Author Topic: NASA Commercial Spaceflight 60 Day Report #2 (Read 3149 times)

Space Pete · « **on:** 08/19/2011 06:01 pm »

Just released!

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/580957main_August%202011_CSD%2060%20Day%20Report_508.pdf

simonbp · « **Reply #1 on:** 08/19/2011 10:55 pm »

Interesting; SpaceX signed a Space Act with White Sands (presumably for abort tests?) and Blue Origin with Stennis (to test engines?).

apace · « **Reply #2 on:** 08/19/2011 11:01 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 08/19/2011 10:55 pm

Interesting; SpaceX signed a Space Act with White Sands (presumably for abort tests?) and Blue Origin with Stennis (to test engines?).

Yes, looks like SuperDraco testing: "conducting spacecraft hazardous propellant testing using NASA's White Sands Test Facility test methods"

kraisee · « **Reply #3 on:** 08/19/2011 11:33 pm »

"hazardous propellant testing" -- that strongly implies hypergolics.

Given their interest with NOFBX (which I'm assuming will be tested at McGregor), then is this hypergol work must be being done as a backup in case NOFBX hits any showstoppers.

Ross.

SpacexULA · « **Reply #4 on:** 08/19/2011 11:41 pm »

Quote from: kraisee on 08/19/2011 11:33 pm

"hazardous propellant testing" -- that strongly implies hypergolics.

Given their interest with NOFBX (which I'm assuming will be tested at McGregor), then is this hypergol work must be being done as a backup in case NOFBX hits any showstoppers.

Ross.

Would make a lot of since. They are going to have to get NASA to sign off on their LAS, and a hypergol LAS would likely be easier to get signitures for than a NOFBX one within the next 3-4 years.

Lars_J · « **Reply #5 on:** 08/19/2011 11:41 pm »

Has SpaceX ever publicly committed to NOFBX, though? There's speculation, but I haven't seen anything firm on that. But I could have missed it.

kraisee · « **Reply #6 on:** 08/20/2011 12:09 am »

I think they're still waiting to 'prove' it will be suitable for their specific purposes.

They have certainly 'committed' money towards it, but the decision points regarding whether to switch away from hypergols for Dragon RCS, or whether it will be fast enough ignition to act as LAS propellant, does not appear to have been reached yet.

Ross.

ChefPat · « **Reply #7 on:** 08/20/2011 02:39 am »

Hypergol or NOFBX? Build & test both, then pick the best.

simonbp · « **Reply #8 on:** 08/20/2011 04:50 am »

Super Draco is biprop hypergolic, just like Draco and using common prop tanks. SpaceX may move away from that later but it's just hypergols.

strangequark · « **Reply #9 on:** 08/20/2011 06:08 am »

Quote from: kraisee on 08/19/2011 11:33 pm

"hazardous propellant testing" -- that strongly implies hypergolics.

Given their interest with NOFBX (which I'm assuming will be tested at McGregor), then is this hypergol work must be being done as a backup in case NOFBX hits any showstoppers.

Ross.

It does smell of hypergols (mmm, almonds), but hazardous doesn't always imply toxic. NOFBX is a premixed fuel-oxidizer blend with a high vapor pressure ("self-pressurizing" is marketing claptrap). It's plenty hazardous, at least enough to respect it.