SpaceX to increase price of cargo delivery to space station by 50%

[deruch]

the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk)

What is this?

I hadn't heard about the changes whitelancer64 mentioned, so I assumed woods170 was talking about the service section.  That's the unpressurized section of the Dragon capsule that is a sort of ring around the base of the pressure section.  It's where the propellant tanks and thrusters are located on the capsule.

[woods170]

the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk)

What is this?

On "classic" spacecraft, like the Apollo CSM, Orion and CST-100 Starliner, the spacecraft consists of a crew module (capsule) and a detachable service module. The service module contains the primary means of propulsion, including the fuel tanks, rocket engine, fuel cells OR solar arrays, thermal radiators, ECLLS consumables such as water and oxygen.

Dragon spacecraft (both Dragon 1 and 2) consist of:
- A crew module THAT INCLUDES a service module
- A trunk holding solar arrays and thermal radiators.

The area in between the lower part of the Dragon pressure hull and the outer shell is the service module of Dragon. It is an integrated part of the Dragon capsule. Contrary to Orion and CST-100 Dragon (both versions 1 and 2) carry their primary propulsion, including fuel tanks and rocket engines, and their ECLSS consumables within the capsule.
So, most systems that - on Orion and CST-100 - are in the detachable service module, are integrated into the capsule (crew module) on Dragon.

[kevinof]

So ..

Option 1 - So despite there being how many successful flights of the current dragon and trunk, the system is now deemed a safety risk? Eh Ok.

Option 2 - There are still thrusters in the Dragon 2 , as well as in the trunk. Not sure what space it would save.

Do we know what was the driver behind putting thrusters in the trunk?  Seems a big change given that the existing dragon and trunk work fine.

the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk)

What is this?

Some of the Dragon v2 consumables are now in the trunk, making it a service module as well as an unpressurized cargo stowage area. A recent render from Spaceflight Insider also has thrusters mounted to the trunk.

Guesses: If the thrusters in the trunk still function once it is detached from Dragon, then it could be detached earlier before the deorbit burn, and it would be able to deorbit itself, and so place this important separation as a seperate item before the rest of the deorbit process. This may be deemed safer for crew.
Guess2: Creating more room in Dragon2

[Prettz]

Some of the Dragon v2 consumables are now in the trunk, making it a service module as well as an unpressurized cargo stowage area. A recent render from Spaceflight Insider also has thrusters mounted to the trunk.

Wow, the expendable part of Dragon got a lot more expensive while I wasn't looking. That's very unfortunate.
NASA is able to pay whatever they'd like to pay for missions, but what about commercial customers?

the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk)

What is this?

On "classic" spacecraft, like the Apollo CSM, Orion and CST-100 Starliner, the spacecraft consists of a crew module (capsule) and a detachable service module. The service module contains the primary means of propulsion, including the fuel tanks, rocket engine, fuel cells OR solar arrays, thermal radiators, ECLLS consumables such as water and oxygen.

Dragon spacecraft (both Dragon 1 and 2) consist of:
- A crew module THAT INCLUDES a service module
- A trunk holding solar arrays and thermal radiators.

The area in between the lower part of the Dragon pressure hull and the outer shell is the service module of Dragon. It is an integrated part of the Dragon capsule. Contrary to Orion and CST-100 Dragon (both versions 1 and 2) carry their primary propulsion, including fuel tanks and rocket engines, and their ECLSS consumables within the capsule.
So, most systems that - on Orion and CST-100 - are in the detachable service module, are integrated into the capsule (crew module) on Dragon.

Yes, I knew all that. Which is the reason why I was asking. I've never heard "service module" used with "Dragon" before (except when people were incorrectly calling the trunk that), since it never had one before.

[nacnud]

Some of the Dragon v2 consumables are now in the trunk, making it a service module as well as an unpressurized cargo stowage area. A recent render from Spaceflight Insider also has thrusters mounted to the trunk.

Some advantages I can think of that set up is a larger set of possible cog limits and you could land just of the coast of florida without the trunk landing on florida as it could now deorbit itself. It's a shame it will make the system more expensive but with BFR on the horizon it's a pragmatic solution.

[speedevil]

Some advantages I can think of that set up is a larger set of possible cog limits and you could land just of the coast of florida without the trunk landing on florida as it could now deorbit itself. It's a shame it will make the system more expensive but with BFR on the horizon it's a pragmatic solution.

A low probability option would be that it has enough smarts (rear-facing star-tracker, comms) that you can stick a dumb tank on the front and have that able to rendezvous with station.
Probably not though.

[docmordrid]

Thrusters in the Trunk + avionics may also let secondary Trunk payloads perform experiments after D2 separation but before Trunk re-entry.

[Patchouli]

Some advantages I can think of that set up is a larger set of possible cog limits and you could land just of the coast of florida without the trunk landing on florida as it could now deorbit itself. It's a shame it will make the system more expensive but with BFR on the horizon it's a pragmatic solution.

Another advantage from moving stuff to the truck it could lower the reentry vehicle's ballistic coefficient which would reduce but the gs and thermal load during reentry.

[Oli]

Anyway, I googled and cannot find numbers regarding NNK16MA03T, do you have a link?

https://govtribe.com/contract/award/nnk14ma74c-nnk16ma03t

The Post Certification Missions (PCMs) 3-6 Task Order is this one:

https://govtribe.com/project/commercial-crew-transportation-capability-cctcap-post-certification-missions-pcms-3-6-task-order-1

The total contract value:
https://govtribe.com/contract/idv/nnk14ma74c
$1.335bn


A number of contracts are part of this. The following have the largest contract values. They have exactly the same description as nnk14ma74c. They differ in their period of performance:

https://govtribe.com/contract/award/nnk14ma74c-nnk17ma01t
$0.885bn
https://govtribe.com/contract/award/nnk14ma74c-nnk16ma58t
$0.206bn
https://govtribe.com/contract/award/nnk14ma74c-nnk16ma03t
$0.200bn


The $1.334bn seems to be the relevant number for the 4 PCMs. This would be ~$334 per mission.

[IntoTheVoid]

The $1.334bn seems to be the relevant number for the 4 PCMs. This would be ~$334 per mission.

This interpretation is not consistent with the OIG report. Appendix B on page 42 states that at the time of the report SpaceX CRS-2 awards were $1073.8m. Table 4 on page 26 shows that there were 4 missions awarded at the time of the report. What's not clear is how much of the money was for integration tasks.

Nevermind. You're talking about crew in a cargo thread.

[rcoppola]

WRT the Trunk thrusters, I cannot see the other 2 sets, if they are there to begin with and if this illustration is correct but it seems they are only pointing one way (down?) So not sure we're talking full fidelity on-orbit or just help with Abort and reentry scenarios? Very cool though.

[Robotbeat]

the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk)

What is this?

Some of the Dragon v2 consumables are now in the trunk, making it a service module as well as an unpressurized cargo stowage area. A recent render from Spaceflight Insider also has thrusters mounted to the trunk.

Is this well-sourced? Because by default, I don't consider features in a render by a third party to be reliable at all, unless specifically called out in the article's text with some sort of explanation.

But assuming it's true (and woods170's comments seem to support it):
On the plus side, it makes deep space missions and things like reboost capability to ISS easier, since if you want to add more propellant, it's relatively easy to just add a bigger tank to the service module.

[Johnnyhinbos]

the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk)

What is this?

Some of the Dragon v2 consumables are now in the trunk, making it a service module as well as an unpressurized cargo stowage area. A recent render from Spaceflight Insider also has thrusters mounted to the trunk.

Is this well-sourced? Because by default, I don't consider features in a render by a third party to be reliable at all, unless specifically called out in the article's text with some sort of explanation.

But assuming it's true (and woods170's comments seem to support it):
On the plus side, it makes deep space missions and things like reboost capability to ISS easier, since if you want to add more propellant, it's relatively easy to just add a bigger tank to the service module.

Huh - here I thought woods170 was saying all this junk was in the Dragon 2 capsule, sandwiched between the inner (pressure) shell and the outer mould line. I.e, not referencing the trunk at all...

(So, um, there’s no junk in the trunk...)

[Robotbeat]

Okay, makes sense.

[su27k]

Do we know what was the driver behind putting thrusters in the trunk?  Seems a big change given that the existing dragon and trunk work fine.

the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk)

What is this?

Some of the Dragon v2 consumables are now in the trunk, making it a service module as well as an unpressurized cargo stowage area. A recent render from Spaceflight Insider also has thrusters mounted to the trunk.

Guesses: If the thrusters in the trunk still function once it is detached from Dragon, then it could be detached earlier before the deorbit burn, and it would be able to deorbit itself, and so place this important separation as a seperate item before the rest of the deorbit process. This may be deemed safer for crew.
Guess2: Creating more room in Dragon2

This is not a guess, it's how they planned to do it, already discussed in https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1809459#msg1809459 and posts before it, source is the new draft environmental assessment for Dragon re-entry.

The image seems to come from James Vaughan, so I wouldn't take the thruster location and size too seriously, it's possible the artist added them exactly because he read about the new truck separation ability in the draft environmental assessment.

[Lars-J]

The image seems to come from James Vaughan, so I wouldn't take the thruster location and size too seriously, it's possible the artist added them exactly because he read about the new truck separation ability in the draft environmental assessment.

Yeah, that image fudges so many other details that I don't think we should take it as gospel about thruster placement. (on top of the capsule? unlikely I think)

So color me skeptical about thrusters in the trunk until we have a better source.

[john smith 19]

Some of the Dragon v2 consumables are now in the trunk, making it a service module as well as an unpressurized cargo stowage area. A recent render from Spaceflight Insider also has thrusters mounted to the trunk.

Wow, the expendable part of Dragon got a lot more expensive while I wasn't looking. That's very unfortunate.
NASA is able to pay whatever they'd like to pay for missions, but what about commercial customers?

Good point. However hasn't it been said the issue with Dragon is that it's been volume limited, not mass limited, in it's ability to get payload to Station?

It's not "X tonnes to ISS" if (for normal density baggage) you can't actually get it all in. 
Obvious question is wheather the Crew Dragon will track the change, which I presume it will.

[woods170]

the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk)

What is this?

Some of the Dragon v2 consumables are now in the trunk, making it a service module as well as an unpressurized cargo stowage area. A recent render from Spaceflight Insider also has thrusters mounted to the trunk.

Is this well-sourced? Because by default, I don't consider features in a render by a third party to be reliable at all, unless specifically called out in the article's text with some sort of explanation.

But assuming it's true (and woods170's comments seem to support it):
On the plus side, it makes deep space missions and things like reboost capability to ISS easier, since if you want to add more propellant, it's relatively easy to just add a bigger tank to the service module.

Huh - here I thought woods170 was saying all this junk was in the Dragon 2 capsule, sandwiched between the inner (pressure) shell and the outer mould line. I.e, not referencing the trunk at all...

(So, um, there’s no junk in the trunk...)

You are correct. Like on Dragon 1 the trunk of Dragon 2 only carries external cargo, solar arrays and thermal radiators. Everything else is in the service module section of the capsule.
Apologies to those folks who got confused over my incorrect use of the term "service module" where I was in fact referring to the "service section" on Dragon.

[john smith 19]

BFR/BFS can and will contribute to launching the constellation... #3-#7, and might contribute partially to #2.

BTW, launch revenue is of order one billion dollars per year; the constellation is $10-15B to launch, and $30B revenue per year after something like five years; Mars plans are several tens of billions over decades.  Falcon 9 and Heavy revenue is a pittance relative to these plans.

Here's the thing. Starlink has no service to deliver right now and won't have for several years (in fact I don't think they have a date for that).
Meanwhile SX is a)Building the factory for BFS b) Developing BFS now.

That's a shed load of money that's going out right now.

Do you still not see how your funding does not seem to match reality?

OTOH the $14Bn COTS II contract has been awarded and I'm confident early payments of that are already flowing into the SX account.

[john smith 19]

SpaceX will price their services to maximize their profit and/or revenue. Novel, I know.

Not in the slightest.

SOP for aerospace.

The surprise (for some) is that SX is not behaving in any way that's actually different from other large aerospace primes, other than the sticker pricing.