Which vehicle/spacecraft will be next to carry crew to orbit from the US?

[QuantumG]

Welcome to the forum Krevsin!

[Krevsin]

Thanks 

Anyway, I've given the matter some thought and despite the general conclusion still being that the DragonRider will be first, I could easily see the Dream Chaser as being the more desirable platform to the DragonRider, at least until SpaceX somehow develop a way to soft-land their capsule along with a return trajectory that does not expose its passengers to a significant amount of G forces.

Has a comparison thread for these newfangled crew vehicles been made on these forums before or is this supposed to be it?

[vt_hokie]

I'm inclined to agree that there's a lot to be said for a low-G reentry and a direct return to a facility via soft touchdown.  Reading Chris Hadfield's description of the Soyuz return in his recent book only added to my belief that a vehicle like Dream Chaser would be especially beneficial for returning long-term or potentially sick or injured ISS crew members.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I'm inclined to agree that there's a lot to be said for a low-G reentry and a direct return to a facility via soft touchdown.  Reading Chris Hadfield's description of the Soyuz return in his recent book only added to my belief that a vehicle like Dream Chaser would be especially beneficial for returning long-term or potentially sick or injured ISS crew members.

IIRC, landings with Dragon are not supposed to be much more severe for the crew than landings with the DC, especially once it has propulsive landing.

[Krevsin]

I'm inclined to agree that there's a lot to be said for a low-G reentry and a direct return to a facility via soft touchdown.  Reading Chris Hadfield's description of the Soyuz return in his recent book only added to my belief that a vehicle like Dream Chaser would be especially beneficial for returning long-term or potentially sick or injured ISS crew members.

IIRC, landings with Dragon are not supposed to be much more severe for the crew than landings with the DC, especially once it has propulsive landing.

But doesn't Dragon's re-entry occur at a much higher angle than DC's, resulting in the crew experiencing more G forces?

[Elmar Moelzer]

But doesn't Dragon's re-entry occur at a much higher angle than DC's, resulting in the crew experiencing more G forces?

I wished I could find the exact quote about this. From what I remember, the difference is rather small.

[rcoppola]

Boeing has been and continues to be one of the most preeminent aerospace companies on the planet. Their decades of many epic accomplishments are feats of technological craftsmanship of the highest order,  whether civil, defense, space or air.

However, here's the question with regards to CC. The answer of which, may come to define the very nature of human space travel in our lifetime.

-Is what your doing in the pursuit of money or destiny?

[jtrame]

Boeing has been and continues to be one of the most preeminent aerospace companies on the planet. Their decades of many epic accomplishments are feats of technological craftsmanship of the highest order,  whether civil, defense, space or air.

However, here's the question with regards to CC. The answer of which, may come to define the very nature of human space travel in our lifetime.

-Is what your doing in the pursuit of money or destiny?

Boeing brings an intangible to the table that would be hard to put into words but should not be underestimated in the least.  The worth of a company is built over time and there are experts that can put a value on it (I'm definitely not one of those).  But the value exists nonetheless. My sense of this is that Boeing has an edge that can't be measured, but is very real.  Yes, it's not logical-- it just is. 

[Robotbeat]

Oh, boy. That's almost as bad as some of the SpaceX uber-fans.

EDIT: jtrame: noted

[jtrame]

Nonetheless, it exists.

[Robotbeat]

Nonetheless, it exists.

It's simply a subjective quality that exists in some peoples' minds.

Poor form. There are lots of real, objective reasons why Boeing would be a good choice.

[jtrame]

Of course there are. And the intangibles, which are undefinable, immeasurable, and probably political..  No argument from me, and no disrespect intended.  Definitely not a fan, and I'm probably just stating the obvious anyway. 

But for the record, the term "bois" is not good form either.  Look it up. 

[Krevsin]

Well the CST 100, unlike Dragon and DC, isn't breaking any significant new ground (other than its crew capacity) with the overall design, so it might remain a contender in the commercial spacecraft market because of how cheap and robust it might end up being.

It is based on information gathered from the Apollo capsule and none of its components are exactly ground-shattering in its innovation, which should make for a sturdy, robust vehicle which should be relatively inexpensive to manufacture. Its potential could also be improved if the capsule were made reusable.

Then again, the Dragon could also end up fairly cheap due to the sheer large scale of its manufacture.

[MP99]

ISTM that electronics / avionics are one of the large development items (if not careful it can "eat your lunch") and SpaceX test the basis of theirs with every CRS flight.

Cheers, Martin

[Krevsin]

True, but Boeing does have a history of developing spacecraft that should decrease the amount of testing required, right?

[Ben the Space Brit]

@ Krevsin,

Well, no. At the most, it prevents Boeing from committing 'rookie mistakes', so the likelihood of a wasted test that needs to be repeated because of an elementary engineering flaw is reduced. However, ultimately, CST-100 needs to achieve the same milestones as Dragonrider - working, reliable ECLSS, working LAS, flight stability, good spacecraft/LV interface, working docking system and the like.

[Robotbeat]

Well the CST 100, unlike Dragon and DC, isn't breaking any significant new ground (other than its crew capacity) with the overall design...

How so? Both use a liquid pusher abort system, so no difference there except CST's stages off before reentry while Dragon's doesn't. CST-100 uses airbag landing which is much more novel than Dragon's splashdown.

You are aware that the crewed Dragon won't be doing land-landing until later, right?

If anything, the Dragon design is more conservative for initial capability.

[sublimemarsupial]

Well the CST 100, unlike Dragon and DC, isn't breaking any significant new ground (other than its crew capacity) with the overall design...

You are aware that the crewed Dragon won't be doing land-landing until later, right?

Is there a definitive source for this? I remember several people on this forum and elsewhere stating Crew Dragon will be landing on land from the beginning, with the initial landings being under chutes with last second superdraco "cushioning" firings ala soyuz, with the long term evolutionary path being to purely propulsive landing. Splashdowns would only occur in an abort scenario.

[Krevsin]

Well the CST 100, unlike Dragon and DC, isn't breaking any significant new ground (other than its crew capacity) with the overall design...

How so? Both use a liquid pusher abort system, so no difference there except CST's stages off before reentry while Dragon's doesn't. CST-100 uses airbag landing which is much more novel than Dragon's splashdown.

You are aware that the crewed Dragon won't be doing land-landing until later, right?

If anything, the Dragon design is more conservative for initial capability.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Well, i guess there's no significant short-term differences other than the manufacturer/developer.

[joek]

Is there a definitive source for this? I remember several people on this forum and elsewhere stating Crew Dragon will be landing on land from the beginning, with the initial landings being under chutes with last second superdraco "cushioning" firings ala soyuz, with the long term evolutionary path being to purely propulsive landing. Splashdowns would only occur in an abort scenario.

The message has become a bit more nuanced over time.  Originally it was clearly "first on water, then some day on land"; then later a definitive (*cough*) "TBD".  (And not helped by some jumping to the conclusion that because a potential capability exists on day 1, that it will be exercised on day 1.)

From your favorite site, Dragon Roadmap: From domestic crew independence to humans on Mars:

Propulsive landing of the Dragon will be one of the key technologies used when SpaceX begin to fly crews on the spacecraft. However, the timing of the switch from water to ground landings will be negotiated between SpaceX and NASA.

“As we’ve noted in the past, future iterations of Dragon will have the ability to propulsively land. SpaceX certainly sees value in implementing a propulsive landing system prior to crew launches but timing for implementation will be something we discuss with NASA as they are the primary customer for both types of flights,” added Ms. Ra.