What I'm looking for is more aerodynamic information. How will this design affect the flight of the launch vehicle if any.
Quote from: baldusi on 09/30/2011 11:44 amQuote from: antonioe on 09/29/2011 11:22 pmQuote from: docmordrid on 09/27/2011 05:38 amBe interesting to see what the Russians say about Cygnus berthing. If they don't complain that makes their issues with Dragon seem all the more like they perceive it as a threat to their current crew monopoly. Could their concerns be technical rather than monopolistic? After all, the two vehicles are not identical...SpaceX has constantly under performed on the paperwork side of this industry. I'm assuming that they didn't gave enough tests and analysis to the Russians. I know how European bureaucrats are, and I'm sure NASA is quite a bit less than whet ESA and Roscosmos require.Source?
Quote from: antonioe on 09/29/2011 11:22 pmQuote from: docmordrid on 09/27/2011 05:38 amBe interesting to see what the Russians say about Cygnus berthing. If they don't complain that makes their issues with Dragon seem all the more like they perceive it as a threat to their current crew monopoly. Could their concerns be technical rather than monopolistic? After all, the two vehicles are not identical...SpaceX has constantly under performed on the paperwork side of this industry. I'm assuming that they didn't gave enough tests and analysis to the Russians. I know how European bureaucrats are, and I'm sure NASA is quite a bit less than whet ESA and Roscosmos require.
Quote from: docmordrid on 09/27/2011 05:38 amBe interesting to see what the Russians say about Cygnus berthing. If they don't complain that makes their issues with Dragon seem all the more like they perceive it as a threat to their current crew monopoly. Could their concerns be technical rather than monopolistic? After all, the two vehicles are not identical...
Be interesting to see what the Russians say about Cygnus berthing. If they don't complain that makes their issues with Dragon seem all the more like they perceive it as a threat to their current crew monopoly.
No other rockets have "trunks". It is a silly term only used by Spacex.
Quote from: Antares on 10/01/2011 03:40 amI find it, to use Griffin's word, unseemly that a competitor posts in SpaceX threads. Am I alone?I don't see anything unseemly about it. People should be judged by what they post not who the work for. It could be unseemly if they were spreading FUD but that doesn't appear to be the case.
I find it, to use Griffin's word, unseemly that a competitor posts in SpaceX threads. Am I alone?
Could their concerns be technical rather than monopolistic? After all, the two vehicles are not identical...
Not sure who you're talking about, but seen as people working and lobbying for commercial space have set up camp in the SLS threads, I don't see why not
An open-ended question is in the gray area. (Resisting temptation to ask my own open-ended question here.)
SpaceX PAO with a statement (this is all that was sent):"SpaceX Launch Update:NASA is working with SpaceX on our technical and safety data for this mission while coordinating with its international partners to sort out a launch schedule once a definitive decision is reached on the next Soyuz flight to the International Space Station. As a result, we've submitted December 19th to NASA and the Air Force as the first in a range of dates that we would be ready to launch. We recognize that a target launch date cannot be set until NASA gives us the green light and the partnership of the International Space Station make a decision on when to continue Soyuz flights. Our flight is one of many that have to be carefully coordinated, so the ultimate schedule of launches to the ISS is still under consideration."
It's their gadget - who cares what they call it? Trunk, boot, suitcase, purse....whatever, it's a glorified cargo container.
Quote from: docmordrid on 10/02/2011 06:22 amIt's their gadget - who cares what they call it? Trunk, boot, suitcase, purse....whatever, it's a glorified cargo container.It's kind of more like an interstage section that they decided to make us of as a cargo trunk and solar panel mounting area
The Russian approach to successful spaceflight has been incremental improvements built upon technologies that have flown reliably in the past. Given that, is it a surprise they might be more comfortable with Cygnus than Dragon?
The Russian approach to successful spaceflight has been incremental improvements built upon technologies that have flown reliably in the past.
Quote from: Antares on 10/01/2011 03:40 amI find it, to use Griffin's word, unseemly that a competitor posts in SpaceX threads. Am I alone?Not sure who you're talking about, but seen as people working and lobbying for commercial space have set up camp in the SLS threads, I don't see why not
Updating. We're hearing the Russian side are now in a position of signing off on C2/C3 (D2/D3) combined. This is backed up a new RSC Energia Manifest going around NASA (L2), which has the full 2012 schedule, with four SpaceX Dragon flights, opening with CRS-1 on April 12 (STS-1 anniversary!)Going "around the room" but no info to the contray of the above. Will likely write it up shortly.
ISS partners prepare to welcome SpaceX and Orbital in a busy 2012:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/10/iss-partners-welcome-spacex-orbital-busy-2012/
