Jump to content



Photo

SpaceX Updates (Thread 4): F9, FH & Dragon


428 replies to this topic

#361 IsItPluggedIn

IsItPluggedIn

    Neowinian

  • 900 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 11
  • Location: Sydney, Australia
  • OS: Win 7

Posted 08 July 2014 - 21:21

Hey Doc, how many more dragon V1, will they be making? Will they continue to use them for the cargo missions, or use the V2 for all of them?




#362 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,170 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 08 July 2014 - 21:58

The plan seems to be complete the existing CRS Round 1 contract with Dragon V1, then phase into Dragon V2 for both cargo & crew during the CRS Round 2 contract. Land touchdowns for both.

CRS Round 2 info here,

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/

#363 ks8877

ks8877

    Neowinian

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 13

Posted 14 July 2014 - 18:36

10 for 10 for Falcon-9. It's good.

First stage light structure is not designed for sea waves, hopefully after one or two more sea "landings" SpaceX wil get permission to land on the ground.



#364 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,170 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 14 July 2014 - 18:44

Don't think we'll see that until F9R Dev-2 flies at SpacePort America in New Mexico a few times. These water touchdowns are more for practicing the upper part of the return flight profile. A good water touchdown is sauce for the goose.

#365 ks8877

ks8877

    Neowinian

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 13

Posted 14 July 2014 - 19:05

F9R Dev-2 flies at SpacePort America is good for multiple testing, and for show, and for addition prove, etc., but really all parts of testing could be done without that:

upper part of the return flight profile could be done during regular flight opportunities; 

plus land touchdowns could be done in Texas.

F9R Dev-2 flies in New Mexico could be good for future development and for retesting after some bad landing (accidents are possible for any vehicle during good exploitation).



#366 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,170 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 14 July 2014 - 19:17

No. The SPA flights are essential for getting the FAA permits to land stages at KSC , Vandenberg and Boca Chica. No show at all.

This is because they'll do actual pinpoint land landings complete with the safety divert maneuvers that'll be necessary at the real facilities. Sea touchdowns do not.

#367 ks8877

ks8877

    Neowinian

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 13

Posted 14 July 2014 - 20:21

I understand that bureaucratic requirement is A thru Z...
They will not accept A thru Y and + Z...

When the landing going to the zero sea level above the ocean and with proven ability to touchdown on ground, what is the difference if during regular flight opportunity Falcon 9 could perform divert maneuvers above the water to show maneuverability.

But we know, bureaucrats prefer to deny, because to deny is job safety for bureaucrats.

Also some might like to build the obstacles for SpaceX, knowing that reusability is one of sensitive goal for that company.



#368 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,170 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 14 July 2014 - 22:08

To the contrary. FAA, NASA and USAF have been very supportive of these efforts.

FAA has a mandate that includes launch, and now landing, safety assurance and they're tick-tocking down their list. Part of this to be made up as they go because, frankly, no one else has done what SpaceX is doing at the scale they're doing it. DCX was VTVL, but a tiny fraction of F9R's size and not orbital at all.

NASAs support is a brand new long term plan that includes several commercial changes to KSC and these include vertical landing sites. Their support at the NASA centers has been extremely productive.

And despite the block buy issue, the USAF and intelligence agencies have been very suppirtive. Both in words - as in both Gen. Shelton and the head of NRO, greasing the skids at Vandenberg and spending $60m-$100m to certify F9 for DoD flights.

It's really not these bureaucrats but resistance from politicians who have programs that use competing contractors in their states. Both parties are guilty of this, but the poster boys are Sens. Shelby and Hatch.

In counter-moves SpaceX now has political supporters from California, Texas, Florida, Mississippi, and soon other locales. Most are large states, and Mississippi has a very powerful House committee chairman whose district is the home of NASA Stennis - where Raptor is being tested.

#369 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 15 July 2014 - 01:49

He is Russian, he doesn't like seeing the USA succeed at anything.

Don't lie on me like a gas-meter :) i said about good perspectives of Shuttle,  if it would be geared by LRBs & used as payload carrier.

 

DocM, what about reusable stage of mr. Musk, it's been recovered???



#370 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 15 July 2014 - 19:12

 

Todays ISS schedule lists,

Dragon V1 CRS-4: August 8, 2014

Dragon V1 CRS-5: September 12, 2014

and rumors are they're going to try launching AsiaSat 8 (Hong Kong) between them.

Aggressive.

hmmmmm.. it's really aggressive :) btw, why'd Musk haven't used floating platform to land stage on???



#371 flyingskippy

flyingskippy

    Neowinian

  • 84 posts
  • Joined: 31-October 13
  • Location: GA

Posted 16 July 2014 - 01:35

Jeff Foust @jeff_foust:

Three Congressmen have sent a letter to NASA asking for information an "epidemic of anomalies" in SpaceX launches: http://t.co/CwozYWRu3A

Guess we have just seen ULA's response to SpaceX's lawsuit on the block buy.

Just what America needs more of, politicians sticking their noses in something they know absolutely nothing about.

#372 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,170 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 16 July 2014 - 02:00

Colorado congressmen. ULA is headquartered in Colorado. Imagine that :whistle:

#373 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,022 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 16 July 2014 - 06:45

Colorado congressmen. ULA is headquartered in Colorado. Imagine that :whistle:

 

Surely, Doc, you couldn't possibly be insinuating some sort of bribery on the part of ULA, could you?  I mean, all your politicians are totally honest and could never ever ever accept cash for questions, could they? :p



#374 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,170 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 16 July 2014 - 12:39

And the other congressman is from Alabama, Senator Shelby's state - the one who's giving grief to Commercial Crew in general (except for Boeing, of course.)

Alabama also houses the Marshall Manned Spaceflight Center where SLS and Orion are coming together. Boeing and Lockheed (ULA's parents) have stakes in them, and should now be feeling their neck hairs standing up because of the BFR and MCT projects at SpaceX.

It's even possible BFR/MCT could carry crews before Orion does. The first Orion crew flight has now slipped into 2022. Musk has already said they plan on a Mars landing around 2025. Presumably they'll want to do closer tests before then, and Musk is now not ruling out a Moon landing to prove capability.

#375 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,170 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 16 July 2014 - 13:37

BTW:

these morons want financial and launch issues data on Falcon 9 because taxpayers paid for it.

Problems,

1) the GAO already published a review of Falcon 9 v1.0's development costs and ruled it cost about 1/3 as much as normal development.

2) both Falcon.9 v1.0 and v1.1 were developed on SpaceX's dime, no taxpayer funding. Whatever testing facilities and technical assistance they got from the NASA centers they paid for.

3) what about the Atlas V and Delta IV stand-downs due to problems with the Centaur upper stage? Etc. They WERE taxpayer funded.