More Good SpaceX News (Dragon)

[rocketscientist327]

I didn't see it posted here sooo.... more great SpaceX news…<br /><br />El Segundo CA – August 29, 2007 – SpaceX has successfully completed the first of three phases of review required by NASA’s Safety Review Panel (SRP) to send its Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station (ISS). Over a series of meetings spanning four days at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, the team of SpaceX engineers developing the Dragon spacecraft presented their Phase I plans for sending the cargo version of Dragon to the $100 billion dollar orbiting space laboratory. <br /><br />The review covered twenty-three specific hazards, with extra attention paid to the danger of collision – one of the most difficult hazards to mitigate. The issue of preventing a collision with the ISS was a primary topic of the safety review and is generally considered one of the more difficult visiting vehicle topics. According to the Safety Review Panel’s approval letter, the Phase I collision hazard report for Dragon was approved on the first attempt <br /><br />“To date, no other group has passed the Hazard of Collision report the first time through or completed the overall review in such a short time,†said Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX. “The fact that we passed in under a week speaks well of our team’s capabilities.†<br /><br />As part of NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) competition, SpaceX intends to demonstrate its launch, maneuvering and docking abilities by 2009 – a year before NASA has scheduled the conclusion of Space Shuttle operations. <br /><br />http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=28<br /><br />I am pretty excited. I know there are some SpaceX bashers here but they seem to be headed in the right direction. I hope all goes well and we see Dragon flaying late next year! Huuzah! <br /><br />Incoming flames from jimfromnsf <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />Respectfully,

 

[docm]

TheeIWas posted it in SB&T <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> I hope all goes well and we see Dragon flaying late next year! </font><br /><br />How about an animation right now? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I hope all goes well and we see Dragon flying late next year! "<br /><br />Like I said, it is not flying in 2008.

 

[windnwar]

And like we've said, prove it beyond "I heard it in a meeting" or "I said so" <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Take it or leave it<br /><br />Take and get inside information which I am privy to<br />Leave it and remain in the dark only to be fed PR BS <br />

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow">Like I said, it is not flying in 2008.</font><br /><br />Prove this is more than just your opinion or retract it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

It is not an opinion<br /><br />You are just going to have to live with the fact that I have access inside information

 

[nuaetius]

SpaceX has been through many delays in its lifetime. God I think the fully flight ready Falcon I had to wait YEARS before it left the ground... all be it for a minute, but if SpaceX does not see a Falcon 9 launch in 2008 and it is pushed back to 2009 it would be no surprise at all. Hell guys everything in these Forums is 2nd and 3rd hand, only 10% or less of poster to these forums are anywhere near as informed as Jim. If Jim says that there will not be a launch of Falcon 9 from the cape in 2008 I’d say there is at least a 70% chance he is right given he works directly in that industry. Who cares if Falcon goes up in late 2008 or early 2009, either way it will be a milestone that surpasses SS1 by leaps and bounds.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I'm challenging you to prove it is more than just your personal opinion. If you cannot do that it is nothing more than the opinion of someone that desperately wants to appear more important than he really is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I am somewhat confused here. Am I correct in that The Dragon is a capsule system to ferry materials and astronauts to the IS?<br /><br />Now, the Falcon 9 is a complete launch system, again if I think that I am correct?<br /><br />I am indeed totally pleased by these design review types of results between NASA and spacex. Spacex is indeed to be highly congratulated on their excellent work on this project. And for some that don't like NASA, I would say that NASA also should also be congratulated by the alt.space crowd for giving these types of companies a piece of important NASA work!<br /><br />Now, my confusion comes in reading this thread. Is it the Dragon capsule or the Falcon 9 entire launch system that some seem to be in disagreement over about the first launch date? <br /><br />In actuality I really could care less about whether or not such a date is in 2008 or 2009 (or even further out). If soacex can have such a capsule ready for flight to the ISS by the year 2010 it would be a terrific triumph for both soacex AND NASA. As that would mean that the gap between the retirement of the space shuttle and enacting of another system (at least to get materials and people up to the ISS, which is all the SSI system is currently doing anyway, after all, the shuttle is NOT going to the moon like the VSE) would actually be zero. Which would be a very good thing for both the alt.space concepts and the American space program in general (as well as ALL the partners in the ISS)! <br /><br />As the spacex work on even showing the kind of reliability that even the smaller Falcon I is still far from done yet, I would not think that the far larger (but from what I understand would still not be powerful enough to place the Dragon capsule up to the ISS, but I am perhaps misinformed there) Falcon 9 will not be ready until well after 2010?<br /><br />Now, please do NOT take me wrong here, I am not being critical of spacex in any way, just trying to be somewhat realistic (or at the very

 

[gunsandrockets]

<You are just going to have to live with the fact that I have access inside information><br /><br />Is your 'inside information' on Falcon 9 as 'accurate' as the 'inside information' you provided about the Orion CEV Service Module main engine? As in -- not at all accurate?

 

[windnwar]

Frodo, as you may have seen from other threads, I have no problem with NASA or the traditional aerospace companies as even at current pricing and budgets, its a pittance of our national budget and the science and technology gains we get back from it vitalize and advance industry in many areas far beyond what we'd normally see. I do think there is plenty of room for all to exist and companies like spacex coming into the mix can only mean good things because of the extra competition it will stir up. If it means even a 5% reduction in price or complexity from the main companies, that's great. At a minimum it will probably drive them to look at and think about projects differently. <br /><br />What I and others seem to have issues with is, being told by someone "take my word they won't fly" unlike what they have published in thier launch manifests. Are their launch manifests wrong? Is there some major issue at the cape facilities in getting it ready for launch during that time or a conflict of launch schedules? Is there some major issue with the Falcon launch vehicle that has not been heard about... etc.... Give us a valid reason we can ponder about and we'd all probably sit back and go, you know that makes sense. But this arbitrary "They won't fly" with no reason, explanation etc, other then "I heard it in a meeting" is damn hard to accept. <br /><br />They have a hell of alot of work to do between now and the end of 2008, test firings, construction, launch site integration. Any one of these things could delay or hold them back and if it happens, so be it. If they can successfully launch and get it going before the end of the shuttle flights, we all here will be ecstatic because then we still have our own domestic launch capability and we aren't tied to the support of a nation that is much more at odds with us of late. But for damn sake, give us a valid reason not just an empty statement of they won't fly. It doesn't have to be heavy detailed, just a basic reason. I thin <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

There are several reasons why I would caution companies such as spacex against over confidence. And indeed Elon Musk himself has very wisely stated that he had underestimated how difficult his task was. In doing this he has already given both himself and his company far greater believability!<br /><br />For instance having worked in the manufacture of such systems as large (the F1 as an example) rocket engines I can tell you that just the problems of the safe handling and movement and manufacture of such structures is both difficult and expensive. Just the larger parts (such as the exit nozzle rings) of such engines require vertical turret lathes of at least a 12 foot turning ability. These are machines of upwards of a million dollars each or more! <br /><br />And these are just the engines! The rockets that have the ability to use these engines to take a heavy capsule into LEO with many people in it are far larger that even this!<br /><br />On top of this for the larger future rockets that spacex plans on is the far more important task of making the Falcon I itself the lead in to these larger rockets.<br /><br />This task alone should include (but not necessarily be limited to) the following:<br /><br />(a) Make sure that the next flight of the Falcon I is totally successful.<br /><br />(b) Make sure that a fair number of such Falcon I flights are also fully successful (say 10 flights), to establish a high reliability of these smaller rockets before going on to larger systems. NASA itself started with the Redstone which was a rocket about the same size as the German V2 (or perhaps the Falcon I) long before they even planned on such rockets as the Saturn system.<br /><br />(c) Show that the Falcon I itself is truly a cost efficient system. Which requires enough inexpensive flights to overcome the initial high costs of development. As this in itself is spacex's biggest selling point!<br /><br />And while some of the more loud supporters of spacex may not always be aware of

 

[jimfromnsf]

"1. Are their launch manifests wrong? I<br /><br />2. Is there some major issue at the cape facilities in getting it ready for launch during that time or a conflict of launch schedules? Is there some major issue with the Falcon launch vehicle that has not been heard about... etc.... <br /><br />4. But this arbitrary "They won't fly" with no reason, explanation etc, other then "I heard it in a meeting" is damn hard to accept. "<br /><br />1. webpages are PR instruments, not facts<br />2. There are issues that never reach the public. The same goes for every launch vehicle<br />3. Tough. accept it or stay in the dark and keep drinking the koolade<br /><br />Also<br />"If it means even a 5% reduction in price or complexity from the main companies, that's great. "<br />That isn't worth the effort to change<br /><br />"Any one of these things could delay or hold them back and if it happens, so be it."<br />It is already "delayed" past 2008

 

[bpfeifer]

Jimfromnsf,<br /><br />Is there any way you can give us a clue to the source of your information. I know you say it's confidential, but perhaps you could point us towards an organization. There's a huge difference to us between "someone in accounting is worried about the schedule" and "an engineering review board does not believe the timetable is realistic." <br /><br />Is your data from people at SpaceX? At NASA? A Congressional oversight committee? Company-wide memos that cross your desk? We would really like to know the relationship between your sources and the rest of the space-launch community/system.<br /><br />This would tell us how to read your inside information. We know what Shuttleguy does and who his employer is. Thus we know what is bias is, and what we should believe as authoritative, and what is merely opinion. The same goes for other posters here. JohnClark is a Mars enthusiast and a member of the Mars Society. We know that he can tell us what that organization is doing, and will be a cheerleader for anything else going on about Mars. We don't expect JohnClark to know what the current status is of the Shuttles main engines, or Shuttleguy to know what's going on with the Mars Society Arctic research station.<br /><br />Give us a clue how to read your postings, and we'll be much happier.<br /><br />Thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

I have stated my employment status on other threads

 

[frodo1008]

A little logic and general knowledge of how aerospace works tells me that jimfromnsf is probably correct here, and the Dragon (and certainly the Falcon 9) will not be ready to fly in 2008 and possibly in 2009. <br /><br />However, I am more than happy to give spacex until 2010, and would be delighted with a first flight in that year. This is because that is the year (if the shuttle retirement schedule also holds) that the shuttle is to be totally retired. Having the Dragon start up that year would then give NASA and the US a continuing home grown access to the ISS and LEO.<br /><br />This is what I hope spacex and NASA are shooting for.<br /><br />Anything earlier is just icing on the cake, so to speak.

 

[Huntster]

Very well said Frodo. I really don't care when they actually get to orbit, so long as they actually accomplish it and do so with a strong mentality of safety and reliability.<br /><br />My primary concern with Bigelow Aerospace is the same. I strongly believe they can accomplish exactly what they wish to accomplish, I simply hope they don't try to rush the issue. So long as they honestly believe that canceling Galaxy and going straight to Sundancer won't place undo stress on the program, then go for it.<br /><br />While funding is always a concern, SpaceX (and any such company) will do well to take it slow and steady, in my non-expert opinion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<...the Dragon (and certainly the Falcon 9) will not be ready to fly in 2008 and possibly in 2009. However, I am more than happy to give spacex until 2010, and would be delighted with a first flight in that year.><br /><br />If SpaceX falls that much behind schedule they can kiss the COTS money goodbye.

 

[frodo1008]

Why? I think NASA would be perfectly happy if the replacement vehicle for the shuttle to take materials and people up to the ISS is ready at the time of the last shuttle retirement.<br /><br />Remember the pure NASA replacement vehicle (Ares I Orion) is not going to be ready before about 2014 (I would think this is one of the main reasons (the other being lower costs) for the COTS program in the first place!<br /><br />Congress (NASA's direct boss) would certainly be far happier with at least some kind of a replacement for the shuttle being ready in time for the shuttle's retirement (at least for the ISS), instead of having to rely on the Russians for up to five years! <br /><br />The rub for spacex really comes if they can't have Dragon ready by 2010! <br /><br />Another thing here. I know that spacex would very much like to be the supplier for the launch vehicle for the Dragon capsule also. However, I really don't see them having such a launch system ready by the time the Dragon itself is ready (perhaps later), so I would possibly imagine that his is where ULA may get involved, as they already have the Delta IV Heavy in flight. I think as the Atlas V uses Russian engines it may not be used here, especially if Putin continues on a somewhat negative course as far as congress is concerned. <br /><br />This would mean that the Delta IV Heavy would then have to be mated with the Dragon, and possibly man-rated as well (which I don't personally see as an insurmountable problem). As I understand it the COTS money to spacex is ONLY for the Dragon capsule. <br /><br />I don't think that spacex is in any danger of having the Dragon taken away by ULA or the other companies, but with Kistler somewhat out of the game, I can see where ULA may have a shot at the launch vehicle. At least until spacex has established both a reliability history and a much lower cost history than the Delta IV with a similar sized rocket launch system. and that could take at least another five years or e

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>However, I am more than happy to give spacex until 2010, and would be delighted with a first flight in that year. This is because that is the year (if the shuttle retirement schedule also holds) that the shuttle is to be totally retired. Having the Dragon start up that year would then give NASA and the US a continuing home grown access to the ISS and LEO. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Judging from how SpaceX has been operated so far, 2010 may be a safer bet for the first Falcon 9 flight than 2009. I think the more problematic thing is, what will happen if one of the first four Falcon launches failes and undoubtably the likelihood of such failure in one of the first launches is rather high. SpaceX would need to find the reason for the failure, make modifications, new tests and assure NASA that the launch vehicle is going to work from that failure onwards. Judging from Falcon I experience and other space companies if the no-flight period between such a failure and a new launch is less then one year, I would be completely suprised.<br />

 

[frodo1008]

The Dragon capsule is NOT the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. I personally think that NASA is going to force spacex to have to make sure that the Dragon will fit on the Delta IV Heavy.<br /><br />A system that is already known to work is insurance against just what you were saying. Now, if the Falcon 9 could be ready, and already have not only proved reliable, but also its low cost over the Delta, then I can indeed see NASA using that vehicle to launch the Dragon. But, as you say that is going to be a very close thing at best, and NASA (and even more importantly congress) is NOT going to want to have to wait for years (beyond 2010) for this to happen!<br /><br />Whether the supporters here of spacex like it or not, this will give the inside track for the actual launch vehicle to ULA. However, I truly think that spacex should be more interested in getting the Falcon I into shape, and concentrating on the Dragon itself. That is more than enough of a job for such a starting company at this time!<br /><br />Spacex may have to prove not only the reliability of the Falcon 9, but also its relatively low cost without NASA help before NASA will be willing to use such a new system!<br /><br />Heck, if spacex can indeed launch such a large vehicle for the costs that it has stated there should be commercial satellite people lined up in droves to use it anyway! <br /><br />And if they can not bring the costs down to such a low level, then the competition of such as China, Russia, and even such as India is going to kill them as well as possibly ULA (which does have the advantage of very deep pockets) also! <br /><br />The future IS going to be verrrry interesting!!

 

[nuaetius]

In a recent enterview with Mr Musk basically said the Falcon 1 is a loss leader rocket. The profit of a successfully rocket will be less than 15%. If Falcon 9 fails SpaceX fails, end of story. There will not be the revenue to support a 500 person operations just selling 3-6 capsules a year a small-sats on Falcon 1.

 

[gunsandrockets]

<Why? I think NASA would be perfectly happy if the replacement vehicle for the shuttle to take materials and people up to the ISS is ready at the time of the last shuttle retirement.><br /><br />There seems to be considerable confusion over COTS.<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/060818_nasa_cots_wrap.html<br /><br />SpaceX won a slot in the COTS 1 program, which is not a contract for delivery of cargo. The COTS 1 program is a development/demonstration program with highly structured milestones to be met in order to receive payments. If SpaceX delays first flight of the Falcon 9 until 2010 then SpaceX will have missed important milestones and won't receive payment.<br /><br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14411983/<br /><br />"When the first phase of the COTS program runs out in 2010, NASA says it will conduct another competition for pay-as-you-go contracts to resupply the space station."<br /><br />COTS 2 will be a contract for actual cargo delivery to ISS and everyone including the big aerospace boys can still compete for that. Perhaps some kind of Atlas+Dragon combo might be offered for COTS 2 but that has nothing to do with the COTS 1 contract.