Yminale--What you bring up is exactly why I mentioned contracting out to the private sector as a step that should've been taken sooner rather than insisting on trying to keep it a government-only enterprise.
May Abandon the International Space Station
- Thread starter Brent
- Start date
Sooner than that if his people can get the launch abort system working by the end of the year... that's pretty much the only missing piece that Dragon needs to carry crews.
If Musk really is the rabid opportunist he appears to be, he'll probably push to get the abort rockets announced and tested around the same time as the COTS-2/3 flight in November. That would put him in a position to twist Congress' balls a little, maybe offer a solution to the Soyuz monopoly for a modest little ransom.
Or steal it if we leave it abandoned for too long.
Or steal it if we leave it abandoned for too long.
Or buy it since they seem to buy everything else... Trying to buy the Los Angeles Dodgers.
The launch abort system according to reports is ahead of schedule. The issue is Falcon Heavy which needs to be man rated. That's going to take a minimum of 3 perfect launches with a working Dragon capsule. With current funding it's going to take Space X a minimum of 3 years.
Dragon doesn't need to launch in a Falcon Heavy, just the Falcon 9 can get it into orbit. The actual plan was to get 12 or so cargo flights under their belt and then pop the abort rockets into a couple of the returning cargo capsules on the way down. By the end of the 12th flight, Dragon would be the most reliable man-rated craft NASA has ever flown.
Dragon can be launched on Falcon 9, and already has been, Falcon heavy is not needed.
Not NASA.
Yes, beacuse NASA has NEVER had a failed booster launch...oh, wait...
The fact is, they had a failure of a system, and they are holding off launching until they understand what caused that failure. Seems reasonable to me.
The Soviet Union lost a crew in flight, evacuated a cosmonaut with a launch escape system and had a hull breach on a space station as a result of a remote operated supply ship collision.
The US had close calls on Mercury and Gemini flights. Lost a crew during an Apollo rehearsal, close calls on three consecutive Apollo flights and lost two crews during Space Transportation System (Shuttle) flights.
The high velocity required to reach orbit requires propellants with lots of pent up energy, with a potential for a conflagration if something malfunctions. The environment in orbit is unforgiving (vacuum, tempreture, dependence on artificial life support, meteorite and junk collision hazards, radiation from a solar flare). All that energy expended during the launch must be dissipated to return to Earth. Sure you can spend a lot of effort and money making things safer, but occasionally you will lose a few people.
The US had close calls on Mercury and Gemini flights. Lost a crew during an Apollo rehearsal, close calls on three consecutive Apollo flights and lost two crews during Space Transportation System (Shuttle) flights.
The high velocity required to reach orbit requires propellants with lots of pent up energy, with a potential for a conflagration if something malfunctions. The environment in orbit is unforgiving (vacuum, tempreture, dependence on artificial life support, meteorite and junk collision hazards, radiation from a solar flare). All that energy expended during the launch must be dissipated to return to Earth. Sure you can spend a lot of effort and money making things safer, but occasionally you will lose a few people.
Last edited:
It would be, if and when NASA buys crewed flights on it.
Not the way the CCDev contract is written. NASA would essentially procure the spacecraft and fly their own astronauts as if it were NASA hardware from the beginning (same thing they currently do with the X-planes, no matter who builds them).
I thought that was the whole point of ditching the Space Act agreements? Because unlike the COTS contracts, CCDev would DIRECTLY benefit NASA and switching to an FAS agreement would avoid legal hurdles in procurement.
From what I read the manned capsule requires the Falcon Heavy. The Falcon 9 is only rated for the resupply vehicle. Do you have a link stating otherwise.
That's not a confirmation that the Dragon can or will carry passengers in it's current form. There is no published data on the manned configuration designed for the Falcon 9. (I assume it's going to be 3 people in the pressurized bay). The current contract is only for 12 resupply missions.
I would suspect that, similar to the transition between the Gemini and Apollo spacecraft, the first manned Dragons flown on Falcon 9 rockets will only have a crew of two or three for testing purposes (and possibly just for suborbital flights), and then by the time it carries all seven crew, the Falcon Heavy will be used.
^Suborbital flights are not in the flight profile and would most likely be more dangerous than orbital.
Not sure where you get that. Dragon has always been designed to fly on Falcon 9, whether crewed or uncrewed. with a 7 man crew listed as standard.
From SpaceX's website:
Also, please see the Demo video from SpaceX's website specifically stating Falcon 9 and Dragon while showing a simulation of the LAS of Dragon from a Falcon 9:
http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=58
Where do you get the idea that manned Dragon requires Falcon Heavy? (Which wasn't even announced until years after manned Dragon and Falcon 9)
You guys are seriously underestimating the capabilities of both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Using a Falcon Heavy for Dragon is severe overkill.
All of this information is available on the SpaceX website. Just read about it instead of making wild guesses.
Not sure where you get that. Dragon has always been designed to fly on Falcon 9, whether crewed or uncrewed. with a 7 man crew listed as standard.
From SpaceX's website:
http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php
Also, please see the Demo video from SpaceX's website specifically stating Falcon 9 and Dragon while showing a simulation of the LAS of Dragon from a Falcon 9:
http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=58
Where do you get the idea that manned Dragon requires Falcon Heavy? (Which wasn't even announced until years after manned Dragon and Falcon 9)
You guys are seriously underestimating the capabilities of both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Using a Falcon Heavy for Dragon is severe overkill.
All of this information is available on the SpaceX website. Just read about it instead of making wild guesses.
Last edited:
What "guys?" I'm all for SpaceX, and have always thought that the Falcon 9 was man-rated. It's the other dude that doesn't.
