space dragon

[sparky00]

That's not to take away from the huge accomplishments of Space X!. Can't wait to see a Falcon Heavy roaring off the pad.

[luke strawwalker]

Originally Posted by Paper Kosmonaut

Just adding my two eurocents to this thread.
I think Musk and SpaceX is what NASA cannot longer achieve. NASA lacks the inventive atmosphere and became a slow, top heavy, monster. This already started in the seventies. No place for 'SCE to AUX - guys' and Houbolt- types anymore.
These are the types now to be found at SpaceX. That's why and how they managed to become a major player in just ten years time. Short lines from top to bottom, young people and anything but a bureaucratic workspace.

I am so hugely curious in how the Dragon v.2 (what happened to the moniker Dragon Rider?) will behave on a landing course. This truly is something looking forward seeing happening. The first real space innovation in, say, thirty years.

That's the key word there, my friend... BUREAUCRATIC!

NASA is a bureaucracy... that's what's killing it, plain and simple. And you're right, it's not a new development... been going on since about 69 or 70, from the time they decided to kill Apollo while they were ahead, rather than face the possibility of astronauts getting killed in space or on the Moon. That's why we got shuttle... and we ended up losing 14 folks anyway.

I agree it's very innovative, and that's good to see. Hope it works as advertised and they can get the bugs worked out of it. If they can get a reusable Dragon working well and reusable first stage, they WILL revolutionize space travel... no doubt about it.

Just hope it all works out... it's a long road from powerpoints and demonstrator models to functional hardware with an demonstrated history of success... They're off to a good start with Falcon 9 and Dragon 1 but I hope they haven't bitten off more than they can chew...

Later! OL JR

[luke strawwalker]

Originally Posted by Paper Kosmonaut

I guess it's because you want to prevent it from falling over at any time. Otherwise one also could keep using a Soyuz, of course. The innovation for it is to land on solid ground and not topple. Prevents damage to heat shield and outer hull. Easier on the occupants. And furthermore, it looks a lot better than a capsule tipping over on hitting the ground. It has "controlled landing" all over. And although I have a big weak spot for the Soyuz, it hasn't got that "controlled landing" feel about it.

And Les, you are also completely right. That powered descent mode looks like it still needs a lot of tests (the amount of fuel!) but I am very enthusiastic about this one. It looks like spaceflight finally took another step forward.

Reusability is something that will keep flight costs low. And even though the Space Shuttle was meant to do just that, it was all built out of compromises. Which led to long overhaul periods and high maintenance costs. All because it was not fully reusable. Now this one might be really reusable. Now with all the innovations made to the new Falcon 9 we might see the same Dragon and Falcon go in space together for a second time! Now that would really be a next step.

I am not sure about that trunk though. What do they need the fins for? by the time the stack is up in space they have no need at all and as far as I know there never were any issues in rolling during ascent which the engines not could correct.
(adding two more eurocents to the discussion. )

IIRC, the manned Dragon (v.2) is going to use the same rocket motors for escape and propulsive landing (the Draco thrusters on the side of the capsule. The fins on the trunk (sorry I'm calling it a service module, just sounds better IMHO) are probably for stability during an abort, similar to Soyuz's grid fins which deploy down and outward in the event of an abort to stabilize the stack.

If Dragon has to abort off the booster, it fires the Draco thrusters to push the capsule off the top of the stack, jettisons the trunk, and deploys chutes for splashdown. If it launches to orbit successfully, rather than dumping the propellant for the abort, or tossing a big, expensive tower halfway through flight like the Mercury and Apollo spacecraft did, and Soyuz still does, it continues on into orbit with the propellant load for the Draco thrusters and completes its mission, jettisons the trunk, and reenters normally. Then, it ignites the Draco thrusters to decelerate and propulsively hover and land "like a helicopter", using the propellant that it would have used otherwise in an abort.

It's an interesting concept, and I hope it works as advertised. I think it'll require a LOT of flight testing and proof, maybe on Dragon resupply flights (unmanned) before it ever gets approved for use by NASA and the gubmint with people aboard...

Later! OL JR

[Mechanic]

Originally Posted by Paper Kosmonaut

Just adding my two eurocents to this thread.
I think Musk and SpaceX is what NASA cannot longer achieve. NASA lacks the inventive atmosphere and became a slow, top heavy, monster. This already started in the seventies. No place for 'SCE to AUX - guys' and Houbolt- types anymore.
These are the types now to be found at SpaceX. That's why and how they managed to become a major player in just ten years time. Short lines from top to bottom, young people and anything but a bureaucratic workspace.

I am so hugely curious in how the Dragon v.2 (what happened to the moniker Dragon Rider?) will behave on a landing course. This truly is something looking forward seeing happening. The first real space innovation in, say, thirty years.

I get the feeling you're confusing what NASA really does (or is supposed to) and what SpaceX does. Politics and bureaucracies aside, I don't think your going to be seeing any space telescopes or deep space probes coming from SpaceX or any other private entity. There's no profit in it. But innovation can come from anywhere; we need organizations like NASA and the ESA because their number one concern ISN'T profit margins or stockholders. I know in the past, in the US at least, there were private companies like Ma Bell that dedicated monies to pure science where there was no specific goal in mind (laser technology is the first thing I usually think of, where would we be today without that?). But that was in an era of corporate monopolies that I don't know we'll ever see again. A lot of people think that NASA has a huge budget, but it's significantly less than one percent of the federal budget, but even then it is still quite a bit more money than any private business is willing or able to spend on any aspect of space exploration.

[thorst]

And don't forget that the times when a governmentally funded "company" like NASA can blow money like they had to do for Apollo without protest of large parts of the community members are over since Apollo. As I understand, even the budget of today is seen to be too large for science which "does not bring any usable results for mankind" by a lot of people.

Change this, and you get back NASA at it should be.

[Paper Kosmonaut]

Originally Posted by Mechanic

I get the feeling you're confusing what NASA really does (or is supposed to) and what SpaceX does. Politics and bureaucracies aside, I don't think your going to be seeing any space telescopes or deep space probes coming from SpaceX or any other private entity. There's no profit in it. But innovation can come from anywhere; we need organizations like NASA and the ESA [snip]

Of course I know this, Mech. And it definitely is good to have organisations like ESA and NASA (and all of the others) around.
I just rather see NASA devoting itself to science, leaving the design and development of the hardware like launchers and manned spacecraft completely to the industry. Imagine all the money of the cancelled and failed projects like Venture Star and Constellation having gone to science! Probes, the JWST, and whatnot.
That is also the reason I am still not enthusiastic about the SLS. It's a NASA project and design, which may lead to holds in development, difficulties in assembling all parts from different contractors, or, just plain compromise like the shuttle was. So that they might end up with another second best spaceship.

And now, bringing the thread back on track,
I guess the inside walls of the Dragon capsule will be padded before it is operational. I do however think that how it looks now is utterly pretty, futuristic and science fiction-y.

[umtutsut]

Originally Posted by Paper Kosmonaut

And now, bringing the thread back on track,
I guess the inside walls of the Dragon capsule will be padded before it is operational. I do however think that how it looks now is utterly pretty, futuristic and science fiction-y.

I'd rather someone wait to do a model until we see an actual flight vehicle. That's just my preference, and why I haven't done a JWST or a Delta IV-Orion EFT yet.

(Imagining what Ken could do with a 1/12 Dragon 2.... )

Les (The Voice of Authority -- VoiceofAuthority.net - The Voice Stylings of Les Dorr, Jr.)

[dhanners]

If you're having a pad or in-flight abort, why pull the trunk off with the capsule? Just seems like unnecessary weight, especially at a time when rapid acceleration is the difference between life and death. So I don't see fins on the trunk being there for that reason. Then again, as I always caution, I'm no rocket scientist.

[luke strawwalker]

Originally Posted by dhanners

If you're having a pad or in-flight abort, why pull the trunk off with the capsule? Just seems like unnecessary weight, especially at a time when rapid acceleration is the difference between life and death. So I don't see fins on the trunk being there for that reason. Then again, as I always caution, I'm no rocket scientist.

Good point and you might be right... typically the service module, trunk, or whatever is left behind-- that's how Apollo would have done it, and that's how Soyuz does it. But of course those are TRACTOR escape rocket systems, not "pusher" systems... the dynamics are a little different for those... especially when it comes to pad abort... that might be the main reason, as fins become progressively less useful as the air thins out on ascent.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to take the whole fairing with the capsule either, but that's how Soyuz does it... and that's why the grid fins are on the exterior of it...

Later! OL JR

[Paper Kosmonaut]

Originally Posted by luke strawwalker

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to take the whole fairing with the capsule either, but that's how Soyuz does it... and that's why the grid fins are on the exterior of it...

A fairing usually doesn't weigh a lot and it is doubling as a boost protective cover at the same time. And it's just the upper half of the fairing which is used for an emergency escape manoeuvre. The fairing pulls the Soyuz capsule and orbital module off of the engine section. After that the capsule is jettisoned and descent follows as normal.