NASA, Boeing, SpaceX Discuss Plan for Launching American Astronauts from US

• #200 by QuantumG on 01 Feb, 2015 00:43
• I transcribed that.. here on NSF. Garrett said they would initially start with parachutes to shock absorbing gear and introduce the SuperDracos as they gain confidence. Prior to Gwynne's "announcement" the other day, we've never heard they intended to put astronauts into the drink other than in an abort situation.
  
  

  Quote from: Elon Musk

  Except for emergency landing, all landings will be on land. - source
  

  
  SpaceX casually changes their plans for lots of things. Apologists act like it doesn't happen.
  
• #201 by AS-503 on 01 Feb, 2015 01:25
• Quote from: QuantumG on 01 Feb, 2015 00:43

  I transcribed that.. here on NSF. Garrett said they would initially start with parachutes to shock absorbing gear and introduce the SuperDracos as they gain confidence. Prior to Gwynne's "announcement" the other day, we've never heard they intended to put astronauts into the drink other than in an abort situation.
  
  

  Quote from: Elon Musk

  Except for emergency landing, all landings will be on land. - source
  

  
  SpaceX casually changes their plans for lots of things. Apologists act like it doesn't happen.
  

  
  Not to be argumentative, but did they (SpaceX collectively) ever actually explicitly state "only parachutes and landing legs" for land landings?
  
  I always thought that every land landing they ever talked about (or even showed in video) had a propulsive assist. This thought is also backed up by Reisman's quotes from the September video.
• #202 by MP99 on 01 Feb, 2015 13:29
• Quote from: yg1968 on 27 Jan, 2015 14:02

  She is referring to the post-certification missions. There is a minimum of two and a maximum of six post-certifications missions for each provider (per the final RFP). 
  
  When asked later if NASA had any intentions of choosing only one commercial crew provider, she said that NASA would like to maintain two providers. So my guess is that both companies will get six post-certification missions each. So there won't be a primary and a secondary company. So it will be similar to cargo where SpaceX and Orbital are equals.
  

  
  I'd go with that, with one modification if one of the parties is late.
  
  This looks to be one flight each per year for six years - 2018-2023. (Adjust this left or right if both are ready earlier or later.)
  
  But, assume SpaceX aren't ready to fly a post-cert mission in 2018. NASA might ask Boeing to fly two missions in 2018, IE accelerate their 2019 flight to late 2018.
  
  SpaceX then loses both the 2018 flight, and the contract is shortened to five years, so they also lose a 2023 opportunity.
  
  Cheers, Martin
  
• #203 by woods170 on 02 Feb, 2015 07:57
• Quote from: QuantumG on 01 Feb, 2015 00:43

  I transcribed that.. here on NSF. Garrett said they would initially start with parachutes to shock absorbing gear and introduce the SuperDracos as they gain confidence. Prior to Gwynne's "announcement" the other day, we've never heard they intended to put astronauts into the drink other than in an abort situation.
  
  

  Quote from: Elon Musk

  Except for emergency landing, all landings will be on land. - source
  

  
  SpaceX casually changes their plans for lots of things. Apologists act like it doesn't happen.
  
  

  You're upset about SpaceX changing it's plans (need I refer the WTH post of you recently?) and now you're taking it out on, what you refer to as, apologists.
  
  Can we please stop focusing on the past and focus on CCtCAP and the future please? Thank you!
• #204 by alexterrell on 02 Feb, 2015 12:50
• So I take it from this that commercial crew providers will be ready in 2017, but NASA will be using them to go to ISS from 2018?
  
  What is the current contractual arrangement for Soyuz launches?
  
  Any views now as to whether the programs could be brought forward? The way things are going in Ukraine, they might need to be.
• #205 by newpylong on 02 Feb, 2015 13:29
• So SpaceX and Musk were once again over-confident, at least we have two providers going forward. Who cares about how they land. It is an exciting time...
• #206 by QuantumG on 02 Feb, 2015 13:56
• Quote from: newpylong on 02 Feb, 2015 13:29

  So SpaceX and Musk were once again over-confident, at least we have two providers going forward. Who cares about how they land. It is an exciting time...
  

  
  Ya really think that's the plan?
  
  The good folks in Congress have made it pretty clear who they want... and the administration has been supporting them at every turn. Now you figure everything is going to be straight up, when the first flights are scheduled for after the current administration has left the building.. and safety is the number one priority.
  
  
• #207 by yg1968 on 02 Feb, 2015 14:15
• Quote from: newpylong on 02 Feb, 2015 13:29

  So SpaceX and Musk were once again over-confident, at least we have two providers going forward. Who cares about how they land. It is an exciting time...
  

  
  I don't think that it's a matter of SpaceX being overconfident. It's more a case of certification being overly complex and favoring old proven technology.
• #208 by clongton on 02 Feb, 2015 14:23
• Quote from: newpylong on 02 Feb, 2015 13:29

  So SpaceX and Musk were once again over-confident, at least we have two providers going forward. Who cares about how they land. It is an exciting time...

  
  SpaceX was not over confident. It's a case of SpaceX delaying a new capability in order to satisfy the fear of the new capability by a federal agency that is paying the bill for their transportation contract - nothing more. IMO SpaceX will have demonstrated operationally, several times, the safety of their propulsive landing long before NASA loses its phobia against it.
• #209 by kevinof on 02 Feb, 2015 14:42
• Agreed. SpaceX are being very pragmatic here. They have a major customer that they have to satisfy. If that customer is happy with water landings (or unhappy with powered landings over land) then you do what you have to do to keep them satisfied and keep the deal on track. Doesn't matter if this goes against SpaceX long term wishes but the customer comes first and ideals come second.
  
  I would love to see powered landings tomorrow but then I'm not paying the bills.
  
  

  Quote from: clongton on 02 Feb, 2015 14:23

  Quote from: newpylong on 02 Feb, 2015 13:29

  So SpaceX and Musk were once again over-confident, at least we have two providers going forward. Who cares about how they land. It is an exciting time...

  
  SpaceX was not over confident. It's a case of SpaceX delaying a new capability in order to satisfy the fear of the new capability by a federal agency that is paying the bill for their transportation contract - nothing more. IMO SpaceX will have demonstrated operationally, several times, the safety of their propulsive landing long before NASA loses its phobia against it.
  
• #210 by Lars-J on 02 Feb, 2015 18:04
• A neat image from the NASA press conference happening right now - Showing CST-100, Orion, and Dragon (v1) hardware together for the first time:

  ---

  
• #211 by woods170 on 02 Feb, 2015 18:17
• Quote from: Lars-J on 02 Feb, 2015 18:04

  A neat image from the NASA press conference happening right now - Showing CST-100, Orion, and Dragon (v1) hardware together for the first time:
  

  Putting things in perspective:
  
  - Left: CST-100 prototype seamless pressure hull, produced by Boeing under the CC-DEV2 contract, not flown 
  - Middle: EFT-1 Orion, produced by Lockheed Martin, flown
  - Right: Dragon v1, produced by SpaceX, flown
  
  
• #212 by Lars-J on 02 Feb, 2015 18:25
• A slight edit  , with the latest Dragon v2 image: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/562313940982456321
  
  (Does anyone know what CST-100's latest progress image would look like?)

  ---

  
• #213 by abaddon on 02 Feb, 2015 18:40
• Man, when you look at them lined up like that, CST-100 seems really small.  I know DragonV2 doesn't have as much space inside as is implied by the outside, but still.
• #214 by Jim on 02 Feb, 2015 18:59
• Quote from: abaddon on 02 Feb, 2015 18:40

  Man, when you look at them lined up like that, CST-100 seems really small.  I know DragonV2 doesn't have as much space inside as is implied by the outside, but still.
  

  
  CST-100 is just the pressure hull.  The others would be just as small if all the aeroshell were removed.
• #215 by llanitedave on 03 Feb, 2015 00:08
• Dragon is actually the smallest of the three in livable volume, I believe.
• #216 by Robotbeat on 03 Feb, 2015 00:12
• Quote from: llanitedave on 03 Feb, 2015 00:08

  Dragon is actually the smallest of the three in livable volume, I believe.
  

  Citation needed. I have seen no evidence of that.
• #217 by llanitedave on 03 Feb, 2015 02:02
• Quote from: Robotbeat on 03 Feb, 2015 00:12

  Quote from: llanitedave on 03 Feb, 2015 00:08

  Dragon is actually the smallest of the three in livable volume, I believe.
  

  Citation needed. I have seen no evidence of that.
  

  
  
  A chain of inference, which is why I said "I believe" and not "I know if for a fact."  I took what measurements I could find on the web, starting from the first image below.  Then I found a cutaway view, the second image.
  Using Libre Office Draw and GIMP, I made a transparency of the second image and overlaid it on the first, scaling it until I got as close a match as I could.
  From that, I could take the given exterior dimensions and measure their components to get approximate internal dimensions.  Here's what I got:
  
  CST-100 capsule only external height (including cap):  2.9m
  external diameter:  4.56m (given)
  Interior lower cylinder of pressure hull diameter:  3.05m
  Height of lower cylinder:  0.95m
  Height of interior pressure hull cone:  1.36m
  Upper diameter of pressure hull cone below hatch:  1.55m
  
  
  The volume of the lower cylinder works out to 6.94 cubic meters.  The truncated cone above comes out to 5.76 cubic meters.  Adding them for total pressurized volume:
  12.7m³
  
  The given pressurized volume for Dragon is 10m³
  The given pressurized volume for  Orion is 19.56m³
  
  Of the three, only Orion reports its total habitable volume: 8.95m³
  
  This is less than half the total pressurized volume.  Given that both Dragon and CST-100 are designed for shorter stays in orbit, it's just a guess, but I suspect the proportion of their habitable volume is somewhat greater than for Orion.  However, since the reputedly have similar endurance, it's likely that the proportion is very close between them.  Which means that CST-100 has roughly 25% more habitable volume than Dragon.
  
  Critique and correction, is of course, welcome.
  
  
  edit:  I just corrected myself!  From a closer look at the cutaway view, the docking tunnel is longer than what I measured at first, and the inner cone is thus shorter than my original measurement.  I now get .64m for the height of the cone, and 1.88m for its diameter.  Plugging that into the figures, I get a new internal pressurized volume of 10.05m³ for the CST-100:  within the margin of error, the same as Dragon's.
  
  
  So, ok -- I withdraw my earlier claim.  Dragon and CST-100 appear to be approximately equal in pressurized volume, if one accepts the SpaceX-supplied figure for it.

  ---

  

  
• #218 by Zed_Noir on 03 Feb, 2015 02:54
• @llanitedave
  
  A large amount of volume is allocated for parachutes and floatation aides on both the CST-100 and Orion near the nose cone along with docking mechanisms. Parachute is carry on the Dragon in a external lower side bay.
  
• #219 by llanitedave on 03 Feb, 2015 03:11
• Yep, and that's what's shortened frustum on the C-100 reflects, which I missed the first time I measured it.  There still could be some construction details that create a difference in available habitable space between the two craft, but that can't be defined as far as I can tell, yet.