SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

Rick Jones writes:

In sci.space.history Jochem Huhmann wrote:
I think Dragon is in a more advanced state of development than CST or
Orion... at least they already have a prototype in orbit.

Isn't that overstating it a bit? The Dragon that sat on top of F9
Flight 1 wasn't all that far removed from boiler-plate - I don't think
it had much in the way of any systems in it, it was mostly just mass
and shape. Perhaps "instrumented mock-up."

And where are the instrumented mock-ups of CST and Orion in orbit? Is
there an unmanned version of CST or Orion about to be launched within a
year?



Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

In sci.space.policy Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Rick Jones writes:
In sci.space.history Jochem Huhmann wrote:
I think Dragon is in a more advanced state of development than CST or
Orion... at least they already have a prototype in orbit.

Isn't that overstating it a bit? The Dragon that sat on top of F9
Flight 1 wasn't all that far removed from boiler-plate - I don't think
it had much in the way of any systems in it, it was mostly just mass
and shape. Perhaps "instrumented mock-up."

And where are the instrumented mock-ups of CST and Orion in orbit? Is
there an unmanned version of CST or Orion about to be launched within a
year?

My assertion of overstatement was with regards to calling it a
prototype, not relative to any other capsule.

rick jones
--
portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Rick Jones writes:

In sci.space.policy Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Rick Jones writes:
In sci.space.history Jochem Huhmann wrote:
I think Dragon is in a more advanced state of development than CST or
Orion... at least they already have a prototype in orbit.

Isn't that overstating it a bit? The Dragon that sat on top of F9
Flight 1 wasn't all that far removed from boiler-plate - I don't think
it had much in the way of any systems in it, it was mostly just mass
and shape. Perhaps "instrumented mock-up."

And where are the instrumented mock-ups of CST and Orion in orbit? Is
there an unmanned version of CST or Orion about to be launched within a
year?

My assertion of overstatement was with regards to calling it a
prototype, not relative to any other capsule.

OK, I concede. "Prototype" surely is overstated for what they launched.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On 8/2/2010 3:13 PM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:

My assertion of overstatement was with regards to calling it a
prototype, not relative to any other capsule.

OK, I concede. "Prototype" surely is overstated for what they launched.

What they launched was their structural mock-up Dragon capsule; it was a
lot closer to a operational Dragon than anything that went up on the
Ares I-X test was to a Orion, despite lacking a heatshield and
operational RCS.
Their second test will have both of those.
They also put the mock-up into orbit on the first booster test flight -
which had two live stages; the Ares I-Y test with the two live stages
wasn't scheduled till 2014...and even then NASA said there wasn't time
to get the second stage engine ready:
http://www.universetoday.com/44203/n...y-test-flight/
So I'd say SpaceX is well in the lead on this one.
With luck, their Falcon 9/Dragon combo could be delivering crew or cargo
to the ISS before NASA even gets their booster flying into orbit.

Pat

In sci.space.history message
, Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:54:36, Damon Hill
posted:

Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...20Propulsion%2
0small.pptx


If you enclose URLs as .... then, even though your posting system
splits them, most mail readers will recognise them as a whole.

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...X%20Propulsion
%20small.pptx

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (RFCs 5536/7)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (RFCs 5536/7)

In sci.space.history message , Mon, 2 Aug
2010 15:51:07, Jochem Huhmann posted:


I think Dragon is in a more advanced state of development than CST or
Orion... at least they already have a prototype in orbit.

Has Dragon yet been tested, on the ground, as a manned habitat for
several days?

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

In article , damon1SIX1
@comcast.netnet says...

Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...20Propulsion%2
0small.pptx

I wish them luck, but they'll have challenges. The F-1 development
program was filled with engineering challenges, despite the fact that in
many ways it was just a scaled up version of previous LOX/kerosene
engines.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On 8/3/2010 7:36 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

I wish them luck, but they'll have challenges. The F-1 development
program was filled with engineering challenges, despite the fact that in
many ways it was just a scaled up version of previous LOX/kerosene
engines.

That may be the problem; Lox/kerosene engine designs don't scale up
well, as the Soviets found out with their failed RD-105 engine design;
which was based on scaling up the V-2 Lox/alcohol engine technology:
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd105.htm
A photo of it he
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/...nes/RD-105.jpg
When the very long combustion chamber shows up, it's a sure sign
something isn't working right in the combustion process.
Glushko foolishly promised Stalin that it would be easy and quick to
develop, and got into real hot water when it flopped.

Pat

On 4/08/2010 1:36 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

I wish them luck, but they'll have challenges. The F-1 development
program was filled with engineering challenges, despite the fact that in
many ways it was just a scaled up version of previous LOX/kerosene
engines.

Jeff

There may have been engineering challenges in the '50's, but technology
and construction techniques have improved significantly since then.

On 4/08/2010 11:40 PM, George Orwell wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
ond.com...

There may have been engineering challenges in the '50's, but technology
and construction techniques have improved significantly since then.

I'd beg to differ. Sure we have fancy computers, but fundamentally the
craft of engine design is still the same. Materials haven't improved a
great deal either in the last 50 years or only incrementally. I'd even
dare postulate that with computer simulations engine design takes
longer, since these only give indications, but their resolution still
isn't high enough to truly simulate combustion. It took Rocketdyne
engineers only 4 or 5 years to design and build the F-1 engine,
including solving the combustion instabillity problems. How long has
J2X development taken, a minor upgrade of an old workhorse? Three years
so far with probably a few more before these things roll of the
production line.


Problem with the J-2x is it's so out-of-date. It's using systems that
haven't been in operation for 40ish years. For that reason, everything
had to be built from scratch and people trained to build STS/Delta/Atlas
engines had to re-learn what their fathers had done.

As for solving the F-1 engine problems, sure, they did a great job, but
lessons have been learned because of the problems they faced. So, while
you may be right about technology not improving too much (altough I
disagree), the lessons learned from earlier engines can only make design
of newer engines easier/faster/more economical. It's called
"experience" and is probably the best teacher of all - f#$@ck it up a
few times and learn from mistakes. In aviation design, it's known as
TLAR - That Looks About Right.

I feel design has improved greatly - engines are more efficient and more
reliable (yes, I know the F-1 never failed, but it only flew 5x12 times
[12 launches, each with five engines], so it's not really a good example
of reliability).

The main reason designs take longer to get into production is lack of
funding during the design process. If all aerospace programs had the
budget of Apollo, we'd have Moon and Mars bases and be reading of
second-generation crews for those bases ("dad was one of the first crews
to stay here on Mars..."), but that just isn't the case. Constellation
was going to cost on the order of $200 billion - about as much as Apollo
cost with inflation - yet Constellation used largely existing facilities
and well-trained people - facilities from Apollo and people from STS;
advantages that Apollo didn't have.

But, SpaceX are doing all this with only ~1,000 people and very limited
funds; almost none of which is from the Government. That's an
extraordinary achievement and they should be congratulated for what
they've done so far.

Take a look at budgets (financial, personnel and facilities) of
like-kind - compare Falcon 1/1e to, say, Thor (IRBM that lead to the
Delta series of LV's) and Falcon 9 with the Saturn I/1b. SpaceX have
done a fantastic job so far. If they feel they can do better and build
larger, more capable LV's, I'd be willing to bet money on that
happening. As for timelines, that might be a different thing, but I'd
bet money on a Falcon 9Heavy within five years (Delta IV series is three
times more expensive than the Falcon 9, so why would the U.S. government
continue to use it?).