Quote from: abaddon on 01/14/2016 10:27 pmTo reiterate, NASA will be able to select a propulsive Dragon return with the same upper bound of timeframe of delivery of samples (three hours) as DreamChaser. quick return of samples is not a capability unique to DreamChaser.You cannot land a Dragon in as many places as you could land a DC should the need arise.
To reiterate, NASA will be able to select a propulsive Dragon return with the same upper bound of timeframe of delivery of samples (three hours) as DreamChaser. quick return of samples is not a capability unique to DreamChaser.
Cygnus, Cargo and Crew Dragon, CST-100, Soyuz, and Progress already provide way more than enough dissimilar redundancy for ISS logistics.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 01/14/2016 10:30 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 01/14/2016 10:22 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 01/14/2016 10:12 pmQuote from: Darkseraph on 01/14/2016 09:54 pmI was still rooting for the Jupiter-Exoliner till the end because reusing the in space hardware is as important as the boosters. But I suppose it was complex and potentially risky proposal. I was too. It's understandable that for the short term (the timeframe of this contract and the limited scope of delivery to ISS) Jupiter wasn't the right choice. But I think that's unfortunate because it's a capability I'd like to see developed -- a reusable in-space tug.Reusability is the key to scaling our space activities up. I'm not satisfied with seven astronauts at a time in orbit. The real promise of commercial cargo and crew is to get costs down so we can scale up.That's why I'm still most excited about SpaceX of the three winners of CRS-2. They're they only ones evolving toward a fully-reusable system. Expendable launch vehicles can't scale. Dream Chaser just provides the same services as other systems without a fundamentally important difference, so I can't get excited about it. And I suspect it will cost more (development costs still to be paid, large disposable module), which goes against scaling up, not for scaling up.Chris the scientists stated why they were excited to have DC in the mix... Why is it's "dissimilar redundancy" so hard to accept?~RobEverything has a cost. The biggest problem with NASA, in my opinion, is the lack of appreciation for cost.Sure, all else being equal, dissimilar redundancy is great.But where dissimilar redundancy is really important is in a single system where there's a high cost of failure, such as a vehicle that carries crew. Dissimilar redundancy across different missions is less important.Cygnus, Cargo and Crew Dragon, CST-100, Soyuz, and Progress already provide way more than enough dissimilar redundancy for ISS logistics. We already saw the effects of several accidents at the same time in 2015 -- Cygnus and Dragon were both down. It was pretty much a worst-case scenario. And it was no real problem.Adding another commercial cargo carrier into the mix adds little value.Again the scientists at NASA would seem to disagree with you and I know who's word I would put the most weight on .
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/14/2016 10:22 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 01/14/2016 10:12 pmQuote from: Darkseraph on 01/14/2016 09:54 pmI was still rooting for the Jupiter-Exoliner till the end because reusing the in space hardware is as important as the boosters. But I suppose it was complex and potentially risky proposal. I was too. It's understandable that for the short term (the timeframe of this contract and the limited scope of delivery to ISS) Jupiter wasn't the right choice. But I think that's unfortunate because it's a capability I'd like to see developed -- a reusable in-space tug.Reusability is the key to scaling our space activities up. I'm not satisfied with seven astronauts at a time in orbit. The real promise of commercial cargo and crew is to get costs down so we can scale up.That's why I'm still most excited about SpaceX of the three winners of CRS-2. They're they only ones evolving toward a fully-reusable system. Expendable launch vehicles can't scale. Dream Chaser just provides the same services as other systems without a fundamentally important difference, so I can't get excited about it. And I suspect it will cost more (development costs still to be paid, large disposable module), which goes against scaling up, not for scaling up.Chris the scientists stated why they were excited to have DC in the mix... Why is it's "dissimilar redundancy" so hard to accept?~RobEverything has a cost. The biggest problem with NASA, in my opinion, is the lack of appreciation for cost.Sure, all else being equal, dissimilar redundancy is great.But where dissimilar redundancy is really important is in a single system where there's a high cost of failure, such as a vehicle that carries crew. Dissimilar redundancy across different missions is less important.Cygnus, Cargo and Crew Dragon, CST-100, Soyuz, and Progress already provide way more than enough dissimilar redundancy for ISS logistics. We already saw the effects of several accidents at the same time in 2015 -- Cygnus and Dragon were both down. It was pretty much a worst-case scenario. And it was no real problem.Adding another commercial cargo carrier into the mix adds little value.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 01/14/2016 10:12 pmQuote from: Darkseraph on 01/14/2016 09:54 pmI was still rooting for the Jupiter-Exoliner till the end because reusing the in space hardware is as important as the boosters. But I suppose it was complex and potentially risky proposal. I was too. It's understandable that for the short term (the timeframe of this contract and the limited scope of delivery to ISS) Jupiter wasn't the right choice. But I think that's unfortunate because it's a capability I'd like to see developed -- a reusable in-space tug.Reusability is the key to scaling our space activities up. I'm not satisfied with seven astronauts at a time in orbit. The real promise of commercial cargo and crew is to get costs down so we can scale up.That's why I'm still most excited about SpaceX of the three winners of CRS-2. They're they only ones evolving toward a fully-reusable system. Expendable launch vehicles can't scale. Dream Chaser just provides the same services as other systems without a fundamentally important difference, so I can't get excited about it. And I suspect it will cost more (development costs still to be paid, large disposable module), which goes against scaling up, not for scaling up.Chris the scientists stated why they were excited to have DC in the mix... Why is it's "dissimilar redundancy" so hard to accept?~Rob
Quote from: Darkseraph on 01/14/2016 09:54 pmI was still rooting for the Jupiter-Exoliner till the end because reusing the in space hardware is as important as the boosters. But I suppose it was complex and potentially risky proposal. I was too. It's understandable that for the short term (the timeframe of this contract and the limited scope of delivery to ISS) Jupiter wasn't the right choice. But I think that's unfortunate because it's a capability I'd like to see developed -- a reusable in-space tug.Reusability is the key to scaling our space activities up. I'm not satisfied with seven astronauts at a time in orbit. The real promise of commercial cargo and crew is to get costs down so we can scale up.That's why I'm still most excited about SpaceX of the three winners of CRS-2. They're they only ones evolving toward a fully-reusable system. Expendable launch vehicles can't scale. Dream Chaser just provides the same services as other systems without a fundamentally important difference, so I can't get excited about it. And I suspect it will cost more (development costs still to be paid, large disposable module), which goes against scaling up, not for scaling up.
I was still rooting for the Jupiter-Exoliner till the end because reusing the in space hardware is as important as the boosters. But I suppose it was complex and potentially risky proposal.
Cygnus, Cargo and Crew Dragon, CST-100, Soyuz, and Progress already provide way more than enough dissimilar redundancy for ISS logistics. We already saw the effects of several accidents at the same time in 2015 -- Cygnus and Dragon were both down. It was pretty much a worst-case scenario. And it was no real problem.Adding another commercial cargo carrier into the mix adds little value.
Actually, you could land a Dragon in more places if you really needed to -- no runway needed, any place a helicopter could land, Dragon could land.
Quote from: Star One on 01/14/2016 10:30 pmQuote from: abaddon on 01/14/2016 10:27 pmTo reiterate, NASA will be able to select a propulsive Dragon return with the same upper bound of timeframe of delivery of samples (three hours) as DreamChaser. quick return of samples is not a capability unique to DreamChaser.You cannot land a Dragon in as many places as you could land a DC should the need arise.Unproven assertion, and unproven that such a need exists at all (let alone for quick return of samples). As far as we know all NASA DC flights will land at KSC.There was talk about using DC for a gentle return profile for medical emergencies, obviously that doesn't apply to a cargo craft.
Anyway, I'm sorry my comments got us off on a negative sub-thread. That was not my intention.
Quote from: GalacticIntruder on 01/14/2016 09:22 pmI am not a DreamChaser fan. Big win for ULA Atlas. They got 1/3, and maybe even 2/3 if Orbital decides.People may call me cynical, but I think all of the effusive affection for Dream Chaser is misplaced adoration for the shuttle. Personally, I loathed the shuttle, so I kind of loathe Dream Chaser.
I am not a DreamChaser fan. Big win for ULA Atlas. They got 1/3, and maybe even 2/3 if Orbital decides.
Quote from: Brovane on 01/14/2016 10:06 pmQuote from: abaddon on 01/14/2016 10:04 pmI have never heard anything from SpaceX about reusing whole Dragons. However, they are already reusing parts from recovered Dragons.From my understanding they are re-using the pressure vessels from earlier dragons for later CRS missions. No, many of them are in storage at McGregor.
Quote from: abaddon on 01/14/2016 10:04 pmI have never heard anything from SpaceX about reusing whole Dragons. However, they are already reusing parts from recovered Dragons.From my understanding they are re-using the pressure vessels from earlier dragons for later CRS missions.
I have never heard anything from SpaceX about reusing whole Dragons. However, they are already reusing parts from recovered Dragons.
Article for the announcement:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/nasa-awards-crs2-spacex-orbital-atk-sierra-nevada/Mostly by Chris Gebhardt.We'll be going indepth over the coming weeks with each winner.
Quote from: tobi453 on 01/14/2016 09:36 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 01/14/2016 09:26 pm3 Cargo and two Crew vehicles. We could literally begin LEO and Cis-Lunar colonization procedures. My goodness, does this all open up a world of possibilities. Looks like Bigelow won't have to wait too much longer for the all the infrastructure he needs to be in place.Bigelows only option is Dragon. Just look at the price tag of Cygnus. DC is launching on Atlas, it won't be cheap.If SpaceX get reusability down & Atlas can't compete, there may be no Atlas by the time CRS2 starts flying.
Quote from: rcoppola on 01/14/2016 09:26 pm3 Cargo and two Crew vehicles. We could literally begin LEO and Cis-Lunar colonization procedures. My goodness, does this all open up a world of possibilities. Looks like Bigelow won't have to wait too much longer for the all the infrastructure he needs to be in place.Bigelows only option is Dragon. Just look at the price tag of Cygnus. DC is launching on Atlas, it won't be cheap.
3 Cargo and two Crew vehicles. We could literally begin LEO and Cis-Lunar colonization procedures. My goodness, does this all open up a world of possibilities. Looks like Bigelow won't have to wait too much longer for the all the infrastructure he needs to be in place.
