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

CRS-11 is on its way



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 7th 17, 11:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default CRS-11 is on its way

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-06-07 06:20, Jeff Findley wrote:

No, this is not correct. The Dragon "trunk" does not have any
propulsion systems. As many systems as possible are packed *inside* the
Dragon reentry capsule to be reused on subsequent flights, like this one
(CRS-11 is reusing the capsule from CRS-4).


Does this mean fuel tanks are also in the Dragon and not in the trunk?


What small fuel tanks there are, yes, although I think they've
switched over from the 90 lb thrust Draco hypergolic engines to cold
gas for OMS engines.


I guess my thoughts were tainted by Soyuz and Apollo that had mosts of
their systems in the module.


Apollo had a Service Module. Dragon does not. The trunk is not just
another name for a Service Module. It has a different name because it
is a different thing.

Note that Orion has a Service Module and not a trunk. Manned Dragon,
on the other hand, has a trunk like the cargo variant. Orion has a
longer manned duration than Dragon V2 (21.1 days vs 7 days) but Dragon
V2 carries a larger crew. It works out to 84.4 man-days for Orion vs
49 man-days for Dragon V2, although presumably support equipment could
be added in the trunk to increase flight durations. Either vehicle
will need an attached hab module for any long duration missions (both
have a docking port). Both would presumably stay attached to a high
energy upper stage for long range missions, although both have their
own propulsion systems. The Orion Service Module includes a 6,000 lb
thrust engine with enough fuel for around 1800 m/s delta-v. The eight
Super Draco engines built into the Dragon V2 are capable of delivering
more than 100,000 lbs of thrust but only around 400 m/s of delta-v due
to not carrying much fuel; there's only enough for around a 25 second
burn. Given that the fuel tanks are built into the Dragon, I don't
think it would be easy to increase that.


So when Dragon needs to accelerate forward, wouldn't engines on Dragon
throw hot gases at the solar arrays atached to the trunk ?


A child could do a design where that doesn't happen.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #12  
Old June 8th 17, 11:38 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default CRS-11 is on its way

In article om,
says...

On 2017-06-07 06:20, Jeff Findley wrote:

No, this is not correct. The Dragon "trunk" does not have any
propulsion systems. As many systems as possible are packed *inside* the
Dragon reentry capsule to be reused on subsequent flights, like this one
(CRS-11 is reusing the capsule from CRS-4).


Does this mean fuel tanks are also in the Dragon and not in the trunk?


Absolutely. Again the "trunk" is a big empty metal can intended to hold
external payloads.

I guess my thoughts were tainted by Soyuz and Apollo that had mosts of
their systems in the module.


Yes, SpaceX is doing things differently precisely because they planed to
reuse Dragons from the beginning. Throwing away even half your
spacecraft on every flight is daft.

So when Dragon needs to accelerate forward, wouldn't engines on Dragon
throw hot gases at the solar arrays atached to the trunk ?


No, they're angled away from the arrays and the trunk. It's less
efficient than "straight line" thrusting, but again, the goal is to
reuse Dragon, so some inefficiency in the engine placement is allowed.
This is opposed to the "performance uber alles" philosophy of the
Apollo/Soyuz design days where "steely eyed missile men" designed the
things.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #13  
Old June 9th 17, 06:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default CRS-11 is on its way

On 6/4/2017 1:42 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-06-03 18:46, Jeff Findley wrote:
SpaceX just launched CRS-11 on its way to the ISS and it looks to have
been a successful launch and a successful landing of the first stage at
LZ-1 (spot on the center of the pad).


It's quite a waste to return stage 1 without any payload. I say SpaceX
should sell "Virgin Galactic" style joy rides on stage 1 :-)


No thanks. I like my cookies eaten, not tossed, pitched, fried or
diced... Just ask cowboy Bob... :-)


Dave


  #14  
Old June 9th 17, 06:28 AM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default CRS-11 is on its way

On 6/9/2017 1:24 AM, David Spain wrote:
On 6/4/2017 1:42 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-06-03 18:46, Jeff Findley wrote:
SpaceX just launched CRS-11 on its way to the ISS and it looks to have
been a successful launch and a successful landing of the first stage at
LZ-1 (spot on the center of the pad).


It's quite a waste to return stage 1 without any payload. I say SpaceX
should sell "Virgin Galactic" style joy rides on stage 1 :-)


No thanks. I like my cookies eaten, not tossed, pitched, fried or
diced... Just ask cowboy Bob... :-)


Dave



https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/assets/1916727/cowboyspacex.jpg
 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 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.