My predictions (completely uninformed about what SpaceX actually bid, but somewhat informed on the USDV requirements):1) The outer moldline will much more closely resemble Dragon XL (i.e. cylindrical) than Dragon 2. No capsule, no heat shield, no pressurized volume (other than possibly for avionics), all replaced by propellant tanks. (I'll add, if it turns out *not* to be cylindrical, that will be purely for ascent aero reasons, i.e. to prevent having to add a fairing.)2) Clustered Draco for deorbit propulsion. No Super Draco. Would be extremely bad form to break parts off ISS during the deorbit burn.
I don't think usdv will be manned. Once it is seperated FH plays no role any more.It's a little bit like Shuttle-Centaur. Astronauts might not be amused riding on so much fuel and so much plumbing.
Quote from: Remes on 06/29/2024 11:35 amI don't think usdv will be manned. Once it is seperated FH plays no role any more.It's a little bit like Shuttle-Centaur. Astronauts might not be amused riding on so much fuel and so much plumbing.Huh? The shuttle had a similar amount of propellant. Apollo CSM had a quarter more.
I'm refering to the opinions of the astronauts and engineers which were working on that. I don't remember where I read it originally, but googling for "Space Shuttle Death Star" does show enough articles. The problem was not to add more propellant. It's about adding tanks, valves, plumbing, ... a whole bunch of additional failure points which are not there in a standard vehicle.
No, it wasn't "adding tanks, valves, plumbing". It was specific to Shuttle Centaur. It was an issue because of LH2 and balloon tanks. The shuttle flew often with more "tanks, valves, plumbing"The shuttle use to fly with 3 to 4 spacecraft with separate hypergolic propellant systems and solid motors with S&As. Or missions with IUS which had two larger SRMs and a hydrazine system with a spacecraft and its propulsion system
This thread is for updates and discussion of the modified Dragon chosen by NASA for de-orbiting the ISS.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/29/2024 06:26 amIt’s not very SpaceX-like to do a one-off project that doesn’t also support/contribute to other missions or tech development goals.So was this modified Dragon also part of the Polaris program’s study for servicing Hubble? Maybe also with an eye on commercial space stations in development and/or propellant depots?Or is SpaceX just doing the ISS de-orbit vehicle to support their biggest customer?I was wondering the same thing. It seems unlikely that this modified Dragon concept popped out of nowhere just for the deorbit vehicle, especially given that (per an Eric Berger source) SpaceX may not have even bid on the first RFP. The contract value is also strange in that context: $843M is almost a quarter of the value (in 2024 $s) of SpaceX's initial 2014 contract to complete most Crew Dragon R&D, build half a dozen flight vehicles, and complete two major abort tests, two orbital test flights, and six operational missions! That just seems at odds with the implication that it's more of a modified Dragon 2 than a bespoke spacecraft. So many possibilities, but my current best guess is that SpaceX will be building an all-new Dragon 2 (rather than modifying an old reused capsule) with substantial changes that borrow from concepts/designs meant for Dragon XL's propulsion section and whatever Crew Dragon tweaks it proposed for the Hubble reboost mission.Maybe SpaceX is also thinking about ways to keep Dragon highly relevant and grow the markets it can access well into the 2030s? A Dragon w/ more dV could be useful for future destinations and maybe help increase SpaceX's tourism market by enabling service to more orbits/inclinations and providing more utility (orbit raising, mobility augmentation, etc) to entice private station customers. Maybe it could even outright supersede a bespoke Dragon XL and allow SpaceX to avoid that particular dead-end.
It’s not very SpaceX-like to do a one-off project that doesn’t also support/contribute to other missions or tech development goals.So was this modified Dragon also part of the Polaris program’s study for servicing Hubble? Maybe also with an eye on commercial space stations in development and/or propellant depots?Or is SpaceX just doing the ISS de-orbit vehicle to support their biggest customer?
Would SpaceX consider a literal modified Dragon? They currently have four Crew Dragons and one being built. By the time USDV is needed, the demand for Crew Dragon flights will be going away, almost by definition, so SpaceX may be able to modify one of the existing Crew Dragon Capsules. It is especially true if Starliner is flying: NASA is committed to fly six Starliner missions and time is getting short, so Starliner could fly the last two crewed ISS missions.More or less the same is true for Cargo Dragon if it is a better starting point: modify one of the three active Cargo Dragons and let Cygnus pick up the last resupply missions if needed.
I have reviewed all the evaluation findings and have concluded: • SpaceX has the highest Mission Suitability score, the highest Past Performance Rating, and a significantly lower Total Evaluated Price. • NG has the lowest Mission Suitability score/ratings, the lower Past Performance Rating, and a significantly higher Total Evaluated Probable Cost/Price.While both Offerors provide Strengths in their proposals, only SpaceX’s proposal offers Significant Strengths. The Weakness identified in SpaceX’s proposal relates to potential risk to schedule, and based on the specific nature of this Weakness, I find that the concerns can be addressed and resolved during routine contract administration. NG’s seven Weaknesses create both technical and schedule risks, that when viewed wholistically, impact reliability and increase risk of successful contract performance. I have examined and concur with the SEB’s evaluation of proposals and recommendations. My independent analysis finds value to NASA in SpaceX’s superior Mission Suitability, higher Past Performance rating, and significantly lower priced proposal.
NASA is planning for the future in low Earth orbit for science, research, and commercial opportunities as the agency and its international partners maximize the use of the International Space Station.As the agency fosters new commercial space stations, leadership from NASA and SpaceX will participate in a media teleconference at 2 p.m. EDT Wednesday, July 17, to discuss the company’s selection to develop and deliver the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle, which will safely move the International Space Station out of orbit and into a remote area of an ocean at the end of its operations.Audio of the teleconference will stream live on the agency’s website: https://www.nasa.gov/nasatvParticipants include: • Ken Bowersox, associate administrator, NASA’s Space Operations Mission Directorate • Dana Weigel, manager, NASA’s International Space Station Program • Sarah Walker, director, Dragon mission management, SpaceXMedia interested in participating must contact the newsroom at NASA Johnson no later than one hour prior to the start of the call at 281-483-5111 or [email protected]. A copy of NASA’s media accreditation policy is online.As the agency transitions to commercially owned space destinations, it is crucial to prepare for the safe and responsible deorbit of the space station in a controlled manner after the end of its operational life in 2030.
With 6x more propellant and 4x the power of today’s Dragon spacecraft, SpaceX was selected to design and develop the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle for a precise, controlled deorbit of the @Space_Station
Is this going to ride exposed on FH like a normal D2 cargo dragon, or be encapsulated in a payload fairing?I'm also left wondering on the side, this looks a lot like Vast's Haven-1, which is similar in size and will be encapsulated...
My guess: no fairing. It's a one-off and the top is a Dragon capsule, so it's already most of the way toward not needing a fairing. A fairing would add cost.
My guess: no fairing. It's a one-off and the top is a Dragon capsule, so it's already most of the way toward not needing a fairing. A fairing would add cost. By contrast, Vast has no need to be designed for a no-fairing launch abort, so a fairing makes sense for it.
Is this going to ride exposed on FH like a normal D2 cargo dragon, or be encapsulated in a payload fairing?
