Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, anthdci said:

that makes your realise how big the the merlin vac engine is.

Now that you mention it....that puppy is real large.

 

I am so complacent when watching the launch video's that I sometimes forget this. To familiar watching stage separation, S2 ignition, watching S2 begin to heat up, strengthening ring popping off and the familiar side camera view of a cherry red housing.

 

Without scale, the launch video is deceiving ...and I am guilty of that for sure.

  • Like 1

The manned lunar missions for Dragon...flyby and landing has been flogged to death many times online.

 

In summary...why bother as it's a dead end now with ITS/BFS/Starship being capable in a few years.

 

Dragon was always capable of landing on other worlds...unmanned and landing only.

 

The trunk does nothing for liftoff fuel on the moon...and we need a Dragon with all available space filled with fuel to take off from the moon...Dragon is 3x's the weight of the LEM.

 

Man rating a capsule and FH as well as support structures and major equipment design for extra fuel is costly and involves a few years.....because unlike Watney...we should bring back everyone.

 

The new Starship test object will be doing hops in 2019....which is a few steps up from hamsters in a capsule.

 

  • Like 3
5 hours ago, RGClark said:

 The trunk looks pretty big in these pics. There was some speculation that the trunk could hold extra fuel for, for example, manned lunar missions. Anyone know what the volume of the trunk is?

 

  Bob Clark

 

Question;

 

you have $X billion with which to develop an interplanetary vehicle. You have plans for bases and, eventually, colonies. This vehicle must carry cargo, crews, power and ISRU systems...everything.

 

Bonus round: early on, it will also serve as habitation, even during lunar missions. 

 

Choose one.

 

BFR-2018-Spaceship-human-Crew_Dragon_to-scale-1024x1024.thumb.jpg.b65143f84383e39240b014ac9ee0229f.jpg

  • Like 2
54 minutes ago, Draggendrop said:

The manned lunar missions for Dragon...flyby and landing has been flogged to death many times online.

In summary...why bother as it's a dead end now with ITS/BFS/Starship being capable in a few years.

Dragon was always capable of landing on other worlds...unmanned and landing only.

The trunk does nothing for liftoff fuel on the moon...and we need a Dragon with all available space filled with fuel to take off from the moon...Dragon is 3x's the weight of the LEM.

Man rating a capsule and FH as well as support structures and major equipment design for extra fuel is costly and involves a few years.....because unlike Watney...we should bring back everyone.

The new Starship test object will be doing hops in 2019....which is a few steps up from hamsters in a capsule.

 

 I agree with you that recent plans for manned lunar landers have been overly large. The total fueled mass for the Apollo lunar lander was 15 tons. For the Constellation program it was 45 tons. The large size for the lander necessitated a huge and expensive launch vehicle. The large costs therefore required resulted in the cancellation of the program. Even now the latest proposal for a lunar lander by Lockheed is for 62 tons(!) fueled mass:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Lunar_Lander

 

 Here, I wanted to know the capability for doing just a circumlunar flight.  Elon had discussed doing that with the Falcon Heavy, but I'm not sure the FH will ever be man-rated, or should be.

 

 Doing a manned circumlunar flight with just the F9 and Dragon would be much cheaper, safer, and sooner.

 

 About the manned lunar lander possibility, the BFR is intended as a colony ship, capable of ca. 100 passengers. I'm thinking of small, low cost flights  intended to return us to the Moon. We can make a comparison to the Lockheed lander proposal to get an idea instead of the gross mass of a Dragon based lander. The Lockheed lander total mass oft 62 tons is less than 3 times its dry mass of 22 tons. Then a a Dragon lander at a 6 ton dry mass might only weigh less than 18 tons total mass, not much bigger than the Apollo lunar lander.

 

  Bob Clark

59 minutes ago, DocM said:

 

Question;

 

you have $X billion with which to develop an interplanetary vehicle. You have plans for bases and, eventually, colonies. This vehicle must carry cargo, crews, power and ISRU systems...everything.

 

Bonus round: early on, it will also serve as habitation, even during lunar missions. 

 

Choose one.

 

BFR-2018-Spaceship-human-Crew_Dragon_to-scale-1024x1024.thumb.jpg.b65143f84383e39240b014ac9ee0229f.jpg

 The circumlunar flight might be doable now with the extra fuel carried in the Dragon trunk and the F9 as the launcher. 

 The lunar lander flight might be doable now by a Falcon Heavy+F9+Dragon architecture. It's dependent on how much mass the FH can get to translunar injection(TLI). 

 

 Since the components are already existing, these would much cheaper to produce than the BFR. Also, since the flights would be much cheaper you could afford to do multiple unmanned test flights before doing a manned flight.

 

   Bob Clark

Your question was directed to a Dragon trunk and hinted towards a manned lunar mission.

 

I believe I answered that and related it directly to SpaceX, the Dragon and the unmanned initial intentions.....not to any other programs, their costs ...or other vendors intentions...

 

7 hours ago, RGClark said:

 The trunk looks pretty big in these pics. There was some speculation that the trunk could hold extra fuel for, for example, manned lunar missions. Anyone know what the volume of the trunk is?

 

  Bob Clark

Beware when you mention cost.

 

If you send one person on a trip in a program...they foot the entire bill.

 

If you send many...cost is distributed.

 

F9 was designed man rated...FH is a collection of F9's..... Agency bureaucracy determines "man rating" for their needs...not SpaceX's

 

FH and Dragon can do a single flyby of the moon as is...as far as man rating...human consumables would be taken into consideration for # of passengers and duration of use.

 

This is a dead end for SpaceX and the Starship is taking over...and will be competitive with FH due to complete reuse.

 

There is no need for FH and a capsule when the soon to be Starship iteration will match it in cost...it is fully reusable...top up the tank.

  • Like 2

Exactly - the plan is for Starship variants to completely replace F9/FH/Dragon. Maybe keep some for light missions to LOP-G and ISS, given the massive side of Starship (and its likely larger follow-on.)

  • Like 2
1 hour ago, DocM said:

Exactly - the plan is for Starship variants to completely replace F9/FH/Dragon. Maybe keep some for light missions to LOP-G and ISS, given the massive side of Starship (and its likely larger follow-on.)

The CC program and Commercial Resupply program will supply all the Dragons required for ISS, Bigelo, Axiom, gateways and any other flavor that actually produces a viable venture.

 

Lunar cargo will be initially dependent on the Starship...till the others catch up. Things will work out just fine.

This has caused some confusion on line.

 

It is 7 flights..."actual flights" with S1 and S2 containing the approved COPV's.

 

It is 5 instances of "refueling process" for fueling certification. This also includes the SF's...therefore it is DM-1, abort test and DM-2 which will account for the five requested full process procedures.

 

This nickle and dime silliness though.....and now a partial government shutdown.....can't make this stuff up...

3 hours ago, Draggendrop said:

This nickle and dime silliness though.....

 

Yup. And SLS/Orion will fly with 3x the loss of crew probability but less official concern.  Go figure.

3 hours ago, Draggendrop said:

and now a partial government shutdown.....can't make this stuff up...

 

Thank you (the late) House Speaker Tip O'Neill, who first used the govt. shutdown tactic in 1980 👿

 

  • Like 2
  • 2 weeks later...

 

 

DwBf2YXUUAAywrx.jpg

 

 

 

 

DwBlLvuUYAEIis_.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This video was done through a car window...but does show the "lift" 

 

SpaceX - First Ever Crew Dragon Lift - DM-1 01-03-2019

Quote

USLaunchReport

Published on Jan 3, 2019

SUBSCRIBE 27K

Speed has been doubled.Sorry for picture quality, 10 miles thru haze at sunset. Very Excited to see Crew Dragon attached to Falcon 9. The lift was done for a fit test.

video is 4:23 min.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

The image "Crew Dragon + Falcon 9 vertical on pad 39A" by Emre Kelly has to be the nicest thing I've seen in a long, long time @Draggendrop. :yes: Thanks bud.

 

Can't wait to see it launch.

  • Like 1
  • 3 weeks later...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/22/18193326/nasa-commercial-crew-astronaut-replacement-boeing-cst-100-starliner-eric-boe-mike-fincke

 


NASA is replacing one of the astronauts assigned to fly on the first crewed test launch of the CST-100 Starliner, a capsule being developed by Boeing to take passengers to the International Space Station. NASA announced today that astronaut Eric Boe will no longer be flying on the mission due to unspecified medical reasons. Instead, NASA astronaut E. Michael "Mike"  Fincke will take Boes place.

  • Sad 1
  • 5 weeks later...

Flight Readiness Rreview  says GO!!

 


NASA gives go-ahead for SpaceX commercial crew test flight

WASHINGTON  NASA managers have given their approval for SpaceX to proceed with an uncrewed test flight of its Crew Dragon spacecraft on March 2.

At the conclusion of a day-long flight readiness review at the Kennedy Space Center Feb. 22, NASA announced that it approved plans for SpaceX to fly a mission designated Demo-1, featuring its Crew Dragon spacecraft but without astronauts on board, to the International Space Station. The review featured more than 100 people from NASA and SpaceX, examining the readiness of both the spacecraft and the station to support the mission.

The current schedule calls for a launch at 2:48 a.m. Eastern March 2, in an instantaneous launch window. The Falcon 9, lifting off from Launch Complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center, will put the Crew Dragon into orbit. The spacecraft is scheduled to dock with the ISS one day later and remain there until March 8, when it will undock and splash down several hours later in the Atlantic Ocean.
>


iCNFN7Vh8vCHMHFUJT78wn.jpg

 

  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Python programmers in a nutshell. Now, guess what lang most AI programmers use... :-)
    • There was nothing whatsoever wrong with Vista as an OS after the SP1 update. People who claim it wasn't were using ancient machines for some silly reason. Not kidding, no hyperbole/exaggeration. Vista was good.
    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      443
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!