Its 3 years from now.
SpaceX appreciation thread
- Thread starter sojourner
- Start date
Its 3 years from now.
The lift capability of Falcon Heavy is unnecessary for a manned Dragon. The already tested Falcon 9 is sufficient to get crews to the ISS.
Columbia had made multiple flights (4 if I recall correctly) before an astronaut rode a shuttle to orbit without an ejection seat. At that time the American program had never had to use a launch escape system or ejection seat in a manned launch attempt, trough the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs (including post moon landing Skylab and Apollo/Soyuz docking). I doubt the Soviets had admitted to their incident using a launch escape system by that time.
Not that the American programs were without drama:
One Mercury flight experienced a premature hatch opening, leading to it sinking in the ocean. Long past the time when the escape tower had been discarded.
One Gemini flight experienced a runaway attitude control thruster in orbit where the ejection seats would have been unusable.
The crew of Apollo 1 died in a launch pad fire. Escape system would have been unusable with the access arm against the spacecraft and fire was inside the command module anyway.
Apollo 11 LEM had an overloaded computer during landing (shutting down a radar unit had been left off the checklist) when the assent module could have served as an "escape system". But a subsequent broken vital circuit breaker knob added to the suspense of leaving the moon (they closed the broken breaker by poking it with a pen!).
Apollo 12 struck by lightning shortly after launch. Systems reset and guidance system recovers before an abort was necessary.
The Apollo 13 oxygen tank explosion on the way to the moon. Long after the escape tower had been discarded.
Columbia had made multiple flights (4 if I recall correctly) before an astronaut rode a shuttle to orbit without an ejection seat. At that time the American program had never had to use a launch escape system or ejection seat in a manned launch attempt, trough the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs (including post moon landing Skylab and Apollo/Soyuz docking). I doubt the Soviets had admitted to their incident using a launch escape system by that time.
Not that the American programs were without drama:
One Mercury flight experienced a premature hatch opening, leading to it sinking in the ocean. Long past the time when the escape tower had been discarded.
One Gemini flight experienced a runaway attitude control thruster in orbit where the ejection seats would have been unusable.
The crew of Apollo 1 died in a launch pad fire. Escape system would have been unusable with the access arm against the spacecraft and fire was inside the command module anyway.
Apollo 11 LEM had an overloaded computer during landing (shutting down a radar unit had been left off the checklist) when the assent module could have served as an "escape system". But a subsequent broken vital circuit breaker knob added to the suspense of leaving the moon (they closed the broken breaker by poking it with a pen!).
Apollo 12 struck by lightning shortly after launch. Systems reset and guidance system recovers before an abort was necessary.
The Apollo 13 oxygen tank explosion on the way to the moon. Long after the escape tower had been discarded.
As has been said, Dragon is launching on F9, not FH. Which before the first manned dragon flight will have launched around 9 to 10 times, so a track record will have been established. F9 from the get go has been built to man rating requirements per NASA's own guidelines. Which actually aren't all that "extreme", though still a bit of a moving target. Virtually the only reason SpaceX won't launch manned Dragons now is lack of an LAS, of which they just got money from NASA (in addition to their own funding) to speed up development.
prolly more than that if more non dragon related launches are made and scheduled
u should prolly save that since your in college, you never know when an ugly expense might come up
How is it a moving target? They don't change.
It's all sour grapes..
Dragon/Falcon 9 most likely will be the defacto replacement for the Shuttle. A fully capable man rated spacecraft with a full launch abort capability hasn't been used by NASA since 1975...and NASA has 7 losses on the books to prove it...
The Shuttle should have been retired DECADES ago...replaced by a HLLV and a smaller manned spaceplane...(As Werner Von Braun envisioned in the 50s)
But, I'll accept a ballistic spacecraft over the overbloated shuttle program...
Dragon/Falcon 9 most likely will be the defacto replacement for the Shuttle. A fully capable man rated spacecraft with a full launch abort capability hasn't been used by NASA since 1975...and NASA has 7 losses on the books to prove it...
The Shuttle should have been retired DECADES ago...replaced by a HLLV and a smaller manned spaceplane...(As Werner Von Braun envisioned in the 50s)
But, I'll accept a ballistic spacecraft over the overbloated shuttle program...
Actually, yeah, they do, insomuch as NASA doesn't currently have an official set of man rating guidelines for commercial companies. So the companies basically have to use disparate NASA documents referring to past and current launchers considered "man rated". NASA is working on publishing a set of ratings.
That's not what I said, or am trying to say.
I said NASA has always been the less cost effective provider to space flight for the entirety of its existence. The Soviet space program was considerably cheaper, and its Russian successor is as well. Air Force boosters not used by NASA are also much more cost effective in deploying satellites and always have been. EAS's rockets--Ariane 5 et al--are also considerably cheaper than NASA's programs.
The only reason nobody noticed NASA's chronic cost overruns and inefficiency is because the only other show in town was the Russians and Americans have been conditioned to view the Russians with contempt since the start of the cold war. Europe provided the first non-Russian program, which was in many ways competitive with NASA, and the Air Force responded with the EELV program which put that to rest. Also, fortunately, ESA never really got into manned spaceflight and NASA's monopoly went unchallenged.
But then SpaceX put Dragon into orbit, and suddenly we're having this question of whether or not it REALLY takes ten billion dollars to develop and fly a manned spacecraft. It always costs that much--if not more so--for NASA, for a variety of reasons. It rarely costs the Russians that much, but we're not about to start caring about how the Russians do anything, so the wakeup call has come for the first time from the private sector.
There is that old joke that NASA spent tens of millions of dollars developing a pen that could write in zero gravity, in the vacuum of space, in extreme heat or extreme cold and was impervious to cosmic radiation; the Russians used pencils.
Which is irrelevant, because WHAT THEY CHARGE CUSTOMERS is still consdierably lower than what NASA charges. The only real question is that of sustainability, and even NASA isn't immune to those concerns.
They delivered the Dragon easily enough, and the Falcon 9 is operational. Based on their track record starting with Falcon-1, they're not promises as much as they are plans. Plans tend to change as conditions change and new lessons are learned (hence SpaceX skipping the Falcon-5 altogether and going straight to the -9) but I've seen nothing that makes me doubt their ability to follow through.
You need to distinguish between the industry and NASA, these are two completely different things.
NASA has a humongous government bureaucracy hanging over its head like a sword of democles waiting to cut their throats the moment anything goes wrong. They know that the only thing keeping manned spaceflight alive is the enlightened self-interest of a handful of senators who benefit from having NASA projects in their home districts. Piss off the political establishment, and NASA will have all of its programs utterly canceled EXCEPT those that serve some political expedience; they will get nothing done, and their budget will wound up getting spent anyway.
SpaceX is a provider of launch services, they have no political needling to deal with except that which they bring on themselves by seeking funding/contracts from NASA. Obviously, NASA can set their safety requirements for cargo and astronauts, but these will neccesarily be operationally instead of politically based.
To use your Marine Corps comparison: the Marines are alot more effective when you let them decide how to fight their battles instead of having Congress mandate it for them. NASA doesn't have a choice, but SpaceX is independent and don't have to obey any mandates other than what is absolutely necessary for the mission.
First of all, they're talking about a 2014 launch date for the crewed dragon after not less than 12 cargo flights to the ISS.
Second of all NASA would--and has--signed off on that sort of thing before. The Mercury and Gemini capsules flew their first test flights manned, and the space shuttle's maiden flight took a two-man crew into orbit. If anything they're being OVERLY cautious because SpaceX is a relatively new company and they want them to build up more experience before they trust them with crew transport; 12 cargo flights is more than enough.
OTOH, NASA seems confident enough that they gave them 75 million dollars to develop the abort thrusters and crew furnishings for the Dragon's crewed configuration. Since the cargo and crew versions are virtually identical EXCEPT for those two additions, it's clear that NASA thinks they'll be able to deliver sooner rather than later.
No they didn't...
Famously, Chimps were the first astronauts...but even then they weren't on the first flights... these were flown on "Little Joe" rockets to test systems such as the launch escape system and heat shields..
http://astronautix.com/project/mercury.htm
http://astronautix.com/lvs/litoe14p.htm
The "Gusmobile" Gemini was also flown unmanned before manned flights were attempted...
http://astronautix.com/lvs/titiiglv.htm
Apollo also was flown unmanned first...
The Shuttle was the first American spacecraft to be launched manned on it's first attempt...
Mercury is a special case since they were testing the booster and escape system at the same time as the capsule (several of which exploded on the pad).
Gemini flew two flight tests, one of which was a sub-orbital test for the heat shield and the other was a structural/systems qualification for the prototype. If we're including sub-operational tests in the roster, then technically the shuttle doesn't count either with the drop-test of the Enterprise.
Either way, all other factors considered, SpaceX has already reached "Gemini class" in terms of testing, with a booster integration and a fully recovered space craft. They have two (possibly one) more demonstration flights to the ISS before they'll be rated to carry cargo, and after twelve (or less) of those cargo flights the Dragon will be fully rated to carry crews. By that time, if it accomplishes all that it will have become one of the most reliable spacecraft ever built; the manned configuration could make its maiden flight with a full crew and no one would question it.
Gemini flew two flight tests, one of which was a sub-orbital test for the heat shield and the other was a structural/systems qualification for the prototype. If we're including sub-operational tests in the roster, then technically the shuttle doesn't count either with the drop-test of the Enterprise.
Either way, all other factors considered, SpaceX has already reached "Gemini class" in terms of testing, with a booster integration and a fully recovered space craft. They have two (possibly one) more demonstration flights to the ISS before they'll be rated to carry cargo, and after twelve (or less) of those cargo flights the Dragon will be fully rated to carry crews. By that time, if it accomplishes all that it will have become one of the most reliable spacecraft ever built; the manned configuration could make its maiden flight with a full crew and no one would question it.
Actually all the Enterprise drop tests were flown manned..
http://astronautix.com/craft/entprise.htm
Now I do agree that SpaceX is FAR closer to an actual man-rated spacecraft than any of it's direct competition and is the likely winner in that sweepstakes...
Just amazing how durable the old Apollo spacecraft areodynamic design actually is eh?...
I think that's what he means - just a capsule sitting on top of a (presently) disposable rocket, rather than some sort of winged spaceplane/SSTO attempt.. I say presently because I think they eventually want them to be reusable - SpaceX specifically I mean, I know it's advantageous for the industry in general.
...
Did I say presently disposable capsule? You emphasized Dragon is reusable as if I suggested it was presently disposable - I didn't - I said "capsule sitting on top of a presently disposable rocket" - because Falcon 9, IS NOT reusable yet. I didn't say anything about Dragon because I know Dragon is reusable. They want the rocket engines reusable as well, and they're not presently.
Similar threads
