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)

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

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. |

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

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.

On 10 Feb 2007 23:57:33 -0800, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

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.

Who says their only purpose is escape?

Any manned spacecraft that *doesn't* suffer a critical failure during
launch, is going to require additional propulsion for e.g. circularization
and eventual deorbit. The delta-V requirements for these are comparable
to the delta-V requirements for launch escape, and there's no reason you
can't use the same propulsion system for both.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On Feb 10, 6:07 pm, (Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article .com,


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


Yes I remember the plans for Gemini & Gemini B to use that method,
(and or ejection seats at lower speeds). Remember John Young Said,
(When he observed a failed Gemini ejection test), "If the door fails
to open when You pull the handle, It will be a hell of a headache,
(But a very short one)". I was just wondering what Lockheed & Space X,
plan. As for Space X building the Dragon, (I would look for it to be
test flown in less than (2) years). As for Lockheed, (It is safe to
say that the comm. cap. for the Atlas V will fly sooner than the CEV).
As for the Russians, (The tech base is solid, (Thanks to Clinton/U.S.
Tax Dollars, saving them)). I would look for them to continue to
retrofit, and reconfig Soyuz, for many moons to come. As for the China
theft program, (Look for it to cont. unhindered as long as the Happy
Meal toys keep shipping). Am I The only one who sees another Boxer
Reb. building there? I would not be concerned with our ability to
design, or construct, space craft in the good old USA. I would be more
concerned about a do nothing congress, and or, B. A. or H.C. getting
into the whitehouse. You think We are screwed up now, (What a
nightmare village that would be, for any ongoing design/build U.S.
space projects).

I think India will be the folks to watch, (They are dev. it all on a
shoestring, and with home grown tech.). I admire the way the handled
the Russians giving them the finger on the upper geo. kick stage
project. They just went home and did the R & D.

We are so busy watching how fast corn goes thru our bodies, that the
race may be lost soon. Is there a third choice to put in power next
round, (Good I hope the light at the end of the funding tunnel, ain't
a gorilla with a flashlight).

Carl

"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

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?

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. |