Elon Musk's ISDC 2008 Comments

[jongoff]

I wasn't there, and only read this second-hand over at Hobbyspace, but I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this over here (between those who can see no wrong and those who can see no good with SpaceX, most of Elon's comments get thoroughly disected here):

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=6719

It's just some quick notes, but well worth the read.  Here's what stuck out to me:

-He quoted the price of a Falcon 9 assuming no reusability, and then stated that their estimates showing reusability lowering the cost by up to 50% or more beyond that.  So it looks like they aren't baselining reusability in their pricing like some here worried.
-estimated price of ~$80M for a F9/Dragon flight (assuming no reusability of F9).
-estimated seat price of $13M for manned dragon
-Cargo Dragon will be capable of returning crew in an emergency situation--apparently the main changes needed to upgrade Dragon for manned launches revolve around the launch escape system (and possibly longer duration life support--my guess).
-F9 has 94-95% PMF (not sure if this is for first stage, upper stage, or both).
-admits that 'Scheduling problems? Statements in first 2 years of the company should be disregarded due to idiocy.'

~Jon

[kevin-rf]

Did he really say due to idiocy? Or is that someone's poetic license?

[nobodyofconsequence]

No. That sounds like Musk.

[jongoff]

Kevin,
Not sure, I wasn't there--that's why I used single quotes instead of double.  That said, having spoken with Elon in person, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he did.  The guy may be passionate about what he's doing, and sometimes very confident people can come off as being cocky, but he's not clueless about them having made mistakes along the way.

~Jon

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}

-Cargo Dragon will be capable of returning crew in an emergency situation--apparently the main changes needed to upgrade Dragon for manned launches revolve around the launch escape system (and possibly longer duration life support--my guess).

Can any of the launch abort systems currently under development be modified to work work the manned Dragon?

[Marsman]

Did he say a 50%-80% reduction in costs with reusablility? Wow.

If he says that the cargo version could return crew in an emergency...a 6-7 seat ISS lifeboat?
He must be confident in his system-but will NASA even consider returning its astronauts in a cargo vehicle, even for an emergency?

[jimvela]

Did he say a 50%-80% reduction in costs with reusablility? Wow.

If he says that the cargo version could return crew in an emergency...a 6-7 seat ISS lifeboat?
He must be confident in his system-but will NASA even consider returning its astronauts in a cargo vehicle, even for an emergency?

Ask yourself this:  If you had an emergency, and a 100% chance of death, or a contingency with only a 60% chance of death, which option would you choose? 

Said differently, there are times when a bad option is still better than the alternative option.  In those times, you take your best option and hope for the best.

[Jim]

Can any of the launch abort systems currently under development be modified to work work the manned Dragon?

no because they are not made by Spacex. 

[kevin-rf]

Ask yourself this:  If you had an emergency, and a 100% chance of death, or a contingency with only a 60% chance of death, which option would you choose? 

Said differently, there are times when a bad option is still better than the alternative option.  In those times, you take your best option and hope for the best.

Depends on if you are making the choice for someone else, or yourself. Assuming you have the ISS crews best interest and are not in CYA mode you take any "reasonable" chance that can save the crew. But the flip of this is like what happens in high rise fires, how many sadly jump off of the top floors to avoid being consumed by the flames. Not to start a flame war, but how long did it take russia to ask for help with the kursk? How long has it taken to get aid finally flowing to the country formally known as burma? Dragon may not be called upon if other options with even lower odds exist, depends on who makes the call and why.

Something also to think about, reentry couches and life support reduce dragon payload to ISS. They are not free.

It is also hard to imagine a situation where the ISS is damaged and the risks of using a damaged soyuz/orion are less than the untried dragon.

I hope we never find out!

[kevin-rf]

no because they are not made by Spacex. 

Assuming the abort system uses solids, what are the chances of spaceX doing that one in house? I think spaceX will have to buy the solids from someone. They are not needed until someone decides to hitch a ride on the magic dragon.

[jimvela]

Depends on if you are making the choice for someone else, or yourself. Assuming you have the ISS crews best interest and are not in CYA mode you take any "reasonable" chance that can save the crew.

Just my own personal opinion: Anyone trusted with keeping a crew alive had damned well be thinking first and foremost of taking every best possible option to fight to keep the crew alive in an emergency where they are placed in genuine and imminent risk of death.

Anyone acting in CYA mode in that circumstance is, in my opinion, a traitor, a criminal, and scum.  Yes, I know I'm naive when politics and egos come into play.

Something also to think about, reentry couches and life support reduce dragon payload to ISS. They are not free.

Yes, you're absolutely correct there.  Why not address that procedurally?  E.g. bring up and stow on ISS couches and emergency life support packs, and when a new Dragon is berthed you transfer these in and install them temporarily after you've unloaded the Dragon.  Then right before you cast the dragon off, you remove and stow them back on ISS and then fill up the dragon with trash or other down mass.  Repeat for the next dragon... and the next... until you have to rotate the consumables out for whatever reason.

There's probably 100 things I'm not thinking of why that'd be difficult, but if my dull noggin can think that up then imagine what a decent team could dream up with.

It is also hard to imagine a situation where the ISS is damaged and the risks of using a damaged Soyuz/orion are less than the untried dragon. 

Not that hard.  Here's one: an incoming soyuz/orion/atv/htv/dragon brain farts and rams one or more docked s/c.  The incoming S/C is too damaged to dock, and the rammed S/C is so damaged that it can't be used for re-entry... and then what if the station is damaged and can't be kept habitable?

Absolute nightmare scenario.  Likely? Hell no.  Inconceivable? not at all.   See the 1997 progress/Mir incident, which isn't quite that scenario but highlights the risks.

I'll grant you that if the situation can be stabilized and time can be bought to bring up a rescue launch of a proven Soyuz or orion from Earth, then you absolutely wait and make every attempt for that instead.  You might even choose to take a 2nd unproven dragon if it was the only available craft that could be launched in time.

Hell, at that point you even accept a ride in a Chinese vehicle if offered and a way to transfer crew was possible. (yes, I know that would be a political embarrassment and a really unlikely/improbable scenario anyway). 

Come to think of it, wouldn't it be politically very savvy for one nation to have a contingency plan to go rescue another nations' stranded spacefarers one because it's right and two for the political gains to be had in doing so?

I hope we never find out!

I'm there with you 100%

[A_M_Swallow]

Assuming the abort system uses solids, what are the chances of spaceX doing that one in house? I think spaceX will have to buy the solids from someone. They are not needed until someone decides to hitch a ride on the magic dragon.

Someone could change the question to say, "We want to perform an in flight test of our launch abort system.  How much for a Launch Service consisting of a first stage and modified cargo Dragon?"

Orion is several years away and I believe that Soyuz can only land 3 people.  So it would be Dragon Vs two Soyuz.

[jongoff]

Can any of the launch abort systems currently under development be modified to work work the manned Dragon?

Not likely.  Launch escape systems tend to be developed as an integrated package with a given capsule, not just bolted together.  While it sometimes is possible to adapt a given piece of rocket hardware for another application, these aren't tinker-toys we're talking about, and a lot of it is optimized for a very specific application.

But developing an LAS isn't *that* difficult.  The main reason's why Ares I is having such a hard time is they have to try and outrun problems with a particularly lethally stupid first stage.  A more normal rocket is likely going to yield much easier LAS requirements.

~Jon

[zaitcev]

-admits that 'Scheduling problems? Statements in first 2 years of the company should be disregarded due to idiocy.'

I think cooler heads did actually observe that being kicked out of Vanderberg accounted for a few months of F1's schedule slip, but it's a useful reminder.

[mr.columbus]

-estimated price of ~$80M for a F9/Dragon flight (assuming no reusability of F9).

Interesting, at 2.5mt of cargo per flight that would be more expensive than Soyuz/Progress per mt. And at full capacity of 7.5mt of cargo even Ariane 5/ATV isn't that expensive in comparison.

[William Graham]

-admits that 'Scheduling problems? Statements in first 2 years of the company should be disregarded due to idiocy.'

I presume that is in reference to their over optimistic launch manifest (at one point they had three or four F9s scheduled for Q4 2008.

[William Barton]

Besides "idiocy," I wonder what made them so overoptimistic. I have wondered in the past exactly how much "rocket science" development engineering talent is available in the US. The question I've asked before is, what have propulsion development engineers been doing with themselves since the 1970s? Working on projects that get cancelled (like RS-84 and -60)? Working on spiffing up Russian engines? Otherwise, it's just RS-68 and Merlin? (And, of course, various small engines.) Maybe Musk originally thought he could hire rocket engineers the same way he could hire programmers? (I seriously doubt rocketry has many people like me, completely self taught designers with 30 years experience--at least not in a long time. In systems engineering, we're a dime a dozen, and fill the talent gaps like caulking.)

[Jim]

Someone could change the question to say, "We want to perform an in flight test of our launch abort system.  How much for a Launch Service consisting of a first stage and modified cargo Dragon?"

The Orion LAS already has a test booster.

A "first stage and modified cargo Dragon" wouldn't have avionics since they are in the upperstage.

[kevin-rf]

A "first stage and modified cargo Dragon" wouldn't have avionics since they are in the upperstage.

So it should fly about the same, give the Dragon LAS a real test

[Antares]

SpaceX would test their LAS on their own booster.  Everything else would be too expensive.

I think it was just the Silicon Valley mentality where everything happens fast.  I think innovation in moving electrons happens faster because it's basically man-made physics, man harnessing a very narrow set of physical laws on the nano-scale with virtually all variables controlled during production and deployment.  Moving things on the macro-scale has a lot more opportunity for entropy.

But then again, I'm just a plumber.

[iamlucky13]

Hmm...more on reusability:
"Making second stage for Falcon 9 reusable is difficult. - TPS, parachutes, seawater hardening, etc"

First stage I can definitely understand, especially with 9 engines. But I really wonder how much 2nd stage recovery costs them in terms of payload.

Also:
"Manned Dragon? Schedule depends on NASA option D. If they approve that, could have crew version by 2011. Otherwise, with internal funding it will take longer (~2013). Difference between cargo Dragon and a crew version are fairly minor. Need to develop an escape rocket."
I'd be careful about calling that minor. I also wonder how much they've looked at payload effects of that. Presumably they've got the basics covered...making the capsule strong enough for it, figuring in mass allowance for carrying a protective cover and the motor most of the way to orbit, etc. Trading back and forth between 2500 kg cargo or 7 crew plus 2-3 days life support and the escape system, however, I have to wonder if they might be planning on a baseline of using the escape motor for extra delta-V...which NASA considered and has more-or-less discarded for Ares-1/Orion.

[docmordrid]

Going back a few posts re: couches and weight.

Seems to me there has been lots of work on web/cloth couches that can be stowed after launch by several groups including NASA.  I can't see those taking much out of the cargo throw.

[bad_astra]

I can no longer recall the exact figures for the swiveling chairs TSpace proposed, but they were very light.

[nacnud]

I think it was 1/10th of a shuttle chair, not sure though.

To go really minimal you could look into harnesses rather than seats, even as far as building the harness into the launch/entry suits.

[kevin-rf]

To go really minimal you could look into harnesses rather than seats, even as far as building the harness into the launch/entry suits.

I believe you would want to, just to make sure it is perfectly fitted to the suit and does not slip or shift on reentry. Nothing could be worse than having the upper torso links shift resulting in a head down astronaut during the high g's of reentry.

Nor is it uncommon to build the harnesses into protective suites, many swift water and high angle rescue crews build them into there gear. I even know a few vendors who will sew them into caver coverals.

I wonder how many links would be required, upper torso, torso, arms, legs, head, it would be an interesting spider web when all is said and done.

One down side of this is securing the victim eeer... user and providing a method to quickly unhook. Most devices do not release while loaded. With a couch you are not applying force to the belts when unhooking them, that is not the case when hanging from the supports, they are loaded.

[HMXHMX]

I can no longer recall the exact figures for the swiveling chairs TSpace proposed, but they were very light.

13 pounds mass

[Swatch]

I vote for Velcro....just slap the astronauts up against the wall like one of those Japanese tv-shows.  :-)

But seriously.... I would have to guess that fabrics and harnesses will be the future of spaceflight seating.  They offer many advantages, the least of which is weight savings.  They also allow for much more efficient use of cabin space as they are highly stowable.

[guru]

I have to wonder if they might be planning on a baseline of using the escape motor for extra delta-V...which NASA considered and has more-or-less discarded for Ares-1/Orion.

One of the early X-Prize entrants, Canadian Arrow, considered something like that as well for their suborbital vehicle.  Their projected second stage would have consisted of four motors that were integrated into a frame with the same diameter as the first stage, and it would have doubled as the escape motor.  That option probably has a larger weight penalty than a top mounted LAS though.

[kkattula]

... I have to wonder if they might be planning on a baseline of using the escape motor for extra delta-V...which NASA considered and has more-or-less discarded for Ares-1/Orion.

The problem with dual use is different thrust profiles: 

LES needs very high thrust for a very short period of time, low total impulse, and has to work at low altitude. (low ER nozzle).

OMS usually needs fairly low thrust for a much longer period, much higher total impulse, and only needs to work in space (high ER nozzle).

Trying to do both jobs will probably compromise one or both unacceptably.


Apparently Dragon's oversize RCS will also do the OMS role including orbital insertion, around 520 m/s delta v. So the two LES options are:

1)  A dedicated escpae tower with most likely solid rockets.

2)  Dedicated escape engine(s) in the service module using RCS fuel.