-
#120
by
yg1968
on 26 Jan, 2015 19:48
-
I am surprised that the uncrewed test flight is going to the ISS but that is what she said.
You don't want to prove ISS docking works before sending up astros? Really?
I didn't say that I didn't want it. But I wasn't expecting it. Under the CCiCap optional milestones (which weren't exercised), it wasn't clear that the uncrewed test would go all the way to the ISS.
-
#121
by
yg1968
on 26 Jan, 2015 19:52
-
I can't see them being allowed to use a recycled core for that test.
You mean the test that Boeing isn't doing at all? That test?
I was speaking in relation to Space X.
You're saying NASA won't let SpaceX use a re-used core (not that they're going to anyway) to accomplish a test that Boeing isn't even doing. This is clearly not correct.
Shotwell never said that. She said that they would use a core that was supposed to be used for the F9-Dev program and that it will be its first use.
-
#122
by
yg1968
on 26 Jan, 2015 19:57
-
Shotwell said that, at first, Dragon 2 would land in water. Given that SpaceX is likely to only get 8 crewed missions if NASA decides to keep both companies (which is currently the plan according to Lueders), I sort of wonder if powered landing still makes sense.
-
#123
by
abaddon
on 26 Jan, 2015 19:58
-
Shotwell never said that. She said that they would use a core that was supposed to be used for the F9-Dev program and that it will be its first use.
Star One asserted that "they" (I am assuming NASA) would never let SpaceX use a previously used core for the abort test. SpaceX isn't planning on doing so, however, I am asserting that they could choose to do so if they wanted, based on the fact that this isn't a NASA required milestone (Boeing isn't doing one).
Now that we've wasted enough time on this trivial point let's please move on...
-
#124
by
yg1968
on 26 Jan, 2015 20:03
-
Shotwell never said that. She said that they would use a core that was supposed to be used for the F9-Dev program and that it will be its first use.
Star One asserted that "they" (I am assuming NASA) would never let SpaceX use a previously used core for the abort test. SpaceX isn't planning on doing so, however, I am asserting that they could choose to do so if they wanted, based on the fact that this isn't a NASA required milestone (Boeing isn't doing one).
Now that we've wasted enough time on this trivial point let's please move on...
I agree but I also think that SpaceX is avoiding making the certification process even more complicated that it already is. My personal viewpoint is that the complexity of the certification process is stifling innovation.
-
#125
by
Star One
on 26 Jan, 2015 20:32
-
I can't see them being allowed to use a recycled core for that test.
You mean the test that Boeing isn't doing at all? That test?
I was speaking in relation to Space X.
You're saying NASA won't let SpaceX use a re-used core (not that they're going to anyway) to accomplish a test that Boeing isn't even doing. This is clearly not correct.
It just seemed unlikely that for such an important test that a recycled core would be used by consideration of Space X senior management wanting to keep things simple. I never said NASA did I, you're the one who has assumed that I meant them.
-
#126
by
TrevorMonty
on 26 Jan, 2015 20:39
-
Shotwell said that, at first, Dragon 2 would land in water. Given that SpaceX is likely to only get 8 crewed missions if NASA decides to keep both companies (which is currently the plan according to Lueders), I sort of wonder if powered landing still makes sense.
The Dragon V2 has 3 landing options.
1) Water
2) Parachute onto land using Dracos to cushion landing same Soyuz.
3) Full propulsive landing ie no parachutes.
2) is likely to standard landing option and matches CST100.
-
#127
by
abaddon
on 26 Jan, 2015 20:41
-
It just seemed unlikely that for such an important test that a recycled core would be used by consideration of Space X senior management wanting to keep things simple. I never said NASA did I, you're the one who has assumed that I meant them.
It is misleading to say you can't see SpaceX
being allowed to do it unless "they" is referring to an external agency. (I suppose another possible party that might object would be USAF due to range considerations). If you said they would never
choose to do it, that is a different matter and one which I agree with. I never thought they'd use a previously-used stage for such an important test, even if they had one.
-
#128
by
Star One
on 26 Jan, 2015 21:10
-
It just seemed unlikely that for such an important test that a recycled core would be used by consideration of Space X senior management wanting to keep things simple. I never said NASA did I, you're the one who has assumed that I meant them.
It is misleading to say you can't see SpaceX being allowed to do it unless "they" is referring to an external agency. (I suppose another possible party that might object would be USAF due to range considerations). If you said they would never choose to do it, that is a different matter and one which I agree with. I never thought they'd use a previously-used stage for such an important test, even if they had one.
Fair enough if it's felt that it wasn't well phrased then I'll accept it wasn't & apologise for the confusion. That will teach me to make a hastily thought out comment. :|
-
#129
by
Rocket Science
on 26 Jan, 2015 21:11
-
So NASA expects another drop test for Dream Chaser...
-
#130
by
ThereIWas3
on 26 Jan, 2015 21:27
-
Given that SpaceX is likely to only get 8 crewed missions if NASA decides to keep both companies (which is currently the plan according to Lueders), I sort of wonder if powered landing still makes sense.
I am sure SpaceX has additional customers in mind besides NASA.
-
#131
by
gongora
on 26 Jan, 2015 21:46
-
Too lazy to quote from above posts, but two points:
1. Spacex said their crewed test flight is early 2017. Boeing said theirs is July 2017. That's a few months, not a year.
2. Gwynne quite clearly said that the Dragon's normal landing mode will be in water, she never said a thing about parachute onto land and use LAS to cushion it.
-
#132
by
ThereIWas3
on 26 Jan, 2015 21:50
-
In the company-provided videos, I was struck by how cramped the Boeing capsule was, and how complex its control panel, in comparison with the Dragon.
-
#133
by
abaddon
on 26 Jan, 2015 21:56
-
Fair enough if it's felt that it wasn't well phrased then I'll accept it wasn't & apologise for the confusion. That will teach me to make a hastily thought out comment. :|
It's not a big deal, we're all on the same page here
.
-
#134
by
Coastal Ron
on 26 Jan, 2015 22:04
-
Shotwell said that, at first, Dragon 2 would land in water. Given that SpaceX is likely to only get 8 crewed missions if NASA decides to keep both companies (which is currently the plan according to Lueders), I sort of wonder if powered landing still makes sense.
Both Boeing and SpaceX have stated that NASA's Commercial Crew needs were not the entire market for crew vehicles, so they both are counting on new markets opening up. We know that Bigelow is one of the potential other markets, but as we all know so far the only known demand is the ISS. Let's hope that changes.
That said, SpaceX is also likely using Dragon 2 to prove out technologies they need for eventually getting to Mars. So in that case the Commercial Crew program is helping to fund Musk's Mars efforts.
-
#135
by
QuantumG
on 26 Jan, 2015 22:29
-
2. Gwynne quite clearly said that the Dragon's normal landing mode will be in water, she never said a thing about parachute onto land and use LAS to cushion it.
WTF? This is like the most disappointing bait and switch ever.
Why did they waste years working on the SuperDracos?
-
#136
by
NovaSilisko
on 26 Jan, 2015 22:31
-
WTF? This is like the most disappointing bait and switch ever.
Why did they waste years working on the SuperDracos?
... Abort system?
In any case I thought I heard her say they were
starting with water landings and then progressing forward to propulsive landings.
-
#137
by
GalacticIntruder
on 26 Jan, 2015 22:50
-
I don't see NASA allowing its Astronauts on Dragon powered landings. Maybe at the EOL of ISS. Just not something NASA is comfortable with nor needs. There a things Musk wants, things NASA wants, and the two occasionally overlap. SpaceX is trying to please two customers at once, but one requires certifications plus an established culture.
-
#138
by
GalacticIntruder
on 26 Jan, 2015 22:52
-
One question no one asked is what is the Atlas plan for CST? We know it is not manned rated, and we know ULA has their NGLV plan in late 2019 or later.
-
#139
by
rayleighscatter
on 26 Jan, 2015 23:00
-
I believe the work for making the Atlas V suitable for manned launches has already been completed.
