They're calling it "Dragon V2" Elon Musk expects an unmanned test flight by 2015, with a manned flight by 2016. If they're as consistent with this as they have been in the past, we'll probably start seeing manned Dragon flights on a reusable Falcon 9 by 2018. It occurs to me that the first reusable space shuttle was named "Enterprise." Perhaps the first commercial space capsule should be named "Millennium Falcon"?
Don't be so predictable! Make it "Toothless" because it's a dragon! Actually, even that might not be a good name, as Toothless could not fly without Hiccup, while SpaceX starts with robots.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf_-g3UWQ04[/yt] Just when the Russians start talking crap, along comes SpaceX to set things right.. I remember when the Shuttle was retired, a news program interviewed an Eneriga engineer.. he likened the USA using Russian spacecraft to get to the ISS as a rich man catching a ride in an old VW bug to get to the dealership where his new Mercedes was waiting.. It does look like the new Mercedes is nearly ready for delivery...
Hail Hydra! -- indeed http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...ogressive,q_80,w_636/n30osqrdluwvzufnkibi.jpg The implication would seem to be that future versions will include module variations (many heads) so that they can be easily purposed for different mission objectives, manned or unmanned -- LEO, lunar orbit and/or landing, Mars orbit and/or landing, etc.
^ Zaprudder, that image you linked reminds me of the Orion shuttle in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. All it needs is the "Pan Am" logo on the side. (Except the company no longer exists. The movie LOST IN SPACE had a similar Pan Am moment when the splash screen of Will's hand computer showed the Silicon Graphics logo.)
Well, pretty much all they really have in common is that both are phallus shaped. The Orion was supposed to be nuclear powered IIRC and the wings on the Hydra are really solar panels, which would get ripped off, Skylab fashion, in the atmosphere. Otherwise, it's still spam in a can in space. It looks like the Hydra is intended to re-enter on its base, which makes me wonder about stability. If so, spaceship development looks even more likely to be heading toward the sort of designs popular in the 1950s. ETA: As someone commented elsewhere and I plagiarised: Hail Hydra!
How about naming it Fafnir? SpaceX has been keeping the dreams--private enterprise's innovativeness and the exploration of space--alive. In a way, it's good, because private corporations can act more quickly than governments. But, it's a two-edged sword, because who could control an unanswerable CEO, if she/he gets lured to the "dark side"? Also, corporations often become tight-lipped in the presence of rivals.
Mars still remains a dream of NASA, although they claim it is still a long way off. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2014/may/nasa-suggests-humans-could-be-on-mars-by-2035130933.html Personally, I don't understand what the difference is between a mission to the Moon and a mission to Mars, other than distance and duration. As I've suggested before, they could even put another space station or two between the Earth and Mars and then just leapfrog there, a step at a time, to conserve and accumulate supplies for the colony.
Yeah, um, you're going to have to explain that a little better. The closest we can get to "putting a spacestation between Earth and Mars" is to build one at one of Earth's lagrange points. It's not like Earth and Mars sit in one place and you can just build a station at the halfway point between them. They orbit the sun at different rates and are constantly moving in relation to each other.
I am surprised by this. One more delay caused by a total overhaul? To get a launch escape system ready, it's not enough to build a helicopter for landing on Mars, you need to remake your entire capsule too. I am grateful they are busy throwing out the "when it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle out of the window, we need less of it to really get into space. And there was I, ready to hitch a ride on the Dragon V1 with no extra life support, no launch escape system or seats, let alone tablets. I never thought that a capsule could look appealing to the eye. By going back to rockets and capsules, I was beginning to think that practical space exploration is going to look ugly. And Spaceflight with printed engines? Didn't expect that. (Don't remember to ship one of them DMLS printers to Mars one day)
Perhaps the "Cycling Spacecraft" would be closer to the mark.. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3408800354.html
I understand the "wings" on the Hydra/MCT are solar panels. I simply meant the rendering reminded me of renderings of the Orion shuttle from the movie 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. As for being nuclear, that is not mentioned in the movie, nor is the name Orion. All of that appeared in the model kit and other behind-the-scenes material. One must also be careful when dropping the name "Orion" in regard to spacecraft, as NASA has one in development, and Dyson's proposal was definitely nuclear powered. You're right. No government would ever run amok. It's always those foaming-at-the-mouth CEOs. As Sojourner already noted, the relationship between planets is dynamic. Even if we ignore that for a minute, how does a space station somewhere in between help? The station needs to be routinely supplied; it's not another Earth that is independent. Roadside inns don't work in spaceflight. Perhaps you are suggesting some sort of supply convoy, which has been addressed in many studies. A fleet of ships might be sent, or a supply vessel might be sent on ahead to wait at Mars, or even be intercepted along the way as part of a complex navigation scheme. Creating a Moon colony first has many advantages. It is much closer, affording the possibility of an abort back to Earth if anything catastrophic happens. The proximity also means there are potential financial returns, while Mars is just too far away with current technology. And there's the experience factor. Long duration missions on the Moon, or even a permanent colony could be very valuable in testing various survival technologies.