Author Topic: Red Dragon Discussion Thread (2)  (Read 293955 times)

Offline rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 636
  • Likes Given: 486
Re: Red Dragon Discussion Thread (2)
« Reply #960 on: 08/29/2017 08:12 PM »
Orbital didn't combine any of their COTS test flights. They had one test flight without Cygnus which was added as a result of the extra funding NASA received in the stimilus package and one test flight for Cygnus.
We know what actually happened.  Do we actually know that the original plan for Cygnus was to have only one test flight going straight to the ISS, potentially putting the ISS at risk with an unproven spacecraft?  If that was so, then perhaps that played into the decision by NASA to allow Dragon test flights two and three to be combined.

After all, AFAIK, the rationale for having two test flights (COTS2 & COTS3) for the SpaceX Dragon was that NASA didn't want to risk damage to the ISS because of any loss of control of the Dragon.  Presumably they would have had the same concern about the Cygnus.
« Last Edit: 08/29/2017 08:47 PM by rpapo »
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9718
  • Liked: 1425
  • Likes Given: 882
Re: Red Dragon Discussion Thread (2)
« Reply #961 on: 08/29/2017 08:52 PM »
Orbital didn't combine any of their COTS test flights. They had one test flight without Cygnus which was added as a result of the extra funding NASA received in the stimilus package and one test flight for Cygnus.
We know what actually happened.  Do we actually know that the original plan for Cygnus was to have only one test flight going straight to the ISS, potentially putting the ISS at risk with an unproven spacecraft?  If that was so, then perhaps that played into the decision by NASA to allow Dragon test flights two and three to be combined.

The initial plan was to have one Cygnus demo flight to the ISS but an Antares test flight (without Cygnus) was later added as a result of the extra funding that NASA received from the stimilus package. You have to remember that Orbital received less funding than SpaceX under COTS since the original 2006 COTS contract was with Kistler. Orbital got a COTS award in 2008 once that Kistler failed to deliver on some of its milestones. So Orbital got the remaining funding that Kistler would have received (plus some money from the stimilus package). So there wasn't funding for three Cygnus demo flights to the ISS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services
« Last Edit: 08/29/2017 08:59 PM by yg1968 »

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Red Dragon Discussion Thread (2)
« Reply #962 on: 08/29/2017 09:01 PM »
I'm wondering if SpaceX is planning on a few propulsive landing flights onto their drone ships using the Dragon 2?

      This would be a good way to demonstrate the capability, but I'm not sure NASA would go along with it on any cargo flights.  Unless the cargoes being returned are relatively low value.  (Unlikely, but possible).

No. The Dragon v2 no longer has landing legs, and therefore cannot make a landing attempt.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Red Dragon Discussion Thread (2)
« Reply #963 on: 08/29/2017 09:11 PM »

Or for that matter, why F9 needs 7 launches in its final configuration before launching crew while SLS Block 1B needs none at all?

Insight vs oversight.
« Last Edit: 08/29/2017 09:11 PM by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Red Dragon Discussion Thread (2)
« Reply #964 on: 08/29/2017 09:14 PM »
Again, another unwarranted snipe and insubstantial statement.

Can you explain to me why Dragon needs 4 parachutes while Orion uses only 3 of the same size?

Ask Spacex why they are using 4.
Ask the Orion program why they are using 3.

Each has no bearing on the other.
NASA has no input on Spacex design decisions

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 985
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Red Dragon Discussion Thread (2)
« Reply #965 on: 08/30/2017 01:03 AM »
No. The Dragon v2 no longer has landing legs, and therefore cannot make a landing attempt.

Could try for a soft landing, though ..
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8689
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5459
  • Likes Given: 1794
Re: Red Dragon Discussion Thread (2)
« Reply #966 on: 08/30/2017 07:06 AM »
Again, another unwarranted snipe and insubstantial statement.

Can you explain to me why Dragon needs 4 parachutes while Orion uses only 3 of the same size?

Ask Spacex why they are using 4.
Ask the Orion program why they are using 3.

Each has no bearing on the other.
NASA has no input on Spacex design decisions
Emphasis mine.

Direct input: No.
In-direct input: Very much YES.

It was a NASA-voiced "concern" about Crew Dragon water-impact forces on the crew that led to the fourth parachute being added to the ELS. The Crew Dragon OML doesn't allow Crew Dragon to "knife" into the water the way Orion does. Added factor is that the seat-support system in Crew Dragon allows far less attenuation than does the seat-support system in Orion.

Tags: