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

All New For NASA



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 31st 18, 07:59 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default All New For NASA

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote on Thu,
30 Aug 2018 22:02:42 -0400:

"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...

On 2018-08-30 07:10, Jeff Findley wrote:

That's my understanding. Conversion to cargo configuration will involve
taking out the seats, crew consoles, life support, and etc. Essentially
it means unbolting, unplugging, and removing components that simply
aren't needed.


And adding the structural supports for cargo. (aka glorified
shelves/racks or whatever).

However, if the insides of the Dragon are re-usable easily and not
damaged by a flight/landing, why go through the trouble of changing in
inside config from a crewed one proven to work to a cargo one ?

It isn't just the "bolted on" consoles, but also all wiring harnesses.

I wonder if Musk/SpaceX will ever explain what arguments were used to
decide that crewed shouldn't be re-usable as crewed.


NASA is always conservative (other than crewed STS-1 :-)

So my guess is it ultimately came down to: "because we said so" and
everything else was justification for that.

And my guess is after 3-4 flights, NASA will relent and go with a
refurbished crew capsule.


This was apparently a SpaceX decision and not driven by NASA. NASA
offered both SpaceX and Boeing the option of reflying capsules. Boeing
plans to do so, flying each crew capsule up to ten times. SpaceX
decided not to do that for their own internal reasons. The Boeing
capsule is going to land on land while SpaceX is going in the water.
That difference in refitting costs may be the difference, although
SpaceX plans to refly Crew Dragons as cargo carriers after their
single manned flight.


--
"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 August 31st 18, 11:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default All New For NASA

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Thu, 30 Aug 2018
07:10:56 -0400:

That's my understanding. Conversion to cargo configuration will involve
taking out the seats, crew consoles, life support, and etc. Essentially
it means unbolting, unplugging, and removing components that simply
aren't needed.


That's essentially correct. There are also some additions (like
addition of cargo racks, both pressurized and unpressurized). It
apparently looks like this:

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-no-...modifications/

Nide slide. A few more details there than my terse description.

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 August 31st 18, 04:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default All New For NASA



"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote on Thu,
30 Aug 2018 22:02:42 -0400:

"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...

On 2018-08-30 07:10, Jeff Findley wrote:

That's my understanding. Conversion to cargo configuration will involve
taking out the seats, crew consoles, life support, and etc. Essentially
it means unbolting, unplugging, and removing components that simply
aren't needed.


And adding the structural supports for cargo. (aka glorified
shelves/racks or whatever).

However, if the insides of the Dragon are re-usable easily and not
damaged by a flight/landing, why go through the trouble of changing in
inside config from a crewed one proven to work to a cargo one ?

It isn't just the "bolted on" consoles, but also all wiring harnesses.

I wonder if Musk/SpaceX will ever explain what arguments were used to
decide that crewed shouldn't be re-usable as crewed.


NASA is always conservative (other than crewed STS-1 :-)

So my guess is it ultimately came down to: "because we said so" and
everything else was justification for that.

And my guess is after 3-4 flights, NASA will relent and go with a
refurbished crew capsule.


This was apparently a SpaceX decision and not driven by NASA. NASA
offered both SpaceX and Boeing the option of reflying capsules. Boeing
plans to do so, flying each crew capsule up to ten times. SpaceX
decided not to do that for their own internal reasons. The Boeing
capsule is going to land on land while SpaceX is going in the water.
That difference in refitting costs may be the difference, although
SpaceX plans to refly Crew Dragons as cargo carriers after their
single manned flight.


--
"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

  #14  
Old August 31st 18, 04:37 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default All New For NASA

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote on Thu,
30 Aug 2018 22:02:42 -0400:

"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...

On 2018-08-30 07:10, Jeff Findley wrote:

That's my understanding. Conversion to cargo configuration will
involve
taking out the seats, crew consoles, life support, and etc.
Essentially
it means unbolting, unplugging, and removing components that simply
aren't needed.

And adding the structural supports for cargo. (aka glorified
shelves/racks or whatever).

However, if the insides of the Dragon are re-usable easily and not
damaged by a flight/landing, why go through the trouble of changing in
inside config from a crewed one proven to work to a cargo one ?

It isn't just the "bolted on" consoles, but also all wiring harnesses.

I wonder if Musk/SpaceX will ever explain what arguments were used to
decide that crewed shouldn't be re-usable as crewed.


NASA is always conservative (other than crewed STS-1 :-)

So my guess is it ultimately came down to: "because we said so" and
everything else was justification for that.

And my guess is after 3-4 flights, NASA will relent and go with a
refurbished crew capsule.


This was apparently a SpaceX decision and not driven by NASA. NASA
offered both SpaceX and Boeing the option of reflying capsules. Boeing
plans to do so, flying each crew capsule up to ten times. SpaceX
decided not to do that for their own internal reasons. The Boeing
capsule is going to land on land while SpaceX is going in the water.
That difference in refitting costs may be the difference, although
SpaceX plans to refly Crew Dragons as cargo carriers after their
single manned flight.



Huh... I had only seen comments about NASA pushing it. I'm a bit surprised
it's a SpaceX decision.

Then again, right now I think the current contract only calls for 6 flights
by each company, and SpaceX probably wants to iterate through some design
stuff as they go, so building 6 crewed capsules gives them more experience
than building just one and flying it 6 times (or more likely 2, so they'd
have a backup). And if something DOES go wrong, they can just incorporate
the fix into the next capsule, not have to rebuild the existing one.

That said, I do expect a future contract and I can see them reflying then.
And I do expect a Bigelow Hotel or similar in the next 5+ years.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #15  
Old September 1st 18, 11:59 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Anthony Frost
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default All New For NASA

In message
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...


This was apparently a SpaceX decision and not driven by NASA.


Huh... I had only seen comments about NASA pushing it. I'm a bit surprised
it's a SpaceX decision.


I've been wondering if it's driven by the costs of NASA oversight? We
already know NASA flights are charged about 50% more than commercial,
and one of the stated reasons for SpaceX increasing the price of future
CRS missions is them having underestimated the additional costs for NASA
work. First stage re-uses for NASA have always had both flights being
for NASA, never commercial-NASA. Maybe refurb with NASA inspectors
looking over everyones shoulder (currently) pushes the time and cost
over the point where it's worthwhile.

Anthony

  #16  
Old September 1st 18, 01:11 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default All New For NASA

Anthony Frost wrote on Sat, 01 Sep 2018 11:59:32
+0100:

In message
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...


This was apparently a SpaceX decision and not driven by NASA.


Huh... I had only seen comments about NASA pushing it. I'm a bit surprised
it's a SpaceX decision.


I've been wondering if it's driven by the costs of NASA oversight? We
already know NASA flights are charged about 50% more than commercial,
and one of the stated reasons for SpaceX increasing the price of future
CRS missions is them having underestimated the additional costs for NASA
work. First stage re-uses for NASA have always had both flights being
for NASA, never commercial-NASA. Maybe refurb with NASA inspectors
looking over everyones shoulder (currently) pushes the time and cost
over the point where it's worthwhile.


Anything is possible, but SpaceX *IS* going to refly these capsules.
They're just going to refly them as cargo carriers. So they're still
going to have to do NASA-style refurbishment.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
  #17  
Old September 1st 18, 10:06 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default All New For NASA

JF Mezei wrote on Sat, 1 Sep 2018
11:33:31 -0400:

On 2018-09-01 08:11, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Anything is possible, but SpaceX *IS* going to refly these capsules.
They're just going to refly them as cargo carriers. So they're still
going to have to do NASA-style refurbishment.


Looking at crewed flights, would the cost of certifying a just landed
Dragon 2 (crew) exceed the cost of certifying a brank spanking new one ?


So you're just going to ignore construction costs?


Would it be correct to state that so far, a Dragon 1 have only been
reflown once in their lifetime?


True, but they've only been launching previously flown Dragons for
about a year, so how many times would you expect one to be reflown?


If, for watever reason, SpaceX is only comfortable with re-using them
once, then it means that it still needs to have an active production line.


You're leaping to an unwarranted conclusion. Since they've only be
reflying capsules for a little over a year and it looks like it takes
4-6 months to refurbish and check them out, there hasn't been enough
time for them to be reflying much (they've only done it three times,
total).


(it could also be a case of the cost of refurbishing the heat shield
after X used being higher than the cost of building new shell.)


There's no need to 'refurbish' the heat shield.


There are a lot of variables/possibilities and unless SpaceX provides
insight on why it reached decision to use new Dragons for crewed and
recycle them to cargo for subsequent flights, we can only speculate.


There are even more variables/possibilities when you pull them out of
your ass based upon absolutely nothing.


--
"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
 




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
NASA - NASA Aids in Resolving Long Standing Solar Cycle Mystery Nick UK Astronomy 0 March 6th 06 08:01 PM
NASA - NASA Media Teleconference Announces Solar Cycle Discovery Nick UK Astronomy 0 March 3rd 06 10:18 AM
On NASA TV - Old NASA progress report promo film in *incredible* shape! OM History 5 July 21st 04 02:39 PM
BBCi/space forum is moderated by NASA or by their external NASA Borgs Brad Guth History 3 August 6th 03 09:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:35 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.