-
#400
by
sublimemarsupial
on 19 Jun, 2014 18:20
-
1) Don't believe any of the pricing info you think you know, especially on Dragon+Falcon.
Why not? SpaceX has signed a contract with NASA for its CRS deliveries that anyone can access that lists the prices per Dragon+Falcon mission exactly in line with what we think we know.
-
#401
by
Jim
on 19 Jun, 2014 18:37
-
Why not? SpaceX has signed a contract with NASA for its CRS deliveries that anyone can access that lists the prices per Dragon+Falcon mission exactly in line with what we think we know.
The prices are redacted in the public releases of the CRS contracts
-
#402
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 19 Jun, 2014 19:16
-
Why not? SpaceX has signed a contract with NASA for its CRS deliveries that anyone can access that lists the prices per Dragon+Falcon mission exactly in line with what we think we know.
The prices are redacted in the public releases of the CRS contracts
I though the combined prices for all the launches in the CRS contracts (per provider) are known.
NASA has ordered eight flights valued at about $1.9 billion from Orbital and 12 flights valued at about $1.6 billion from SpaceX. Not sure what is unknown here...
-
#403
by
Jim
on 19 Jun, 2014 19:54
-
I though the combined prices for all the launches in the CRS contracts (per provider) are known.
NASA has ordered eight flights valued at about $1.9 billion from Orbital and 12 flights valued at about $1.6 billion from SpaceX. Not sure what is unknown here...
That was the maximum price, the actual per mission (per kg) is not known
-
#404
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 19 Jun, 2014 20:20
-
I though the combined prices for all the launches in the CRS contracts (per provider) are known.
NASA has ordered eight flights valued at about $1.9 billion from Orbital and 12 flights valued at about $1.6 billion from SpaceX. Not sure what is unknown here...
That was the maximum price, the actual per mission (per kg) is not known
Well at least we know that it cant be more than that then
-
#405
by
catdlr
on 19 Jun, 2014 21:43
-
Boeing Details Its Plans for CST-100 Assembly at Kennedy
The Boeing Company anticipates using the Orbiter Processing Facility 3 and adjacent engine shop as the main manufacturing and assembly facility for the CST-100 spacecraft now in development.
-
#406
by
Prober
on 19 Jun, 2014 22:46
-
So if we sum thing up...Boeing & SpaceX both have pressure hulls built, plus a couple of mock ups.
Would that be agreeable?
-
#407
by
guckyfan
on 20 Jun, 2014 01:58
-
So if we sum thing up...Boeing & SpaceX both have pressure hulls built, plus a couple of mock ups.
Would that be agreeable?
It sounds like they are head to head and I think they are not. That Dragon V2 is well advanced from the "pressure hull" stage.
-
#408
by
QuantumG
on 20 Jun, 2014 02:05
-
How so?
I think SpaceX's considerable lead has been eaten up by all this v2 nonsense.
I think that was by nefarious design.
-
#409
by
notsorandom
on 20 Jun, 2014 03:31
-
Indeed Falcon and Dragon are quite different from the COTS-D proposal and what Elon talked about before the Augustine committee. Of course they still thought parachutes were the way to go back then too.
-
#410
by
Comga
on 20 Jun, 2014 05:25
-
How so?
I think SpaceX's considerable lead has been eaten up by all this v2 nonsense.
I think that was by nefarious design.
"nefarious"?
On whose part?
(I might use nefarious to describe the combining of "V" and "2" on a rocket project.
Nefarious or unaware)
-
#411
by
QuantumG
on 20 Jun, 2014 09:05
-
Indeed Falcon and Dragon are quite different from the COTS-D proposal and what Elon talked about before the Augustine committee. Of course they still thought parachutes were the way to go back then too.
Parachutes, for capsule landing, are still the way to go. That's why the v2 still has them.
Vertical landing is great, and I too look forward to the day when a stage flies back to the launch site and lands on its tail as God and Robert Heinlein intended, but for Dragon it's just a boondoggle. It's not "safe", it's not "how a 21st century spaceship should land" or whatever stupid sales gimmick they're using now. Considering that they're still going with toxic propellants, I don't think it's even sensible. Why the double standard? Because those stages are supposed to be able to be restacked and refly the same day (eventually), or at least the same week. There's absolutely no need for a crew vehicle to be able to do that. Ya want pinpoint landing? Buy an off-the-shelf GPS guided parachute. Ya want softer landings? Use airbags or a parawing.
They'll never get back the
years they've wasted developing the SuperDracos.
-
#412
by
Mader Levap
on 20 Jun, 2014 09:21
-
They'll never get back the years they've wasted developing the SuperDracos.
Then propose how they would abort without SuperDracos.
-
#413
by
docmordrid
on 20 Jun, 2014 09:22
-
^^ this
Having been a skydiver, the confidence that parachutes have fewer failure modes than a cluster of redundant, pressure fed, hypergolic engines is unfounded. Are mortars 100%? Doubt it. Canopies collapse, drogues fail, canopy lines tangle, secondaries tangle with primaries and sometimes s*** just happens.
-
#414
by
QuantumG
on 20 Jun, 2014 10:21
-
Yeah? Well, rockets explode and take entire vehicles with them.
If you want reliability, use a solid.
-
#415
by
JBF
on 20 Jun, 2014 10:30
-
They'll never get back the years they've wasted developing the SuperDracos.
Then propose how they would abort without SuperDracos.
Exactly, they had to develop an abort system. At that point they had a choice, throw it away or dual purpose it.
-
#416
by
tobi453
on 20 Jun, 2014 10:35
-
The toxic propellant at landing is definitely an issue.
Also the long term goal is Mars, how do you make N2H4/N2O4 easily on Mars? I think they need to look for another solution in the long term.
But the same is true for a solid, how do make/fill a solid on mars?
-
#417
by
Kryten
on 20 Jun, 2014 10:46
-
It sounds like they are head to head and I think they are not. That Dragon V2 is well advanced from the "pressure hull" stage.
Isn't CST? They revealed the pressure hull
three years ago, I can't imagine they haven't done anything with it since.
-
#418
by
Star One
on 20 Jun, 2014 10:58
-
It sounds like they are head to head and I think they are not. That Dragon V2 is well advanced from the "pressure hull" stage.
Isn't CST? They revealed the pressure hull three years ago, I can't imagine they haven't done anything with it since.
A few articles I saw around the time of Dragon V2 announcement were quoting CST-100 as being neck & neck with Space X.
-
#419
by
sghill
on 20 Jun, 2014 13:17
-
The toxic propellant at landing is definitely an issue.
Please name a propellant that is not toxic and can be stored for extended periods of time. To slam any company for making a chemical reaction based engine (terrestrial or aerospace for that matter) is just a thread troll.
Handling toxic propellants is something you do every day when you go to the pump. That's why we have gas tanks. This is a non-issue.
And as far as solids fuels being safer than liquids, the body count comes down in favor of liquids.
Nefarious or unaware)