Full Video of Elon Musk Q&A Session Post Dragon V2 Reveal

[Robotbeat]

One question that wasn't asked but I wish had been - will Dragon v2 require a particular type of space suit, or will it be compatible with whatever suit NASA chooses to use? What about Bigalow? Will the preliminary designs we saw of SpaceX suits be ready for flight?

Generally, space suits work with just certain spacecraft. I suppose you could design a spacecraft to take heritage spacesuits, but it may be less work to just develop new space suits.

[Chris Bergin]

So I've written up the first article (Garrett's comments, as there's a commercial crew angle, and I think the next one on CCP will be sooner rather than later, so giving them some separation). Adding images and links, then it'll go on. *

Then I'll find chunks of time and write a REALLY long on based on Elon's quotes. I've got an idea about an article covering progression from Falcon 1, where the fourth flight had to be a success, to where they are now and heading to a potential "1000s" of launches in the future. There's a really nice angle there. A third one will clean up other interesting Dragon V2 quotes from Elon, probably after ORBCOMM.

A fourth one will be on the F9 video repair, because he provided good quotes on that and OMG mentioned the site!

*Ok, that'll be tomorrow morning now, seen as I'm still waiting on a PM response.

[TrevorMonty]

The most stunning revelation from this interview for me was how far 3 D printing has advanced from its beginnings in 1984.

We are talking about going from printing plastic toys to high strength space engines.  At this point there is even talk of printing human organs. This technology at this rate will be the big changer in future of human space endeavors.

we have the start of an excellent data base on this site.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1202919#new

shameless plug

I think you copied wrong link Prober,  try this.

 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1208761.msg#1208761

[Aerospace Dilettante]

"How do you feel?"   

Just think what we might have gotten with a 100% helodriver Q&A.

[ChrisWilson68]

I think the question should be: Is there anything that CST-100 has over Dragon v2?

Abort propellant that's less toxic than hypergolics. The ability to use unused abort propellant in gimbaled thrusters for ISS reboost. More experience with in-space ECLSS. Willingness to use whatever launcher is most promising rather than only the one made by the company that made the spacecraft.

The first two are reasonable points for CST-100.

The third isn't about CST-100, it's about the organization building CST-100, and there's no evidence it will give CST-100 anything Dragon V2 doesn't.  We could make all sorts of statements about Boeing and SpaceX as companies, but the question was about actual design features of CST-100 versus those of Dragon V2.

The final item also doesn't translate to anything concrete for CST-100.  "Willingness" is vague.  What's actually planned is for it to have one launch vehicle, Atlas V.  Falcon 9 has been mentioned as a possibility if plans change, but it would clearly be a lot of work and would require SpaceX to agree to it.  It wouldn't be any technically harder or easier to switch Dragon V2 from F9 to Atlas V than to switch CST-100 from Atlas V to F9.  The only reason nobody has talked about that is that F9 is so much cheaper than Atlas V and doesn't have engines made in Russia, so there's no reason to switch.  In fact, the talk of possibly switching CST-100 from Atlas V to Falcon 9 just highlights the fact that Dragon V2's plan-of-record launch vehicle is pretty compelling.

[Comga]

1 Helodriver: Fantastic.  Wonderful work, presence of mind, very thoughtful and well done.

2 This is not the place for back-and forth on Orion or CST-100 (or inevitably DC).  Plenty of places for that.

3 Joel: Besides Jim's reference to the SSME, HMXHMX has provided a good bit of detail on self pressurizing in another thread in this section within the last few days.  (Sorry.  Can't remember which one but search his posts.)

[TrevorMonty]

Thanks Heliodriver for great video.

2:50 Seat pricing. <$20m seat for low flight rates and down <$10m for high flight rates.

I'm guessing the <$10m assumes LV reusability.

[Jcc]

"Also, probably, in the future we'll create, like, droids on the surface of Mars and the Moon to do things like an automated propellant depot and that kind of thing. We sort of need those features to have a base on Mars."

Interested in going to the Moon? Yes. Propellant depots, yes, on Mars and the Moon.
Now hiring game developers to write flight software, and develop droids.

[Chris Bergin]

Here's article one. Will give it a standalone:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/06/spacexs-reisman-next-giant-leap-dragon-v2/

[Lar]

Is there anything that Orion has over Dragon v2?

Average number of jobs per district.

Ok that was a flippant answer, but it happens to actually be serious too. (and I was answering for the Boeing CC entry which is what I figure mikelepage meant,, rather than for Orion, but it does apply to both) 

Like it or not, NASA is a political animal and is driven by politics even when it tries to resist that driver. And being politically well connected, as Boeing is, gives an advantage.

What's nifty though is that folks developed a pretty good list of other advantages (or believed/perceived advantages)... Here's what I gathered at least one person believes ... did I miss any?

For Orion
- BEO capability
   - Better heat shield (this may or may not be valid, hard to tell, but it's been spec'ed to survive higher reentry speeds)
   - Longer duration ECLSS
   - better radiation shielding
   - Navs/Comms built for BEO
- More internal volume
- External service module that gives significant deltaV capability (and which could be enhanced without capsule redesign)
- EVA direct from capsule without needing an external airlock
- More mature development organization behind it ("safe choice")
- More jobs per district

For CST-100
- Less toxic abort prop than hypergolics
- gimbaled thrusters that can be used for ISS reboost (more easily than DV2?)
- More conventional (buttons and switches) control panel
- launcher agnostic
- More in-space ECLSS experience
- More mature development organization behind it ("safe choice")
- More jobs per district

But as someone else said, this probably isn't the place for this, I just wanted to capture what had been written in one place.

[zd4]

~7:47
100s of flights per year in about 12 - 15 years. I wish someone would ask him where does he see those flights going to. I saw in another talk (2011 talk at AIAA) that he said he doesn't expect a great increase in the number of satellites, and I wouldn't expect the AF of NASA to suddenly need 100s of flights, so he clearly is thinking of new markets for flights going forward. Also, it would be great to hear how he got to the 12 - 15 year estimate.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Great work Helodriver! Lots of great information there! Thanks for sharing this with us!

[ncb1397]

~7:47
100s of flights per year in about 12 - 15 years. I wish someone would ask him where does he see those flights going to. I saw in another talk (2011 talk at AIAA) that he said he doesn't expect a great increase in the number of satellites, and I wouldn't expect the AF of NASA to suddenly need 100s of flights, so he clearly is thinking of new markets for flights going forward. Also, it would be great to hear how he got to the 12 - 15 year estimate.

He's pretty clear on that point. The destinations are...

1.)Mars
2.)Mars
3.)Moon
4.)Mars

[zd4]

~7:47
100s of flights per year in about 12 - 15 years. I wish someone would ask him where does he see those flights going to. I saw in another talk (2011 talk at AIAA) that he said he doesn't expect a great increase in the number of satellites, and I wouldn't expect the AF of NASA to suddenly need 100s of flights, so he clearly is thinking of new markets for flights going forward. Also, it would be great to hear how he got to the 12 - 15 year estimate.

He's pretty clear on that point. The destinations are...

1.)Mars
2.)Mars
3.)Moon
4.)Mars

100s of flights a year to the moon and Mars by the 2030s? I am quite sure that isn't what Elon meant.

[Lar]

"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."
   - attributed to such luminaries as Niels Bohr and Yogi Berra!

the 2030s are 20 years from now. A lot can change in 20 years. I would not rule out significant lunar traffic by 2030 along with some Mars traffic as well.

So I would not be so sure that isn't what Elon meant.

[RanulfC]

~7:47
100s of flights per year in about 12 - 15 years. I wish someone would ask him where does he see those flights going to. I saw in another talk (2011 talk at AIAA) that he said he doesn't expect a great increase in the number of satellites, and I wouldn't expect the AF of NASA to suddenly need 100s of flights, so he clearly is thinking of new markets for flights going forward. Also, it would be great to hear how he got to the 12 - 15 year estimate.

At a "guess" I'm suspecting that the majority would be to and from orbit, not any particular "destination" as it were. While he might not expect a great increase in the number of "dedicated" satellite launches hes got to "see" an increased requirement for payload to LEO including space stations, cargo and people to get to the point that something like the MCT is "justified" in operation. Its a simple matter of the scales (of economy and operations) needed to support the activities he sees.

I expect he "sees" only a very small percentage of these flights being for the government, the bulk of it has to be "commercial" in some sense, and one thing people tend to forget is that with higher access and lowered costs (both the "basis" of this type of operations) there is going to be major changes in the way we operate in space compared to today.

As to the timeframe I'm willing to bet it's based on economics and demand as criteria. The idea is that if price goes down as access goes up then demand will likewise increase. At some point (depending on who's math you use and what assumptions you base that math on "it" varies between 10 to 20 years or so) demand will begin to outstrip capability to the point where it becomes economic for increased competition to start lowering the overall entry price as well as prices in general. You get a turning point where increase operations spark price-wars and decreased and streamlining of operations in order to be more competative.

The kicker in the mix is that unlike any other transportation system we've ever dealt with on Earth, space travel doesn't have any "pre-existing" transportation market/system to tap into with the promise of increased "efficiency" over the "old" system in order to fund itself. There are no pre-existing destinations that will be faster or more economic to "get-to," no pre-existing market of goods and materials that can be transported at "reduced" cost, nothing. The ONLY current customer is really NASA for cargo and personnel, and the ONLY current market is commercial satellite launch. Everything and anything beyond those currently is going to require some sort of "bootstrapping" program to PROVIDE the basis for commercial space flight as envisioned by Musk. Its a "do-or-die" situation in that the only way to get there from here is to TRY it and see if it works.

Elon Musk has provided a "ship" but it has no destination or market which to tap, especially if the US Government "declines" to accept his offer of services.

Pretty much right now the 'ball' is very much in the court of anyone and everyone who has claimed that the thing that "commmercial space operations" every needed was a "ride" to and from orbit. The "ride" has arrived and it is fully dependent on SOMEONE stepping up and taking the NEXT leap of faith in order to suceed.

Randy

[GregA]

~7:47
100s of flights per year in about 12 - 15 years. I wish someone would ask him where does he see those flights going to. I saw in another talk (2011 talk at AIAA) that he said he doesn't expect a great increase in the number of satellites, and I wouldn't expect the AF of NASA to suddenly need 100s of flights, so he clearly is thinking of new markets for flights going forward. Also, it would be great to hear how he got to the 12 - 15 year estimate.

Corresponds with Shotwell's comments a few months back about scouting for many launch sites in about 12 years, to get lots of people moving. I heard that as required for Mars, but does anyone remember if that was explicit?

At a "guess" I'm suspecting that the majority would be to and from orbit, not any particular "destination" as it were. While he might not expect a great increase in the number of "dedicated" satellite launches hes got to "see" an increased requirement for payload to LEO including space stations, cargo and people to get to the point that something like the MCT is "justified" in operation. Its a simple matter of the scales (of economy and operations) needed to support the activities he sees.
<snip>
The kicker in the mix is that unlike any other transportation system we've ever dealt with on Earth, space travel doesn't have any "pre-existing" transportation market/system to tap into with the promise of increased "efficiency" over the "old" system in order to fund itself. There are no pre-existing destinations that will be faster or more economic to "get-to," no pre-existing market of goods and materials that can be transported at "reduced" cost, nothing. The ONLY current customer is really NASA for cargo and personnel, and the ONLY current market is commercial satellite launch. Everything and anything beyond those currently is going to require some sort of "bootstrapping" program to PROVIDE the basis for commercial space flight as envisioned by Musk. Its a "do-or-die" situation in that the only way to get there from here is to TRY it and see if it works.

Your 2 comments fall together quite neatly. But I don't think he means LEO launches. (edit:… but he was saying 100s of Dragon V2 launches?)

On a related note, you say "space stationS". The old ideas of space stations had an industrial base (Mars/Moon/Asteroids) as part of their history, but the recent interest has approached them as a first step.
ie: Mars comes first, then space stations built with Mars materials.

Of course it was based on the premise that launch from Mars was far cheaper than launch from Earth, but perhaps that assumption will need to be revisited in the near future.

[Mongo62]

Pretty much right now the 'ball' is very much in the court of anyone and everyone who has claimed that the thing that "commmercial space operations" every needed was a "ride" to and from orbit. The "ride" has arrived and it is fully dependent on SOMEONE stepping up and taking the NEXT leap of faith in order to suceed.

One obvious market would be various Bigelow Aerospace type commercial space habitats and their associated service and personnel delivery missions. Robert Bigelow certainly has ambitious plans in that regard, and I could see other organizations deciding to enter the market once they see his (I hope) success.

Another would be Planetary Resources type payloads, which could very well explode in numbers if the price to LEO drops sufficiently. And then there would be those space industries that utilize asteroidal resources, although those would be further in the future. But the first entirely new market, in my opinion, is likely to be Bigelow-type stations and their supply and maintenance.

[ncb1397]

~7:47
100s of flights per year in about 12 - 15 years. I wish someone would ask him where does he see those flights going to. I saw in another talk (2011 talk at AIAA) that he said he doesn't expect a great increase in the number of satellites, and I wouldn't expect the AF of NASA to suddenly need 100s of flights, so he clearly is thinking of new markets for flights going forward. Also, it would be great to hear how he got to the 12 - 15 year estimate.

He's pretty clear on that point. The destinations are...

1.)Mars
2.)Mars
3.)Moon
4.)Mars

100s of flights a year to the moon and Mars by the 2030s? I am quite sure that isn't what Elon meant.

Yeah, a BFR fleet with 24 hour turn around doing hundreds of launches per year yielding a mars ticket price of $500,000. It is exactly what he meant. Never said it was going to happen or even remotely likely but he has made enough public comments to know his stance. He would be seriously bummed if rockets aren't flying like airlines by the time he is 60.

[RocketGoBoom]

Yeah, a BFR fleet with 24 hour turn around doing hundreds of launches per year yielding a mars ticket price of $500,000. It is exactly what he meant. Never said it was going to happen or even remotely likely but he has made enough public comments to know his stance. He would be seriously bummed if rockets aren't flying like airlines by the time his is 60.

Elon likely has lots of grand dreams that will never come true and he will be bummed. Greenhouse delivered to Mars with an ICBM.... But if only 1/10 of his wild ass plans come to fruition, then the next 20 years will be fun to be apart of.