-
#140
by
Geron
on 16 Jul, 2018 22:05
-
Any chance spacex could sell seats to space tourists for dm1? Like x million per seat?
-
#141
by
Svetoslav
on 16 Jul, 2018 22:23
-
Any chance spacex could sell seats to space tourists for dm1? Like x million per seat?
Why would they sell tickets for a ride aboard a test spacecraft?
Nobody does this. Virgin Galactic doesn't do this. Neither does Blue Origin.
-
#142
by
Geron
on 17 Jul, 2018 01:32
-
I mean not everyone can afford a ride on a certified spacecraft. It seems like such a waste to send this test vehicle empty. They have tested the hell out of all the components already. Did they launch a space shuttle with no people on board first time? I don’t think so. When did everyone become so cautious.
-
#143
by
gongora
on 17 Jul, 2018 01:47
-
I mean not everyone can afford a ride on a certified spacecraft. It seems like such a waste to send this test vehicle empty. They have tested the hell out of all the components already. Did they launch a space shuttle with no people on board first time? I don’t think so. When did everyone become so cautious.
The space shuttle wasn't designed to fly without crew. Sending someone unsupervised to the ISS for a couple of weeks with no training could be an issue.
-
#144
by
Robotbeat
on 17 Jul, 2018 02:02
-
Shuttle could've launched without crew if they had wanted it to. The Russians managed it just fine with less funding and generally less sophisticated computer technology.
The safety culture changed. And honestly, I think it makes sense to do uncrewed flights. Particularly if you're reusable.
-
#145
by
Eric Hedman
on 17 Jul, 2018 02:41
-
Shuttle could've launched without crew if they had wanted it to. The Russians managed it just fine with less funding and generally less sophisticated computer technology.
The safety culture changed. And honestly, I think it makes sense to do uncrewed flights. Particularly if you're reusable.
I seem to remember that the Shuttle landing gear control was not connected to the flight computers so that It would require people on board for deployment during landing. Maybe my memory is faulty, but I think this was the case.
-
#146
by
RonM
on 17 Jul, 2018 02:53
-
Shuttle could've launched without crew if they had wanted it to. The Russians managed it just fine with less funding and generally less sophisticated computer technology.
The safety culture changed. And honestly, I think it makes sense to do uncrewed flights. Particularly if you're reusable.
I seem to remember that the Shuttle landing gear control was not connected to the flight computers so that It would require people on board for deployment during landing. Maybe my memory is faulty, but I think this was the case.
I believe the point was the shuttle could have been designed to operate without crew. Of course, that would have been more expensive and it didn't seem important at the time.
-
#147
by
DigitalMan
on 17 Jul, 2018 03:38
-
I mean not everyone can afford a ride on a certified spacecraft. It seems like such a waste to send this test vehicle empty. They have tested the hell out of all the components already. Did they launch a space shuttle with no people on board first time? I don’t think so. When did everyone become so cautious.
DM-1 is going to attach to the ISS, no? It would seem to be a substantial challenge to get NASA permission for non-NASA folks to be on board.
-
#148
by
Robotbeat
on 17 Jul, 2018 04:14
-
Shuttle could've launched without crew if they had wanted it to. The Russians managed it just fine with less funding and generally less sophisticated computer technology.
The safety culture changed. And honestly, I think it makes sense to do uncrewed flights. Particularly if you're reusable.
I seem to remember that the Shuttle landing gear control was not connected to the flight computers so that It would require people on board for deployment during landing. Maybe my memory is faulty, but I think this was the case.
I believe the point was the shuttle could have been designed to operate without crew. Of course, that would have been more expensive and it didn't seem important at the time.
I actually doubt it'd be significantly more expensive at all. In fact, the initial flight would've been cheaper if it had been uncrewed, and they could've spared all the mods needed to put ejection seats for the first couple flights.
Shuttle was fly by wire, and except for final approach was basically computer controlled the whole time. A relay to trigger wheel-down would've been actually trivial.
In fact, I believe they even installed the equipment necessary to do this on later flights but never used it. (There's a Wayne Hale blog post about this, I think.)
I think it was largely internal politics that prevented the ability to launch a full mission without crew.
tl;dr: It totally makes sense to test fly uncrewed at first.
-
#149
by
wannamoonbase
on 17 Jul, 2018 04:23
-
Shuttle could've launched without crew if they had wanted it to. The Russians managed it just fine with less funding and generally less sophisticated computer technology.
The safety culture changed. And honestly, I think it makes sense to do uncrewed flights. Particularly if you're reusable.
I seem to remember that the Shuttle landing gear control was not connected to the flight computers so that It would require people on board for deployment during landing. Maybe my memory is faulty, but I think this was the case.
I believe the point was the shuttle could have been designed to operate without crew. Of course, that would have been more expensive and it didn't seem important at the time.
I actually doubt it'd be significantly more expensive at all. In fact, the initial flight would've been cheaper if it had been uncrewed, and they could've spared all the mods needed to put ejection seats for the first couple flights.
Shuttle was fly by wire, and except for final approach was basically computer controlled the whole time. A relay to trigger wheel-down would've been actually trivial.
In fact, I believe they even installed the equipment necessary to do this on later flights but never used it. (There's a Wayne Hale blog post about this, I think.)
I think it was largely internal politics that prevented the ability to launch a full mission without crew.
tl;dr: It totally makes sense to test fly uncrewed at first.
I have the same memories about shuttle. It was essentially all there.
I’m just happy that after 7 years we are finally this close to US human space flight.
-
#150
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 17 Jul, 2018 16:24
-
Shuttle could've launched without crew if they had wanted it to. The Russians managed it just fine with less funding and generally less sophisticated computer technology.
The safety culture changed. And honestly, I think it makes sense to do uncrewed flights. Particularly if you're reusable.
I seem to remember that the Shuttle landing gear control was not connected to the flight computers so that It would require people on board for deployment during landing. Maybe my memory is faulty, but I think this was the case.
I believe the point was the shuttle could have been designed to operate without crew. Of course, that would have been more expensive and it didn't seem important at the time.
I actually doubt it'd be significantly more expensive at all. In fact, the initial flight would've been cheaper if it had been uncrewed, and they could've spared all the mods needed to put ejection seats for the first couple flights.
Shuttle was fly by wire, and except for final approach was basically computer controlled the whole time. A relay to trigger wheel-down would've been actually trivial.
In fact, I believe they even installed the equipment necessary to do this on later flights but never used it. (There's a Wayne Hale blog post about this, I think.)
I think it was largely internal politics that prevented the ability to launch a full mission without crew.
tl;dr: It totally makes sense to test fly uncrewed at first.
I have the same memories about shuttle. It was essentially all there.
I’m just happy that after 7 years we are finally this close to US human space flight.
If memory serves, it was a cable that had to be physically attached to the controls by the crew. Shuttle, throughout its life, could never be flown without a crew -- or a crew to install a cable on orbit to then allow it be flown, for landing, uncrewed.
The cable to deploy the landing gear was for a damage situation where the Orbiter *might* survive reentry and if it did could then be flown to a runway (thus the need to deploy the gear).
-
#151
by
Chris Bergin
on 30 Jul, 2018 17:47
-
-
#152
by
DreamyPickle
on 31 Jul, 2018 13:52
-
Any guess on when this will launch? Thread title is NET August but it doesn't seem plausible to launch in <30 days.
Maybe we'll find out more on August 3rd when crew assignments are announced?
-
#153
by
gongora
on 31 Jul, 2018 14:14
-
Any guess on when this will launch? Thread title is NET August but it doesn't seem plausible to launch in <30 days.
Maybe we'll find out more on August 3rd when crew assignments are announced?
We have no idea. Hopefully we'll find out more from the Aug. 3 announcements.
-
#154
by
ricmsmith
on 31 Jul, 2018 16:42
-
I mean not everyone can afford a ride on a certified spacecraft. It seems like such a waste to send this test vehicle empty. They have tested the hell out of all the components already. Did they launch a space shuttle with no people on board first time? I don’t think so. When did everyone become so cautious.
It's not a waste, it's a testbed. And people got a lot more cautious after the loss of two orbiters and their crew. Risk is part of spaceflight and it always will be but it has to be managed and proportionate risk. The risk of sending up paying passengers on an otherwise untested spacecraft, just to make a bit more money is not a risk worth taking at all.
-
#155
by
marsbase
on 31 Jul, 2018 17:49
-
I mean not everyone can afford a ride on a certified spacecraft. It seems like such a waste to send this test vehicle empty. They have tested the hell out of all the components already. Did they launch a space shuttle with no people on board first time? I don’t think so. When did everyone become so cautious.
With the shuttle, NASA used what they called "success-oriented management"
https://go.nasa.gov/2OxYcwP. To reduce cost, they did not do thorough testing on all components but instead assembled them and tested the assembled unit as a whole. As the Challenger explosion demonstrated, operating outside previous test parameters with crew onboard is a bad idea. NASA was scarred by the loss of two crews (they use the term "scarred" in discussions with SpaceX) and as a result have become much more conservative about crew protection. Perhaps too conservative. Elon Musk has been clear that people will die as a result of Mars colonization. Hopefully, as few as possible.
-
#156
by
whitelancer64
on 31 Jul, 2018 17:57
-
I mean not everyone can afford a ride on a certified spacecraft. It seems like such a waste to send this test vehicle empty. They have tested the hell out of all the components already. Did they launch a space shuttle with no people on board first time? I don’t think so. When did everyone become so cautious.
It's not a waste, it's a testbed. And people got a lot more cautious after the loss of two orbiters and their crew. Risk is part of spaceflight and it always will be but it has to be managed and proportionate risk. The risk of sending up paying passengers on an otherwise untested spacecraft, just to make a bit more money is not a risk worth taking at all.
Also, it won't be empty. They will be sending up some cargo on the test flight.
-
#157
by
gongora
on 02 Aug, 2018 18:34
-
-
#158
by
kdhilliard
on 03 Aug, 2018 12:23
-
Do we know where the trunk for this capsule is? It lacked its solar arrays during the thermal vacuum testing at Plum Brook, so when the capsule was shipped to KSC, was the trunk returned to Hawthorne for completion?
-
#159
by
TripleSeven
on 03 Aug, 2018 13:01
-
Uncrewed flights of crewed vehicles are in the great tradition of space capsule development. Every US crewed vehicle has done this except Shuttle......
what I guess from a SpaceX only perspective (since the Starliner has not really ever flown) I am kind of surprised that its all that necessary.
I dont know "how much" the software" of the crewed Dragon is to that of the uncrewed Dragons...and really the strength of SpaceX design should be their ability to master software...they have had reasonable (quite good) success with the Dragon...
if there is a "black hole" waiting for Dragon my guess would be it is in the 1) new propulsion system 2) the crew interface and 3) in the life support (in decreasing order)
by this point the Falcon is as reliable as any launch vehicle the US has ever had for X number of flights
they could reasonably in my view crew it...but well they wont
what I find "interesting" from a "pilot" design standpoint...if they autodock with the station; that will be the start of the end of "pilot" docking
