A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Space-X Dragon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 9th 07, 04:40 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Space-X Dragon

With all this talk about the CEV, I thought I'd try to drag the discussion
over to NASA COTS and ISS resupply.

The latest pictures on Space-X's web site of their Dragon capsule look
pretty good. I think the baseline CBM is a good thing. Here's their
highlights:

Dragon Highlights:
- Fully Autonomous with Manual Over-ride capability in crewed configuration
- Pressurized Cargo/Crew capacity of 3100 kg to ISS orbit
- Supports 7 passengers in Crew configuration
- Down-cargo capability (equal to up-cargo)
- Integral CBM, with LIDS or APAS support if required
- Designed for Water Landing under Parachute (Ocean Recovery)
- Lifting re-entry for landing precision & low-g's

With the integrated CBM, I'd think that the cargo version would be fairly
easy to deal with once it's been berthed to ISS.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)


  #2  
Old February 10th 07, 03:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy
surfduke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 312
Default Space-X Dragon

On Feb 9, 10:40 am, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
With all this talk about the CEV, I thought I'd try to drag the discussion
over to NASA COTS and ISS resupply.

The latest pictures on Space-X's web site of their Dragon capsule look
pretty good. I think the baseline CBM is a good thing. Here's their
highlights:

Dragon Highlights:
- Fully Autonomous with Manual Over-ride capability in crewed configuration
- Pressurized Cargo/Crew capacity of 3100 kg to ISS orbit
- Supports 7 passengers in Crew configuration
- Down-cargo capability (equal to up-cargo)
- Integral CBM, with LIDS or APAS support if required
- Designed for Water Landing under Parachute (Ocean Recovery)
- Lifting re-entry for landing precision & low-g's

With the integrated CBM, I'd think that the cargo version would be fairly
easy to deal with once it's been berthed to ISS.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)


This will be one to watch, (along with T-Space, & Lockheed). The
second Falcon test is to be done next month. The Capsule Lockheed
shows ontop of the Atlas V, has no Escape tower. Wonder what the crew
escape plan will be for it?

Carl

  #3  
Old February 10th 07, 07:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Guy Fawkes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Space-X Dragon


"Jeff Findley" schreef in bericht
...
With all this talk about the CEV, I thought I'd try to drag the discussion
over to NASA COTS and ISS resupply.


It's nice to have some computer generated pictures and list some nice
features, it's something entirely different to build a working spacecraft.
NASA is trying to do the latter.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #4  
Old February 10th 07, 10:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Alex Terrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 492
Default Space-X Dragon

On 10 Feb, 18:44, "Guy Fawkes"
wrote:
"Jeff Findley" schreef in . ..

With all this talk about the CEV, I thought I'd try to drag the discussion
over to NASA COTS and ISS resupply.


It's nice to have some computer generated pictures and list some nice
features, it's something entirely different to build a working spacecraft.
NASA is trying to do the latter.

How far are Spacex to go in the "demonstration"? Are they not also
building a working spacecraft.

Isn't there a risk that Dragon plus a Service Module could make Orion
redundant?

  #5  
Old February 11th 07, 12:05 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default Space-X Dragon

In article ,
Guy Fawkes wrote:
It's nice to have some computer generated pictures and list some nice
features, it's something entirely different to build a working spacecraft.
NASA is trying to do the latter.


Yes, and lately they haven't done too well at it -- their history in that
area has been an unbroken string of failures and canceled projects. These
days, they too specialize in computer-generated pictures and lists of nice
features. It's not clear that they *know* how to build working spacecraft
any more -- the guys who built Saturn and Apollo, and even the shuttle,
are gone now.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #6  
Old February 11th 07, 12:07 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default Space-X Dragon

In article .com,
surfduke wrote:
...The Capsule Lockheed
shows ontop of the Atlas V, has no Escape tower. Wonder what the crew
escape plan will be for it?


Escape rockets can be placed underneath; there's no law of nature that
says they have to be on top.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #7  
Old February 11th 07, 07:46 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan Goff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default Space-X Dragon

Henry,

Escape rockets can be placed underneath; there's no law of nature that
says they have to be on top.


And as you have pointed out previously, there are several laws of
nature that strongly suggest putting them on the bottom.

~Jon

  #8  
Old February 11th 07, 08:57 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alex Terrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 492
Default Space-X Dragon

On 11 Feb, 06:46, "Jonathan Goff" wrote:
Henry,

Escape rockets can be placed underneath; there's no law of nature that
says they have to be on top.


And as you have pointed out previously, there are several laws of
nature that strongly suggest putting them on the bottom.

Though getting rid of them after they've served their purpose is
slightly more difficult.

  #10  
Old February 11th 07, 09:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Guy Fawkes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Space-X Dragon


"Henry Spencer" schreef in bericht
...
In article ,
Guy Fawkes wrote:
It's nice to have some computer generated pictures and list some nice
features, it's something entirely different to build a working spacecraft.
NASA is trying to do the latter.


Yes, and lately they haven't done too well at it -- their history in that
area has been an unbroken string of failures and canceled projects. These
days, they too specialize in computer-generated pictures and lists of nice
features. It's not clear that they *know* how to build working spacecraft
any more -- the guys who built Saturn and Apollo, and even the shuttle,
are gone now.


No faith in the capabillities of today's engineers? I think you'll find that
they're just as capable as the ones who built Apollo and Saturn, if not more
so. And thanks to today's computer technology they'll be able to build
better designs, quicker and cheaper in less time and they'll have been
tested and simulated far more streneously than the ones in the Apollo days.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Twenty (20) Meter Sea Dragon Yachts Thomas Lee Elifritz Policy 0 June 11th 06 06:29 PM
APR Extra: Moderately gigantic drawing of Sea Dragon Scott Lowther History 119 April 22nd 05 12:50 AM
APR Extra: Moderately gigantic drawing of Sea Dragon Scott Lowther Policy 4 March 18th 05 12:34 AM
A 'Dragon' on the Surface of Titan Ron News 0 April 14th 04 07:27 PM
If that Sea Dragon thing was so good, how come it hasn't been proposedrecently? Clueless newbie Policy 4 November 6th 03 07:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.