Soyuz for downmass

On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after
Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more
existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the
ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with
all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch
escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress.

So what about Dragon?

/dps

In article bbda219e-d243-494c-9fb7-d41f78b1dd17
@o2g2000vbh.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after
Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more
existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the
ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with
all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch
escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress.

So what about Dragon?

Looks to be a good way to get significant downmass from ISS.

http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php

From above: 3,000 kg (6,614 lbs) payload down-mass

That's huge compared to Soyuz downmass. The Russians are up to Soyuz
TMA-M (replaced a lot of obsolete electronics with modern electronics
resulting in power and mass savings), but I'm not sure what the exact
downmass availability would be for this version, but from the picture
below, it looks like most of the "boxes" replaced are not in the descent
module, so this latest version likely can't carry much more downmass
than previous versions.

http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/soyuz-t...-tma-m_01.html

Jeff
--
42

In sci.space.station message bbda219e-d243-494c-9fb7-d41f78b1dd17@o2g20
00vbh.googlegroups.com, Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:43:03, snidely
posted:

On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after
Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more
existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the
ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with
all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch
escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress.

So what about Dragon?

Dragon is in the future.

The paragraph quoted refers to the past. Mercury took about 3.5 years
from project approval to manned orbit. With the knowledge gained from
building Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and parts of Shuttle, and with what
had been learned about Soyuz, and from building unmanned vehicles it
should have been possible to get something usable on a couple of years,
by designing something simple and solid with plenty of mass margin.

Dragon would then be its successor.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Na rijp beraad schreef Dr J R Stockton :
In sci.space.station message bbda219e-d243-494c-9fb7-d41f78b1dd17@o2g20
00vbh.googlegroups.com, Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:43:03, snidely
posted:

On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after
Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more
existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the
ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with
all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch
escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress.

So what about Dragon?

Dragon is in the future.

The paragraph quoted refers to the past. Mercury took about 3.5 years
from project approval to manned orbit. With the knowledge gained from
building Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and parts of Shuttle, and with what
had been learned about Soyuz, and from building unmanned vehicles it
should have been possible to get something usable on a couple of years,
by designing something simple and solid with plenty of mass margin.

Dragon would then be its successor.

the difference with Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle is the amount
of funding.
For Orion/Ares I, the designers investigated how the Apollo command-
and service modules were mated (how all the connections were made).
They had a look at a (then) flight ready Apollo C/SM on display.

On Nov 17, 1:22*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.space.station message bbda219e-d243-494c-9fb7-d41f78b1dd17@o2g20
00vbh.googlegroups.com, Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:43:03, snidely
posted:

On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after
Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more
existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the
ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with
all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch
escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress.

So what about Dragon?

Dragon is in the future.

The paragraph quoted refers to the past. *Mercury took about 3.5 years
from project approval to manned orbit. *With the knowledge gained from
building Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and parts of Shuttle, and with what
had been learned about Soyuz, and from building unmanned vehicles it
should have been possible to get something usable on a couple of years,
by designing something simple and solid with plenty of mass margin.

Dragon would then be its successor.

Well, we're about 3.5 years (or more) into the design of Dragon. And
it may launch before the end of this calendar year. Which is a lot
sooner than anything from NASA's shuttle-derived proposals will
launch.

NASA was thinking ACRV then OSP in 2002, before lurching in other
directions. I'm not sure that they had any design teams to spare for
capsule development at that time.

/dps

In sci.space.station message 454502aa-118f-4c4d-aec1-6a2186f318a1@f20g2
000yqi.googlegroups.com, Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:08:12, snidely
posted:

On Nov 17, 1:22*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.space.station message bbda219e-d243-494c-9fb7-d41f78b1dd17@o2g20
00vbh.googlegroups.com, Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:43:03, snidely
posted:

On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after
Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more
existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the
ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with
all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch
escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress.

So what about Dragon?

Dragon is in the future.

The paragraph quoted refers to the past. *Mercury took about 3.5 years
from project approval to manned orbit. *With the knowledge gained from
building Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and parts of Shuttle, and with what
had been learned about Soyuz, and from building unmanned vehicles it
should have been possible to get something usable on a couple of years,
by designing something simple and solid with plenty of mass margin.

Dragon would then be its successor.

Well, we're about 3.5 years (or more) into the design of Dragon. And
it may launch before the end of this calendar year. Which is a lot
sooner than anything from NASA's shuttle-derived proposals will
launch.

And from a smaller organisation lacking 50 years of corporate experience
(which no doubt helped).

NASA needs to concentrate on what it can currently produce quickly and
reliably, rather than on taking Great Leaps Forward which might work in
a decade. It needs, to get funding, to be doing things which promise
visible results within the current Administration or before the next
election.

NASA was thinking ACRV then OSP in 2002, before lurching in other
directions. I'm not sure that they had any design teams to spare for
capsule development at that time.

No doubt, in 2002. But the picture changed rather suddenly on
2003-02-01.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

On Nov 21, 3:40*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.space.station message 454502aa-118f-4c4d-aec1-6a2186f318a1@f20g2
000yqi.googlegroups.com, Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:08:12, snidely
posted:



On Nov 17, 1:22*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.space.station message bbda219e-d243-494c-9fb7-d41f78b1dd17@o2g20
00vbh.googlegroups.com, Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:43:03, snidely
posted:

On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after
Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more
existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the
ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with
all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch
escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress.

So what about Dragon?

Dragon is in the future.

The paragraph quoted refers to the past. *Mercury took about 3.5 years
from project approval to manned orbit. *With the knowledge gained from
building Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and parts of Shuttle, and with what
had been learned about Soyuz, and from building unmanned vehicles it
should have been possible to get something usable on a couple of years,
by designing something simple and solid with plenty of mass margin.

Dragon would then be its successor.

Well, we're about 3.5 years (or more) into the design of Dragon. *And
it may launch before the end of this calendar year. *Which is a lot
sooner than anything from NASA's shuttle-derived proposals will
launch.

And from a smaller organisation lacking 50 years of corporate experience
(which no doubt helped).

NASA needs to concentrate on what it can currently produce quickly and
reliably, rather than on taking Great Leaps Forward which might work in
a decade. *It needs, to get funding, to be doing things which promise
visible results within the current Administration or before the next
election.

NASA was thinking ACRV then OSP in 2002, before lurching in other
directions. *I'm not sure that they had any design teams to spare for
capsule development at that time.

No doubt, in 2002. *But the picture changed rather suddenly on
2003-02-01.

And that's how CEV bubbled to the top, isn't it?

/dps