SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

On Oct 8, 8:26*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Oct 7, 7:46*am, Alan Erskine wrote:





On 6/10/2010 6:44 PM, Robert Clark wrote:

On Oct 4, 8:00 pm, Alan *wrote:
On 5/10/2010 4:53 AM, Robert Clark wrote:

* *The Orion spacecraft and Altair lunar lander intended for a manned
Moon mission are large craft that would require a heavy lift launcher
for the trip. However the Dragon spacecraft is a smaller capsule that
would allow lunar missions with currently existing launchers.
The idea for this use would be for it to act as a reusable shuttle
only between LEO and the lunar surface. This page gives the dry mass
of the Dragon capsule of 3,180 kg:

Not that much smaller and not that much lighter - Orion's CM was/is only
about 4.5 tonnes - it's the SM with all the propellant that makes it
heavy, and Dragon's only got to return from LEO, so it's much less
propellant-hungry than a Lunar mission (LOI, Earth return etc).

* Do have a ref for that? This page gives the mass of the capsule as
9,500 kg:

Orion (spacecraft).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29

* Bob Clark

This page tells mohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon-With
a payload of 6 tonnes, the total "CM" mass is 10.2 tonnes; so it's
heavier than Orion.

*This is actually the fully loaded mass. Remember the Dragon is to be
used both for crew transport and for cargo transport. The max 6 tonnes
payload mentioned is for when it used for cargo transport. Of course
it doesn't have to carry any cargo besides, crew provisions, when used
for manned flights.

That's because the crew IS the cargo in that configuration along with
their provisions as well as their other gear. I'm a bit skeptical
about this comparison since it neglects the amount of structure
required to keep the crew safe from radiation while going through the
Van Allen Radiation Belt as well as through deep space to the Moon,
and for the duration the capsule is in orbit. Also how much of an
increase in size will the service module on a Dragon need to
accomadate fuel and supplies for the greater duration as well as the
Lunar braking manuever, and the burn to get back to Earth. How much
bigger of an engine for these manuevers?

Is Musk's hype about the Dragon heat shield correct, or will that need
additional material as well?

How much extra mass will the launch escape system add? If the Centuar
is to be reusable, how much extra mass to the structure does that add?
Your recovery scenario glosses over this aspect, including recovery
methods.
-Mike

On 10/15/2010 3:04 PM, Mike DiCenso wrote:

That's because the crew IS the cargo in that configuration along with
their provisions as well as their other gear. I'm a bit skeptical
about this comparison since it neglects the amount of structure
required to keep the crew safe from radiation while going through the
Van Allen Radiation Belt as well as through deep space to the Moon,
and for the duration the capsule is in orbit.

That might be workable; the Apollo CM's hull was thick enough to provide
adequate radiation protection while passing through the radiation belts,
due to speed of the passage at the injection speed for TLI and the
structural strength needed for ascent g's and those experienced during
reentry.
At least in the Constellation plan where the Orion stayed unmanned in
lunar orbit while the Altair carried the crew to the surface for a
month-long stay*, the trick was making the very lightweight Altair have
a reasonable amount of radiation protection if there was a solar storm
while it was on the surface.

*As to what the Altair's crew was going to be doing during the two weeks
of lunar night is anyone's guess. I imagine you could take the rovers
out with headlights on them, but considering that light doesn't get
diffused in a vacuum, that sounds like a really good way to drive over
the edge of a 10' cliff that you thought was a minor dip in the terrain. :-D

Pat

On Oct 16, 1:32*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 10/15/2010 3:04 PM, Mike DiCenso wrote:

That's because the crew IS the cargo in that configuration along with
their provisions as well as their other gear. I'm a bit skeptical
about this comparison since it neglects the amount of structure
required to keep the crew safe from radiation while going through the
Van Allen Radiation Belt as well as through deep space to the Moon,
and for the duration the capsule is in orbit.

That might be workable; the Apollo CM's hull was thick enough to provide
adequate radiation protection while passing through the radiation belts,
due to speed of the passage at the injection speed for TLI and the
structural strength needed for ascent g's and those experienced during
reentry.
At least in the Constellation plan where the Orion stayed unmanned in
lunar orbit while the Altair carried the crew to the surface for a
month-long stay*, the trick was making the very lightweight Altair have
a reasonable amount of radiation protection if there was a solar storm
while it was on the surface.

*As to what the Altair's crew was going to be doing during the two weeks
of lunar night is anyone's guess. I imagine you could take the rovers
out with headlights on them, but considering that light doesn't get
diffused in a vacuum, that sounds like a really good way to drive over
the edge of a 10' cliff that you thought was a minor dip in the terrain. :-D


In regards to the Dragon being able to perform BEO missions, Elon
Musk, and I presume the SpaceX engineers, believe it can. Elon
mentioned the success of the heat shield on the Dragon reentry about 8
and 1/2 minutes into Wednesday's post flight press conference. He said
the Dragon heat shield was designed to survive even worst case Mars
and lunar return trajectories, and from the performance during the
flight SpaceX is confident it could be used for that purpose. He then
said this opens up possibilities for the Dragon as a potential
replacement for the Orion capsule, presumably for circumlunar
missions:

NASA and SpaceX Press Conference After Falcon 9 Launch with Dragon
Aboard Part 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9MaFqZUQkE

In this portion of the post flight conference about 4 minutes in, in
response to a question Elon says anything the Orion spacecraft can do
the Dragon can do and actually more since the Dragon heat shield is
sufficient for even Mars return trajectories. And therefore he says
for any missions being considered by NASA for the Orion capsule, the
Dragon capsule should also be considered:

NASA and SpaceX Press Conference After Falcon 9 Launch with Dragon
Aboard Part 4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfj-k_Irpc


Bob Clark

On Dec 12, 4:37*am, Robert Clark wrote:
....

*In regards to the Dragon being able to perform BEO missions, Elon
Musk, and I presume the SpaceX engineers, believe it can. Elon
mentioned the success of the heat shield on the Dragon reentry about 8
and 1/2 minutes into Wednesday's post flight press conference. He said
the Dragon heat shield was designed to survive even worst case Mars
and lunar return trajectories, and from the performance during the
flight SpaceX is confident it could be used for that purpose. He then
said this opens up possibilities for the Dragon as a potential
replacement for the Orion capsule, presumably for circumlunar
missions:

NASA and SpaceX Press Conference After Falcon 9 Launch with Dragon
Aboard Part 1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9MaFqZUQkE

*In this portion of the post flight conference about 4 minutes in, in
response to a question Elon says anything the Orion spacecraft can do
the Dragon can do and actually more since the Dragon heat shield is
sufficient for even Mars return trajectories. And therefore he says
for any missions being considered by NASA for the Orion capsule, the
Dragon capsule should also be considered:

NASA and SpaceX Press Conference After Falcon 9 Launch with Dragon
Aboard Part 4.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfj-k_Irpc


Another major consideration is the reduced development costs SpaceX
has been able to accomplish compared to the usual way of doing things.
In this part of the post flight news conference a questioner notes the
development cost for Falcon 9, which he implies includes that of the
Dragon, was in the range of $400 million, while for the Orion capsule,
over $4 billion:

NASA and SpaceX Press Conference After Falcon 9 Launch with Dragon
Aboard Part 4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfj-k_Irpc

The comparison might be a little unfair in that SpaceX has said it
might take an additional $300 million to man-rate the Falcon 9 and
Dragon capsule, mostly due to an escape system and flight tests.
But still even then your're talking about multiple times more in
development costs by the "old space" companies.


Bob Clark

On Dec 12, 4:45*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Dec 12, 4:37*am, Robert Clark wrote:
...







*In regards to the Dragon being able to perform BEO missions, Elon
Musk, and I presume the SpaceX engineers, believe it can. Elon
mentioned the success of the heat shield on the Dragon reentry about 8
and 1/2 minutes into Wednesday's post flight press conference. He said
the Dragon heat shield was designed to survive even worst case Mars
and lunar return trajectories, and from the performance during the
flight SpaceX is confident it could be used for that purpose. He then
said this opens up possibilities for the Dragon as a potential
replacement for the Orion capsule, presumably for circumlunar
missions:

NASA and SpaceX Press Conference After Falcon 9 Launch with Dragon
Aboard Part 1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9MaFqZUQkE

*In this portion of the post flight conference about 4 minutes in, in
response to a question Elon says anything the Orion spacecraft can do
the Dragon can do and actually more since the Dragon heat shield is
sufficient for even Mars return trajectories. And therefore he says
for any missions being considered by NASA for the Orion capsule, the
Dragon capsule should also be considered:

NASA and SpaceX Press Conference After Falcon 9 Launch with Dragon
Aboard Part 4.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfj-k_Irpc

Another major consideration is the reduced development costs SpaceX
has been able to accomplish compared to the usual way of doing things.
In this part of the post flight news conference a questioner notes the
development cost for Falcon 9, which he implies includes that of the
Dragon, was in the range of $400 million, while for the Orion capsule,
over $4 billion:

NASA and SpaceX Press Conference After Falcon 9 Launch with Dragon
Aboard Part 4.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfj-k_Irpc

The comparison might be a little unfair in that SpaceX has said it
might take an additional $300 million to man-rate the Falcon 9 and
Dragon capsule, mostly due to an escape system and flight tests.
But still even then your're talking about multiple times more in
development costs by the "old space" companies.

* Bob Clark- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

this makes nasa irrevelant, which is sad but perhaps necessary.

get nasa out of the way.........

wrote:

this makes nasa irrevelant, which is sad but perhaps necessary.

get nasa out of the way.........

Bob, I disagree; it doesn't make NASA irrelevant. But what it enables is a
different role for NASA. NASA can move into the roles of consulting and
facilitator more than a program office.

I'd dearly love to see the program office brought into the auspices of an NGO
dedicated to exploration. Much like the National Geographic Society, as
proposed by Rand Simberg in his blog. With NASA reverting to the traditional
NACA role of expertise and assistance. There are after all, enormous
infrastructure investments already in NASA, with facilities that remain unique
in the world and still relevant today.

The key to enabling all of this, of course, is getting the cost of space
flight down to within reach of private organizations. The jury is still out, IMHO.

Dave

On Dec 12, 8:27*am, " wrote:

this makes nasa irrevelant, which is sad but perhaps necessary.

You have never played videogames? There should be as many space
service providers as, say, radio stations or local bus lines, or even
internet domains! It is the way knowledge and capital tend to
accumulate when you start with a successful commercial-technological
base. You can see it in simulators, I mean, videogames (was the army
spending billions of budget into GAMES?). NASA can reaccomodate, but
who was the IMBECILE (60 IQ or less) who decided that all internet
content be given under DUMPING? I am a fan of space pictures I find
for free everywhere; even NASA can find a way to turn some *products*
into commercial ventures then act as compensation chamber/regulatory
body... though I still remember a recent magazine announcing a new
spatial venture with an engine development picture I remember from my
early childhood in the seventies! (Automatic debris collection,
anyone?)

Danilo J Bonsignore

On 12/13/2010 5:29 AM, David Spain wrote:
wrote:

this makes nasa irrevelant, which is sad but perhaps necessary.

get nasa out of the way.........

Bob, I disagree; it doesn't make NASA irrelevant. But what it enables is
a different role for NASA. NASA can move into the roles of consulting
and facilitator more than a program office.

Oh God, that's the last thing they need.
Yoyodyne Industries is interested in developing a new upper stage for
the Delta 4; and NASA sends them a consultant to help them out - the
consultant bears an uncanny resemblance to Groucho Marx:
"Are you our NASA consultant?"
"I don't know, who's asking? You aren't with any congressional
investigating committee, are you?"
"No."
"Then I'm your NASA consultant."
"Well, we sent you our basic concept outline, what did you think of it?"
"I thought it had some basic problems, like the fact it exists for
instance...shred all copies of it, and burn the remains."
"Why?"
"The whole thing must never be seen by the public! You have outrageous
and completely un-American concepts in that report! Why, if you do
things that way you could bankrupt the whole aerospace industry.
Children will starve because of what you have done...do you want that on
your conscience? Starving children crawling around on the floor, too
weak to stand up and drop dead like men? I think not!"
"Okay, what's wrong with it in detail?"
"I don't even know where to start...where are the multiple design
revisions?"
"What?"
"You must redesign it at least ten times before you even consider
building it, with each redesign correcting some flaw that somehow got
through the prior redesign, like in your case maybe forgetting to put
engines on the upper stage in the original design, or specifying that it
should be built using metric iron stove bolts in redesigns #2-8. Play
that right and you can make even the simplest things take years to build
and assure continued work for your design engineers.
We have a little shrine built to Space Station Freedom in this regard,
as by the time we had completed the last redesign, we had spent all the
money that was going to be used to actually build it. There were giants
in those days, designers of renown!"
"Well this concept is fairly straight-forward and uses off-the-shelf parts."
"You have damned yourself twice in that one sentence! Nothing is
straight-forward in rocketry! Do you remember how long it took us to get
the Shuttle's toilet to work right? And that was just a crapper, not an
upper stage. "Off-the-shelf parts" are a sure road to disaster, as they
are never optimized for the new design. Who cares if the development of
new parts cost 1,000 times as much as using existing parts if they up
performance by 1%? Even better is to modify off-the-shelf parts into
something completely unrecognizable, as this lets you claim you are
saving taxpayer money! Do you realize that the Shuttle SRB's are highly
modified Estes "D" engines? Or that its ET started out as a "slightly
enlarged" B-58 Hustler drop tank?
Don't even get me started on where the orbiter main engines came from,
let's just say that their ancestors powered many a racer in the Indy
500. With luck you can spend at least three times as much modifying
stock parts as you would building entirely new ones."
"The idea is to spend as much money as possible?"
"OF COURSE THE IDEA IS TO SPEND AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE! This is to be
sold to the government on a cost-plus basis! If it costs a hundred
million dollars to build it, and you get a 10% profit on it, that's only
ten million dollars - chicken feed! Children crawling around on the
floor trying to subsist on a diet of dust and dead cockroaches! But
now...if it cost, a _billion_ dollars to build, you are getting one
hundred million dollars! Now _that's_ the way to do business! The
stockholders are happy, the employees can feed their starving children
T-bone steaks, and you get a knock-out trophy wife and three Mistresses
on the side!"
"But it's designed to be more economical than the existing stage; that's
its selling point..."
"More economical or _cheaper_? Do you think the government wants some
sort of crappy upper stage like you would find at a Dollar Store?
No, they will be highly suspicious of anything that costs less than what
they are currently using. You must be creative in ways to up its costs
to what the government is expecting - why gold-plate things when you
could make them out of solid gold? Jeweled bearings on the turbopump
will make it run smoother, and if those jewels were diamonds, they would
be almost completely wear-free.
Even the initial bid should be only slightly less expensive and slightly
more capable than the existing competition, with the promise that by the
time it enters service it will cost around twice what was stated, be
years behind schedule, and not be able to do what was promised. Take a
look at that Lockheed F-35B program; that's the way you do it!"
"But, they'll just cancel it then."
"No, no, NO! They _can't_ cancel it! Because you were smart enough when
the government signed the contract for its design and manufacture to
make sure the government's penalty fee if they canceled it would be more
than the profits to be realized if it was actually put into service, and
you would make a net profit! Watch the movie "The Producers" sometime;
that's how you do it! This upper stage could be your very own
"Springtime for Hitler". You are that big marlin that has got the Old
Man Government's hook in its mouth, and is dragging him straight out to
sea! He doesn't dare cut and run, and by the time its all over it will
be him, not you, that gets fed to the sharks.
Now, that's the American Way!
I hope I've been of help...but there's one last secret I'm going to
confide to you."
"What, what?"
"There is nothing greater than having an "independent" analysis done of
your project by an outside group that will endorse its merits. Remember
how the Mathematica Study thought that the Space Shuttle was going to
cut launch costs?"
"Yes."
"Well, if you phrase the question to an independent analysis group
correctly, they will always come to the conclusion you want them to.
In the case of Mathematica it was casually mentioning that if they
didn't endorse NASA building the Shuttle, tens of thousands of NASA
employees would be out of work, and many of them were avid hunters who
owned high-powered rifles with telescopic sights on them.
It changed the whole equation." ;-)

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
On 12/13/2010 5:29 AM, David Spain wrote:
wrote:

this makes nasa irrevelant, which is sad but perhaps necessary.

get nasa out of the way.........

Bob, I disagree; it doesn't make NASA irrelevant. But what it enables is
a different role for NASA. NASA can move into the roles of consulting
and facilitator more than a program office.

Oh God, that's the last thing they need.
Yoyodyne Industries is interested in developing a new upper stage for
the Delta 4; and NASA sends them a consultant to help them out - the
consultant bears an uncanny resemblance to Groucho Marx:

....

:-D

Pat,

Whatever you are using, I want some....

;-)

Dave 'John YaYa' Spain