is basically the same engine.
It isn't just the capsule shape, but capsule shape is not the equivalent to the engine change, or stage length change.

[Lars_J]

No, it is already shallow.

It's not as shallow as it could be.

If the sidewall is any steeper, it will experience much more severe heating - Dragon re-enters at a ~15 degree for a lifting reentry. (see image below) Note how the "back side" is virtually parallel to air flow - this is the side that chars the most.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I agree with Lars there. Certainly a good point.