My understanding is that Dragon would descend on parachutes then, similar to Soyuz, the landing engines would fire at the last minute to soften the impact of touchdown.
- Status
Besides connecting the multitude of dots supplied by Musk in his recent interviews, logic based on first principles; those being that a parachute will always be part of a manned Dragon in case of an emergency landing over water and that the LES rockets will always be part of a crew Dragon. Given these;
a. if the 'chutes are present but routinely not deployed at altitude and the rockets fail below the 'chutes minimum deployment altitude then it's a loss of crew. Splat.
b. both the 'chutes deploy and the rockets fire, giving the Dragon a soft landing on solid ground.
c. if the 'chutes are present and deployed then the rockets fail then the crew gets a good jostling and a few cuts & bruises, but they're likely to survive.
d. if the 'chutes are present but not deployed at altitude and the rockets fail above the 'chutes minimum deployment altitude then the crew gets a good jostling and a few cuts & bruises, but they're likely to survive.
e. if the 'chutes are present and deploy then one fails and the rockets fire the crew gets even more bruises, and perhaps a fracture or two, but most are likely to survive.
b, c, d and e are better outcomes than a. b being the best outcome it should logically be the default mode of operation.
a. if the 'chutes are present but routinely not deployed at altitude and the rockets fail below the 'chutes minimum deployment altitude then it's a loss of crew. Splat.
b. both the 'chutes deploy and the rockets fire, giving the Dragon a soft landing on solid ground.
c. if the 'chutes are present and deployed then the rockets fail then the crew gets a good jostling and a few cuts & bruises, but they're likely to survive.
d. if the 'chutes are present but not deployed at altitude and the rockets fail above the 'chutes minimum deployment altitude then the crew gets a good jostling and a few cuts & bruises, but they're likely to survive.
e. if the 'chutes are present and deploy then one fails and the rockets fire the crew gets even more bruises, and perhaps a fracture or two, but most are likely to survive.
b, c, d and e are better outcomes than a. b being the best outcome it should logically be the default mode of operation.
Not really. The pusher is now confirmed, and the parachute is clearly in the design. There is no way the <1000 kg of propellant the pusher would have at its disposal after a mission could provide the d-v necessary to land the capsule by itself.
(in contrast: the DC-X carried >9,000 kg of LH2/LOX for its short flights)
The pushers best, and safest, landing use is as a terminal thruster used after a 'chute brings it within a few tens of meters of the ground - just like Soyuz.
Sauce for the goose is that with both it could land either on land or sea, important for use as a lifeboat or during an in-flight emergency where your LZ selection is secondary to getting down NOW.
(in contrast: the DC-X carried >9,000 kg of LH2/LOX for its short flights)
The pushers best, and safest, landing use is as a terminal thruster used after a 'chute brings it within a few tens of meters of the ground - just like Soyuz.
Sauce for the goose is that with both it could land either on land or sea, important for use as a lifeboat or during an in-flight emergency where your LZ selection is secondary to getting down NOW.
Re: Spacex Falcon 9 Flight 2 COTS -1 Launch
lol, I just got myself temporarily banned on nsf for arguing with a NASA EELV guy about the very articles I just posted.
They are VERY jumpy over there. paraphrasing, they need to rebid the ISS resupply contract. They are going to rebid COTS - D ( which they are ) SpaceX could NOT possibly launch COTS -1, late this summer.
As you know, when I post, I bring links, or questions.
lol, I just got myself temporarily banned on nsf for arguing with a NASA EELV guy about the very articles I just posted.
They are VERY jumpy over there. paraphrasing, they need to rebid the ISS resupply contract. They are going to rebid COTS - D ( which they are ) SpaceX could NOT possibly launch COTS -1, late this summer.
As you know, when I post, I bring links, or questions.
Re: Spacex Falcon 9 Flight 2 COTS -1 Launch
Any criticism of NASA policy vill be regarded as defeatist, and vill be regarded accordingly! Furthermore, the flogging vill continue until morale improfes! Zer vill be none uf zis "tic, tic, tic"! Ve haf vays to make you "toc"! :shock: :lol:
Or as comedien Mort Sol said years ago, "They wouldn't be in Washington if they didn't know what they are doing... AND THEY'RE NOT THERE!"
job1207":2x72x59q said:
Any criticism of NASA policy vill be regarded as defeatist, and vill be regarded accordingly! Furthermore, the flogging vill continue until morale improfes! Zer vill be none uf zis "tic, tic, tic"! Ve haf vays to make you "toc"! :shock: :lol:
Or as comedien Mort Sol said years ago, "They wouldn't be in Washington if they didn't know what they are doing... AND THEY'RE NOT THERE!"
With this topology change, I wonder if they'll get started on the escape system sooner? They'll be recovering the cargo capsules, both for re-use and to recover any down cargo returned, such as completed experiment racks. Since a change to ground landings would reduce the cost of the cargo missions as well, the R&D will pay for itself. So they can start using the system on the cargo runs to save money and have plenty of actual mission firings before a human ever sets foot onboard. There doesn't seem to be any reason to wait, unlike the escape tower which has no benefit to the cargo missions.
SpaceX states that the Falcon9 has 24 cargo flights on the launch manifest. No manned launch vehicle has ever had anything close to that number of unmanned flights to prove out the system. It should be very low risk.
Ok, let's be clear here. The rockets are only used to assist the parachute landing for ground landings, similar to russian landings. Spacex is NOT saying they are going be doing a ground landing with rockeys ONLY similar to Blue Orgin. Unfortunately, there's too much speed involved and this can only be performed in cheap SCI FI movies such Japanese Godzilla pics. :lol:
Re: Spacex Falcon 9 Flight 2 COTS -1 Launch
That's the understatement of the week! Being in the State of Denial doesn't begin to describe some of those guys
job1207":35r9idr5 said:
That's the understatement of the week! Being in the State of Denial doesn't begin to describe some of those guys
Spacex and another (Canadian Space Agency) contract.... http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets ... t=b3735241
ALL hail!!! elon musk our new over lord!!
Not sure what you meant by that. Glad to see Spacex is getting a new contract. From the looks of the article it sounds like future canadian astronauts could be training for a future Spacex manned flight.
Not sure what you meant by that. Glad to see Spacex is getting a new contract. From the looks of the article it sounds like future canadian astronauts could be training for a future Spacex manned flight.
You're really reading between the lines to get that out of this article.mr_mark":21quod01 said:
Re: canadian astronauts
OK, I'm not sure from the article why Canada is training astronauts. Does NASA owe them a stint on the ISS as part of their contribution to the ISS (2 robotic arms, right ?) We certainly can't lift them up there on a shuttle, so we have to pay the Russians to put another country's people into space ?
I think I read an article somewhere that said the first people up in a Dragon capsule would probably be SpaceX volunteers. They need to prove it out before NASA gets a ride.
mr_mark":78iqwp0w said:
OK, I'm not sure from the article why Canada is training astronauts. Does NASA owe them a stint on the ISS as part of their contribution to the ISS (2 robotic arms, right ?) We certainly can't lift them up there on a shuttle, so we have to pay the Russians to put another country's people into space ?
I think I read an article somewhere that said the first people up in a Dragon capsule would probably be SpaceX volunteers. They need to prove it out before NASA gets a ride.
Re: Spacex Falcon 9 Flight 2 COTS -1 Launch
I'm not anti Space-X but I do see them as another NASA contractor building a rocket to get a government contract. They have to meet the same standards and safety level as LockMart or Boeing, so except for their name how are they better or cheaper than anyone else?
I'm not anti Space-X but I do see them as another NASA contractor building a rocket to get a government contract. They have to meet the same standards and safety level as LockMart or Boeing, so except for their name how are they better or cheaper than anyone else?
Re: Spacex Falcon 9 Flight 2 COTS -1 Launch
There is already another Falcon 9 being queued up for launch and several Falcons in various stages of assembly. I don't know if we can make a blanket statement that the commercial guys can potentially do LEO cheaper than NASA, but SpaceX has proved that it has the infrastructure in place to give it a go.
I'm more of a fan of commercial spaceflight than SpaceX in particular, but to respond, as it see it, SpaceX is not just "another NASA contractor". A subcontractor would provide NASA with support for a NASA sponsored launch. SpaceX is not doing that. They are launching their own rockets and NASA is just one of their many customers. They have over 40 launch orders from sources other than NASA, and more to come. What makes them cheaper than NASA and others in the industry is their in-house design-to-manufacturing-to-launch process. They have direct control over every aspect of their Falcon rockets and use very few, if any subcontractors. I believe that they are the only rocket launching firm that can say that. It allows them to undercut the launch costs of a Boeing or a LockMart. In addition, their actual launch process is more streamlined and responsive than NASA's. Did you notice that when the last Falcon 9 launch aborted, they were able to quickly reset and resume the countdown within an hour or so? NASA would have had to completely scrub the launch, detank the rocket, etc.bdewoody":2dr5g92w said:
There is already another Falcon 9 being queued up for launch and several Falcons in various stages of assembly. I don't know if we can make a blanket statement that the commercial guys can potentially do LEO cheaper than NASA, but SpaceX has proved that it has the infrastructure in place to give it a go.
mr_mark":1695exq7 said:
Itsa joke im preempting the conspiracy theorist and such. :roll:
Think about it this way to be a super villian you have to,
Be rich and intelligent: Check
Have some huge device capable of delivering a massive warhead/sunbeam/asteroid: Check
Have a evil laugh: Not sure..
Secret base and organization: SpaceX, check.
So he's doing pretty good.
Plus maybe if im real nice i can get the chance to be SpaceX test monkey on dragon
answering up aways, DOD and the govt has always contracted on a cost plus basis. This is an incentive for indusctry to INCREASE costs. Which they gladly do.
Also, Spacex is vertically integrated.
Also, they are tackling these problems with MUCH smaller teams. ( no doubt as a result of fixed price contracts )
Also, they President of the company is both chief accountant and chief technology officer. So, he has the power to keep the company lean, and also make decisions quickly.
Now, all of that does not have to lead to success, or less expensive rockets, but in this case, it appears to be the case. SpaceX is getting international contracts, in addition to NASA contracts. this has NOT happened in a generation.
In other news, the Tesla priced its IPO today. That says that the IPO for SpaceX may not be far behind. Also, is says that the business community is buying Elon Musk. ( Tesla is not yet cash flow positive ) From what I understand given that SpaceX is a private company, SpaceX IS profitable. ( from the chief himself......and his investor. )
Also, Spacex is vertically integrated.
Also, they are tackling these problems with MUCH smaller teams. ( no doubt as a result of fixed price contracts )
Also, they President of the company is both chief accountant and chief technology officer. So, he has the power to keep the company lean, and also make decisions quickly.
Now, all of that does not have to lead to success, or less expensive rockets, but in this case, it appears to be the case. SpaceX is getting international contracts, in addition to NASA contracts. this has NOT happened in a generation.
In other news, the Tesla priced its IPO today. That says that the IPO for SpaceX may not be far behind. Also, is says that the business community is buying Elon Musk. ( Tesla is not yet cash flow positive ) From what I understand given that SpaceX is a private company, SpaceX IS profitable. ( from the chief himself......and his investor. )
Interesting tidbit off the SpaceX jobs pages;
https://tbe.taleo.net/NA3/ats/careers/r ... =1&rid=524
https://tbe.taleo.net/NA3/ats/careers/r ... =1&rid=524
I think being an independent commercial venture is a big advantage on the international market. Many customers won't buy from Boeing or LM because these companies are too obviously linked to the American government.
The US has become the source of so much international resentment and distrust that some operators would rather buy Russian, European or Chinese services. Like some national airlines buy Airbus instead of Boeing solely on political grounds. The 'neutral' nature of SpaceX will probably make it more acceptable to foreign customers.
I wonder what they’re going to do about sound suppression? If they get too noisy the neighbors will start hollering for them to shut up or get out of the neighborhood. :evil:docm":33c2qn4d said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 36
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram