Same URL, but much nicer looking!<br /><br />http://www.spacex.com<br /><br />Dragon schedule;<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In fulfillment of the COTS phase I contract, Dragon will perform three cargo demonstration missions:<br /><br /><b>Q3 2008:</b> 5 hours. Launch and separate from Falcon 9, orbit Earth, transmit telemetry, receive commands, demonstrate orbital maneuvering and thermal control, re-enter atmosphere, and recover Dragon capsule.<br /><br /><b>Q2 2009:</b> 10 days. Full, long-duration system check-out, followed by ISS rendezvous simulation with the Falcon 9 upper stage. Dragon will perform approach, rendezvous, and breakaway operations with the stage.<br /><br /><b>Q3 2009:</b> 3 days. Full cargo mission profile including mate to ISS, with empty capsule.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Q3 2008: 5 hours. Launch and separate from Falcon 9, orbit Earth, transmit telemetry, receive commands, demonstrate orbital maneuvering and thermal control, re-enter atmosphere, and recover Dragon capsule. <br /><br />Q2 2009: 10 days. Full, long-duration system check-out, followed by ISS rendezvous simulation with the Falcon 9 upper stage. Dragon will perform approach, rendezvous, and breakaway operations with the stage. <br /><br />Q3 2009: 3 days. Full cargo mission profile including mate to ISS, with empty capsule.<br />--------------<br />This schedule is not gonna happen as posted. Mate with ISS in Q3 2009 with a spacecraft that has not yet flown that should be put in orbit by a rocket that hasn't even been developed yet? <br /><br />I would be suprised if SpaceX even tries to attempt its first Falcon 9 launch in 2009.
Just for a minute give them the benefit of a doubt & they pull it off and, as recently hinted, it's lunar flyby capable by design and man-capable by 2010.<br /><br />What does that say about NASA & Orion, which won't be ready before 2015 and at many multiples the cost of Dragon?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
lunar flyby capable by design <br />------------<br />1. What is a lunar flyby good for, except if you are actually working on a system that would allow a lunar landing?<br /><br />2. I think to talk about lunar flybys is a little bit early for a company that has under a minute flying time with a rocket that is just about 1/20 of the rocket they want to launch their "lunar flyby capable" spacecraft on, don't you think?
1. yup, or you have a relationship with another company working on a system of LI assembled landable lunar bases. If you don't think a return vehicle isn't part of such a plan.... We'll see April 10th.<br /><br />2. Which would you do; develop a capsule in parallel to a launch system or wait 'til the launcher was available? IMO the former gives them the option of providing Dragon for use on an existing booster if necessary. Eggs....baskets etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
"2. Which would you do; develop a capsule in parallel to a launch system or wait 'til the launcher was available?"<br /><br />The Titan II was developed in parallel to the Gemini spacecraft as the intended launcher for the Gemini spacecraft.
What is a lunar flyby good for?<br /><br />Oh, about $80M - $100M, I'd say.<br />
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>Is not the ability to fly by the moon basically an enhanced service module away from being lunar orbit capable?<br /><br />And with a standard docking module is it not capable of mating to a lander?<br /><br />Just asking <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Spacex's site architecture looks the same to me! Just with new content. Then again I check it often. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> (pretty cool though, I've told them already).<br /><br />
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Is not the ability to fly by the moon basically an enhanced service module away from being lunar orbit capable? <br /><br />And with a standard docking module is it not capable of mating to a lander? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Wouldn't it be slightly heavier too compared to a LEO-only capsule, because of thicker skin?
stronger vacuum out there <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />Maybe radiation protection for a longer trip? The heatshield certainly needs to be beefier for a return from the Moon rather than LEO, but isn't affected by whether it's lunar orbit or free return.
I can agree with the heat sheild needs being greater. But a thicker skin of an aluminum alloy wouldn't really create any better radiation protection. It's not a very dense material
micrometeoroids perhaps? OTOH I'd have thought there'd be a greater risk in LEO, from orbital debris.
shouldnt' the risk for micrometeroids be pretty much the same in cislunar space as in LEO? In LEO the earth sheild the "bottom" (ground facing) portion of your spacecraft because it is in the way. As you move towards the moon you have you opened up a little more of the sky to the direction you can be hit from but again the moon will begin to sheild you as you approach. <br /><br />And really if you doubled the skin thickness you wouldn't really change anything from the point of impact damage.
Orbits are very unstable around the moons orbit, micrometeors will be deflect to hit either the moon, earth, or leave the system in a relatively short time. This makes cis-lunar space on of the safer areas to be actually.<br /><br />Going to the moon and back will involve traversing the van allen belts, and the exposure to cosmic rays goes up several times (the earth blocks half in LEO and magnetic field reduces the rest). Perhaps the frame and body needs beefing up more to handle a longer and higher stress re-entry more than radiation protection purposes though. Aluminum isn't the best for radiation, plastics (high in hydrogen) is much better.
>>"The Titan II was developed in parallel to the Gemini spacecraft as the intended launcher for the Gemini spacecraft."<<<br /><br />The first Titan II ICBM test launch took place more than two years before the unmanned Gemini 1 flight. By the time Gemini 1 lifted off, nearly 30 Titan II launches had taken place. Not to mention the experience provided by the similar Titan I missile program, which began flying in 1959 and had more than 64 launches under its belt before Gemini 1 lifted off on April 8, 1964.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>why would there be thicker skin? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Just. Because its a different environment outside of LEO, isn't it?... as the guys above said, micrometeriods, cosmic radiation... you know, the stuff that goes through astronaut's eyes and makes them see flashes!<img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <br /><br />How much more protection will there be between Orion/Dragon and LEO-bound manned spacecraft such as Soyuz, Shuttle?<br /><br />I would have thought if Orion (then again, perhaps not Dragon because they have a smaller budget) will be so much more advanced than Apollo, then surely it will provide more crew protection from the hazards of beyond-LEO space... especially since CEV is supposed to be capable of operating on longer missions at NEOs and Mars etc. <br /><br />Just thought, you know, 40 years later, haven't we learned to incorporate <b>lightweight</b> crew protection systems into designs??? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />
> <i><font color="yellow">Q3 2008 ... Q2 2009 ... Q3 2009</font>/i><br /><br />That is outrageously ambitious.<br /><br />I really, really, really hope SpaceX does well, but I will be shocked if they get the Dragon in orbit before 2010. Just look how long it is taking them to get Falcon 1.1 launched.</i>
I would say yes we have learned to incorporate lightweight materials. Advanced composites stop bullets, tranparent aluminum should work wonders on micrometeroid strikes to windows, and systems that can withstand strikes such as those in the BA-330
"The first Titan II ICBM test launch took place more than two years before the unmanned Gemini 1 flight. By the time Gemini 1 lifted off, nearly 30 Titan II launches had taken place. "<br /><br />I take it you disagree with my characterization of the Titan II program. What does NASA have to say about it?<br /><br />From, <br /><br />On the Shoulders of Titans: a history of Project Gemini<br /><br />...comes this interesting excerpt...<br /><br />"Looking back, NASA officials had nothing but praise for the hard work put in by the Air Force and its contractors to man-rate Titan II for Gemini even while they were trying to prove it as a missile. As George Mueller reported to NASA Administrator James Webb:" <br /><br />"In the broad view of this booster program where a military vehicle, the Titan II, was selected prior to its development and a program of man-rating carried out actually in parallel with the flight test and acceptance of the military versions, we have, I believe, a unique situation. It is unique not only in technical complexity but also in management relations and control. . . . [T]his collaborationbetween two demanding users has produced an unusually reliable military launch vehicle . . . [and] a man-rated launch vehicle with a remarkable record of success. . Configuration management is not a new term but the detailed application of the Air Force to the GLV [Gemini launch vehicle] development is a model of its kind and a significant contribution toward improved management of all major programs, in DOD and in NASA. We have seen major improvements in electrical circuit design, in electrical soldering and welding techniques, in assembly procedures and in test specification.10"<br /><br />"This picture of a smoothly meshed team moving from success to success, although true enough for the last six months of the program, slighted the obstinate technical and managerial problems that had to
>>"The first Titan II ICBM test launch took place more than two years before the unmanned Gemini 1 flight. By the time Gemini 1 lifted off, nearly 30 Titan II launches had taken place. " <<<br /><br /> />"I take it you disagree with my characterization of the Titan II program. What does NASA have to say about it? ... http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4203/toc.htm "<<br /><br />SpaceX proposes its first launch of Falcon 9 to occur only a few months before its first Falcon 9 launch of a Dragon spacecraft. I was pointing out that Gemini Titan proceeded differently. Dozens of Titan II flights took place over a period of two years before the first Titan II Gemini launch took place. <br /><br />The Gemini and Titan development programs overlapped to some extent, but the flight testing was more sequential. Titan II ICBM flew a couple dozen test flights first, for more than a year beginning in 1962. Then some improvements (e.g. Pogo-fix and Gemini Stability Improvement Program (combustion instability)) needed for Titan II Gemini were tested on a few Titan II ICBM flights during the latter half of 1963. Then Gemini flew on a Titan II in 1964. Programatically, the Titan II program was initiated in 1959 but Gemini didn't get underway until the end of 1961. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
"SpaceX proposes its first launch of Falcon 9 to occur only a few months before its first Falcon 9 launch of a Dragon spacecraft. I was pointing out that Gemini Titan proceeded differently. Dozens of Titan II flights took place over a period of two years before the first Titan II Gemini launch took place."<br /><br />You are repeating the Jeffrey Bell error...<br /><br />Rocket Plane Roulette<br /><br />...of comparing the flight history of cutting edge technology from once upon a time -- to the difficulty of recreating 50 year old, well understood technology today.<br /><br />Time will tell whether SpaceX needs two dozen Falcon IX test flights before successfully placing an unmanned Dragon capsule into orbit.<br /><br /><br />"The Gemini and Titan development programs overlapped to some extent, but the flight testing was more sequential."<br /><br />Technically there were only two unmanned Gemini test flights, all the others were operational manned missions. And one of those Gemini flights only became an unmanned test flight because Titan II was still behind schedule and required further flight testing.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>> Q3 2008 ... Q2 2009 ... Q3 2009 <br /><br />That is outrageously ambitious. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I wish Spacex all the best and hope they succeed. But I too have to agree it does seem to be a rather ambitious schedule for what they are trying to achieve.
Anyone taking odds on whether SpaceX will make their upcoming launch window? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
China's Tiangong space station damaged by debris strike: report
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
Space Force tests small satellite jammer to protect against 'space-enabled' attacks
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 10
-
The mystery of how strange cosmic objects called 'JuMBOs' went rogue
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Citizen scientists spot more than 1,000 new asteroids in old Hubble Telescope photos
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 3
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram