- Status
Musk Clarifies SpaceX Position On Exploration 
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) founder Elon Musk says plans laid out recently by a company official for growth beyond International Space Station resupply and missions beyond low Earth orbit are not official SpaceX policy.
Referring to a presentation given at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Joint Propulsion Conference in Nashville, Tenn., by McGregor rocket development facility director Tom Markusic (Aerospace DAILY, Aug. 5), Musk says, “Tom was throwing out a bunch of ideas for discussion.”
Musk says provisional concepts for a deep space architecture were outlined as “brainstorming ideas” by Markusic. “The only thing SpaceX is intending to do for sure in the long term is to try to move toward super heavy lift,” Musk says. The key element of this, as outlined in Markusic’s presentation, is development of the Merlin 2 engine. “Part of it depends on NASA and its willingness to fund a portion of that. We’d certainly hope it would be a private-public partnership with NASA, because that’s what it would take in the long term.
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) founder Elon Musk says plans laid out recently by a company official for growth beyond International Space Station resupply and missions beyond low Earth orbit are not official SpaceX policy.
Referring to a presentation given at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Joint Propulsion Conference in Nashville, Tenn., by McGregor rocket development facility director Tom Markusic (Aerospace DAILY, Aug. 5), Musk says, “Tom was throwing out a bunch of ideas for discussion.”
Musk says provisional concepts for a deep space architecture were outlined as “brainstorming ideas” by Markusic. “The only thing SpaceX is intending to do for sure in the long term is to try to move toward super heavy lift,” Musk says. The key element of this, as outlined in Markusic’s presentation, is development of the Merlin 2 engine. “Part of it depends on NASA and its willingness to fund a portion of that. We’d certainly hope it would be a private-public partnership with NASA, because that’s what it would take in the long term.
The parachute splashdown test appears to have been successful as several witnesses stated that they saw three large parachutes deploy. Hoping to get a video link to show everyone.
Hard to see the chutes deploy but here is the Dragon parachute test article. Hope to get better pictures soon. Big thank you to the ships captain for this one.....http://whalewatchingsst.blogspot.com/20 ... hotos.html
Thanks for the enhanced photos. Not sure if one shows the parachute deployment or not although people reported 3 parachutes opening. You would think this type of test being high profile would get some news coverage from the space outlets. They seem to be more interested in a Star Wars convention. You have to wonder sometimes what they are thinking. :roll:
Looks to me like one canopy failed. @NSF user HMXHMX reports that when he was working on the t/Space capsule they had a similar failure due to a de-reefing line not releasing as it should.
Obviously, they didn't care too much about "range safety", or else that Whale watching boat wouldn't have gotten that close. I assume this was just one in a series of drop tests, or do they claim success because they were able to retrieve the mock-capsule and move on.
14,000 ft seems a little low to me, but they were using a helicopter for lift, not a C-130 or similar cargo plane.
14,000 ft seems a little low to me, but they were using a helicopter for lift, not a C-130 or similar cargo plane.
docm":3himerxh said:
Didn't they announce that the 2nd Dragon launch would attempt the actual docking with ISS if the board was green? I hope that's still the plan, unless some key piece of docking hardware just won't be ready in time.
docm":3hsrj9g9 said:
That's $1350/lb! Cheaper than the Proton with 50% more payload. Considering inflation, they've basically hit the $1000/lb goal from when I was a kid 20 years ago. I want to see that thing launching a Bigelow hotel so bad...
Note, the Dragon is the only part of the rocket enroute to the Cape. The checkout will take a couple of months, pointing to a late Sept early Oct launch.
The part about the next flights is off the press sheet. Spacex already said they will launch in the Spring. Hopefully that will be a docking with the ISS if all goes well.
The part about the next flights is off the press sheet. Spacex already said they will launch in the Spring. Hopefully that will be a docking with the ISS if all goes well.
Full parachutes deployed! Total success! Here's the link http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VHl1OPeOSOs/T ... GP2443.JPG
Isn't it like this just because capsule already hit the water and parachutes started to deflate?docm":zhci0mg7 said:
aaron38":2mkxvrcv said:
Yes, if COTS1 goes well they will try to convince NASA that COTS2 will attempt the docking and the skip COTS3 and go directly to cargo transport.
If COTS1 failes, they will need COTS2 to complete all the milestones of COTS1 and COTS2. And then they will properly not dock with ISS.
Full bloom + enhanced...
F9 launch: check
F9 2nd stage sep: check
F9 2nd stage & Dragon test article -> orbit: check
Orbital maneuvering, re-entry etc.: TBD in the COTS-1 flight
Chute deployment -> water: check
F9 launch: check
F9 2nd stage sep: check
F9 2nd stage & Dragon test article -> orbit: check
Orbital maneuvering, re-entry etc.: TBD in the COTS-1 flight
Chute deployment -> water: check
I was interested in seing which Falcon 9 version would be cheaper to launch an ISS size 500,000 kg to LEO. I added the development costs such as the Merlin 2 to each vehicle class as well as each classes development cost as an nonrecurring cost to add to the complete launch cost of the tatal 500 MT payload. The Interesting item was that the Falcon 9 Heavy (Merlin 1) version came out on top as cheapest. Thats 16 launches. The larger Falcon X versions were more expensive although the Falcon X Heavy came in a close second even considering its nearly 2 billion development costs.
Some have a hard time thinking of who would need enough 32MT payloads or even 125MT payloads to make HLV's return a profit. ISS is only supported to 2020. Does that mean the international community would have to lift 500MT in the 5 to 10 years following to keep it operational by swaping out modules? 16 Falcon 9 Heavy flights or 4 Falcon X Heavy flights.
Some have a hard time thinking of who would need enough 32MT payloads or even 125MT payloads to make HLV's return a profit. ISS is only supported to 2020. Does that mean the international community would have to lift 500MT in the 5 to 10 years following to keep it operational by swaping out modules? 16 Falcon 9 Heavy flights or 4 Falcon X Heavy flights.
A large station built of the 2100+ cu/m habitats Bigelow discussed a few months ago would probably cheapen it up even more and be replaceable. Better micrometeroid and radiation protection are sauce for the goose. Nice job for BFR's.
The minimum launch costs for Shuttle was about $500 M for 25MT. 16 Shuttle launches = $8 Billion!!! 16 Falcon 9 Heavy launches = $1.8 Billion!!! Talk about a difference. How many Bigilow modules can you buy for $6.2 billion?
Last quote I heard for a 330 cu/m BA-330 module was $100-150 million a pop, so for $6.2B (not counting launch & crew launches) you'd get from 41 to 62 of 'em. That's enough not for a station but a fleet of them. Taking the all-inclusive approach (module+crew+launches) it's more like 22 modules, but still....
- 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: 21
-
-
US Space Force 5 years later: What has it accomplished so far, and where does it go from here?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 6
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram