Author Topic: SpaceX COTS Demo 2 Updates (Read 448911 times)

A_M_Swallow · « **Reply #360 on:** 05/11/2011 06:28 pm »

Quote from: vt_hokie on 05/11/2011 05:45 pm

I'm always struck by how small that thing is. They really plan to squeeze 7 people into the manned version?!

Compare the capsule with a car than a house.

Lee Jay · « **Reply #361 on:** 05/11/2011 06:42 pm »

Quote from: mduncan36 on 05/11/2011 05:43 pm

Quote from: docmordrid on 05/11/2011 05:34 pm
TSR published this pic as being the touchdown of the Dec. Dragon flight, and if so it had to be taken from a recovery ship. Seems to this longtime photographer it's either very close, perhaps <1km, or the photographer was usong one helluva big lens.

http://www.thespacereview.com/archive/1743a.jpg

I'm a pretty serious photographer and for a shot like that you might not be so close. With the resolution that modern digital cameras provide you might have a 200-400mm lens and then crop the living daylights out of the shot. I regularly take aircraft pictures that way.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23516.msg669174#msg669174

R.Simko · « **Reply #362 on:** 05/11/2011 06:45 pm »

For those of you concerned of how SpaceX will fit 7 people into a Dragon Capsule, I've connected a photo of just how it will be done.

http://www.familyshoppingbag.com/images/full/Clown_Car_122860.gif

Lee Jay · « **Reply #363 on:** 05/11/2011 06:45 pm »

Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 05/11/2011 06:28 pm

Quote from: vt_hokie on 05/11/2011 05:45 pm
I'm always struck by how small that thing is. They really plan to squeeze 7 people into the manned version?!

Compare the capsule with a car than a house.

Would you want to spend a couple of days with 6 of your friends in that car?

Cinder · « **Reply #364 on:** 05/11/2011 07:51 pm »

Quote from: Lee Jay on 05/11/2011 06:45 pm

Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 05/11/2011 06:28 pm
Quote from: vt_hokie on 05/11/2011 05:45 pm
I'm always struck by how small that thing is. They really plan to squeeze 7 people into the manned version?!

Compare the capsule with a car than a house.

Would you want to spend a couple of days with 6 of your friends in that car?

Is the car going to space?

A_M_Swallow · « **Reply #365 on:** 05/11/2011 07:52 pm »

Quote from: Lee Jay on 05/11/2011 06:45 pm

Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 05/11/2011 06:28 pm
Quote from: vt_hokie on 05/11/2011 05:45 pm
I'm always struck by how small that thing is. They really plan to squeeze 7 people into the manned version?!

Compare the capsule with a car than a house.
There is a lot of room in a London taxi but on long journeys people tend to get out at night.

Would you want to spend a couple of days with 6 of your friends in that car?

butters · « **Reply #366 on:** 05/11/2011 07:58 pm »

Quote from: Lee Jay on 05/11/2011 06:45 pm

Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 05/11/2011 06:28 pm
Quote from: vt_hokie on 05/11/2011 05:45 pm
I'm always struck by how small that thing is. They really plan to squeeze 7 people into the manned version?!
Compare the capsule with a car than a house.
Would you want to spend a couple of days with 6 of your friends in that car?

Aren't they doing FD1 rendezvous? That was my understanding. Think about seven people taking day-long drive in a Dodge Grand Caravan, which has an interior volume of 4.42m^3. Dragon has a pressurized volume of 10m^3. There are no rest stops along the way, but unlike in the typical minivan, they'll be able to stand and stretch inside the vehicle (at least one at a time), and microgravity offers unique opportunities to maximize the use of volume.

jabe · « **Reply #367 on:** 05/11/2011 08:09 pm »

Quote from: butters on 05/11/2011 07:58 pm

they'll be able to stand and stretch inside the vehicle (at least one at a time), and microgravity offers unique opportunities to maximize the use of volume.

now this is something I have always wondered..
I,literally, like putting my feet up after running around all day.. since Astronauts can't do it literally...
what can they do that is figuratively the same?
jb

tobi453 · « **Reply #368 on:** 05/19/2011 04:53 pm »

There are weld defects on the second stage:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/meeting_news/media/2011/may/Alexander.pptx

Comga · « **Reply #369 on:** 05/19/2011 05:05 pm »

Quote from: tobi453 on 05/19/2011 04:53 pm

There are weld defects on the second stage:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/meeting_news/media/2011/may/Alexander.pptx

Fascinating find
Quality, quality! Is the 2nd stage weld a harbinger or just one of those things?
The schedule has COTS-2 in November and COTS-3 in January....
Schedule start 9/15/2006, with projected launch 2/2008. Actual launch date 12/8/2010.
SpaceX time dilation factor: 3.0.
New photo of COTS-1 Dragon in the water, taken from a helicopter or airplane. They must have more photos.

mr. mark · « **Reply #370 on:** 05/19/2011 05:36 pm »

Looks good as far as development. Solar array test successful and C2 Dragon in final development. As far as weld problems to the second stage, I'll be curious as to the extent of the problem. I'd like to hear from someone here about how this could effect time of delivery to the cape.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #371 on:** 05/19/2011 05:41 pm »

I wonder which welds, don't they have a state of the art cutting edge friction stir weld machine for making the tanks. Are these the weld defects they are looking for?

corrodedNut · « **Reply #372 on:** 05/19/2011 05:56 pm »

The 2nd stage (bottom of page 5) looks different. A new barrel section has been added to one end, where there was none before. Unless it's part of a jig or fixture, which it doesn't seem to be. Design changes may explain why a welding problem would crop up now.

ugordan · « **Reply #373 on:** 05/19/2011 05:59 pm »

Quote from: corrodedNut on 05/19/2011 05:56 pm

A new barrel section has been added to one end, where there was none before.

Hard to say. I'm inclined to think it's just the common bulkhead, i.e. the tank is missing the bottom RP-1 dome.

corrodedNut · « **Reply #374 on:** 05/19/2011 06:05 pm »

Quote from: ugordan on 05/19/2011 05:59 pm

Hard to say. I'm inclined to think it's just the common bulkhead, i.e. the tank is missing the bottom RP-1 dome.

You're probably right. Still, it looks kinda long to be an incomplete stage.

Nate_Trost · « **Reply #375 on:** 05/19/2011 06:38 pm »

Well over $100m each in additional milestone payments, eh?

So instead of a cost plus model where schedule overruns result in additional large checks to the contractor, we have the new milestone performance driven model, where due to the captive customer, schedule overruns result in....additional large checks to the contractor under the justification of additional milestones.

Not that COTS doesn't still seem to be working out well, all in all, but it amuses me.

corrodedNut · « **Reply #376 on:** 05/19/2011 06:44 pm »

Quote from: Comga on 05/19/2011 05:05 pm

New photo of COTS-1 Dragon in the water, taken from a helicopter or airplane. They must have more photos.

Is it safe to say that the other previously released splashdown photos were taken from an aircraft? Having spotted the Dragon under 'chutes, taking pictures fom a distance, then moving in for a closer shot? Surely nothing ITAR related would prevent their release? I still find it hard to believe there's isn't any video.

corrodedNut · « **Reply #377 on:** 05/19/2011 06:51 pm »

Quote from: Nate_Trost on 05/19/2011 06:38 pm

Well over $100m each in additional milestone payments, eh?

So instead of a cost plus model where schedule overruns result in additional large checks to the contractor, we have the new milestone performance driven model, where due to the captive customer, schedule overruns result in....additional large checks to the contractor under the justification of additional milestones.

Not that COTS doesn't still seem to be working out well, all in all, but it amuses me.

The key difference here is that the payments are for milestones, not overruns. If NASA wants to add new milestones to the previously negotiated ones, then they should pay for them. It's a sign of good working relationship that they were able to do so without much disagreement, if any.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #378 on:** 05/19/2011 06:52 pm »

The first images appear to have been taken from a boat.

baldusi · « **Reply #379 on:** 05/19/2011 07:35 pm »

Quote from: Nate_Trost on 05/19/2011 06:38 pm

Well over $100m each in additional milestone payments, eh?

So instead of a cost plus model where schedule overruns result in additional large checks to the contractor, we have the new milestone performance driven model, where due to the captive customer, schedule overruns result in....additional large checks to the contractor under the justification of additional milestones.

Not that COTS doesn't still seem to be working out well, all in all, but it amuses me.

You don't get it, do you? The contract is for a service. Part of the service is a demonstration flight. Since NASA wanted to play it safe, they require extra demo flight from Orbital and more ground testing and simulations. If the client (Nasa) wants something out of what in the contract, they have to pay. The huge difference is that they pay a fixed amount, and only when delivered, and in comparison for any of their "extras", the amounts were a joke. 40M for 6 to 8 critical demonstrations, and some 120M for a whole demo launch. Fixed price, no overhead, no nothing. And only when each milestone is accomplished. So if they get late, they get their money late. In a cost plus contract, they later they are, the more "cost" they earn. Each redesign? More "cost" to justify.
If done by Nasa, a single system like falcon would have cost 1.7B to 4B, plus the Dragon. Look into Orion's budget, and divide by two if you want to make it fair, for "less" capabilities. Nasa got two launchers, two robotic capsules, one with return capabilities, all for under a billion. And you tell us with a straight face that this is the same than cost plus programs? Really?