SpaceX Readies First Dragon Spacecraft

[Moonwalker]

SpaceX is going to prepare the first fully operational Dragon spacecraft, which is currently scheduled to be launched in late September / early October:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/08/10/02.xml

And here we go for the first and successful Dragon high altitude drop test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1ZuxjvfSM

It's just amazing to finally see the USA returning to capsule design. And with all of the trouble inside and outside NASA, and with the amazing and flawless progress of SpaceX regarding Falcon 9 and Dragon, it is the most likeliest option for the USA to maintain manned acces to low earth orbit and to the ISS (and this inexpensive). By the way: the rate of descent at splash down is quite comfortable, i.e. about half as much as for the Apollo Command Module On the other hand, it rather hurts to see a private company being more successful on its plans than big old NASA these days...

SpaceX Updates:

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

[Andysim212]

Interesting.  Thanks for poinitng this out.  I agree the capsule looks great.

[Moonwalker]

Interesting.  Thanks for poinitng this out.  I agree the capsule looks great.

Yeah. Let's hope it also works great But it seems that those people from SpaceX know what they're doing. Considering that SpaceX has less than 1000 employees, this company is rather productive and successful for now, whilst the Falcon 9/Dragon program also is rather affordable.

I can't wait to see Dragon returning from space and splash down in the pacific ocean. It will be the first time since 1975 that a US space capsule would return from orbit and splash down

PS: If you wouldn't know that it's SpaceX, you would think it's NASA footage when watching the drop test.

[Tiberion]

I still don't know why we didn't just extend the shuttle thru 2015, one flight per year per Shuttle.  The whole shuttle stack is safer now than it's ever been, SRB's=redesigned, ET=redesigned, Shuttle=inspected, upgraded, and maintained better than any other piece of technology on the planet.  Only downside is the capes infrastructure, it needs some heavy cash poured in to upgrade it and keep pace with the corrosion that comes from being on the coast, not to mention 50+ years of rocket propellants, solvents, etc used everywhere.  Just my 2C.

[Admin]

I still don't know why we didn't just extend the shuttle thru 2015, one flight per year per Shuttle.  The whole shuttle stack is safer now than it's ever been, SRB's=redesigned, ET=redesigned, Shuttle=inspected, upgraded, and maintained better than any other piece of technology on the planet.  Only downside is the capes infrastructure, it needs some heavy cash poured in to upgrade it and keep pace with the corrosion that comes from being on the coast, not to mention 50+ years of rocket propellants, solvents, etc used everywhere.  Just my 2C.

As a result, the Shuttle today is 80% (that's EIGHTY FRACKING PERCENT) cheaper to operate than during its early days, and much lighter too, allowing for more cargo.

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

I still don't know why we didn't just extend the shuttle thru 2015, one flight per year per Shuttle.  The whole shuttle stack is safer now than it's ever been, SRB's=redesigned, ET=redesigned, Shuttle=inspected, upgraded, and maintained better than any other piece of technology on the planet.  Only downside is the capes infrastructure, it needs some heavy cash poured in to upgrade it and keep pace with the corrosion that comes from being on the coast, not to mention 50+ years of rocket propellants, solvents, etc used everywhere.  Just my 2C.

If one reads the post columbia accident investigation report, the Pomp and Circumstance on the program begins to blur. NASA's commitment to assemble the ISS by using the Shuttle really is the one and only reason that keeps the Shuttle still operational. Safety issues (with the OBSS, backflip maneuver, STS-400 etc. being an emergency solution) and operating costs gives a clear message.

I still don't know why we didn't just extend the shuttle thru 2015, one flight per year per Shuttle.  The whole shuttle stack is safer now than it's ever been, SRB's=redesigned, ET=redesigned, Shuttle=inspected, upgraded, and maintained better than any other piece of technology on the planet.  Only downside is the capes infrastructure, it needs some heavy cash poured in to upgrade it and keep pace with the corrosion that comes from being on the coast, not to mention 50+ years of rocket propellants, solvents, etc used everywhere.  Just my 2C.

As a result, the Shuttle today is 80% (that's EIGHTY FRACKING PERCENT) cheaper to operate than during its early days, and much lighter too, allowing for more cargo.

And accidentally the costs per kilogram still is eighty times the initially intended costs per kilogram (~16.000 USD instead of ~200 USD) The real costs of the Shuttle program never lowered only nearly to the expected costs, although it became cheaper by the time. But the average launch cost is an awesome 1.3 to 1.5 billion USD (which corresponds to about 20 Soyuz launches).

[Moonwalker]

To be back on topic: SpaceX successfully has performed a wet dress rehearsal at the cape in September, to prepare for Falcon 9 Demonstration Flight 2 which is scheduled for October 23:




The fully operational Dragon Spacecraft:






SpaceX Mission Control:




And how serious the business of SpaceX has become, can be seen by NASA astronauts visiting and discussing the SpaceX hardware, especially the new Dragon spacecraft.

Cady Coleman and Scott Kelly inside Dragon:




http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

[Admin]

Hmm...

That MCC looks very similar to our labs

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

Hmm...

That MCC looks very similar to our labs

/Admin

Do you also use beamers/such big screens for running SSM?

Just kidding. I really like that mission control room. If your labs look the same way, one could become envious

[Admin]

I was kidding of course. What I meant that we also use several networked Windows PCs and have a projector - LOL!

Frpm this point of view, there is no difference. AMOF, I suspect that some of our PCs are actually more powerful than what they have there, but then they don't need very powerful PCs anyway.

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

I was kidding of course. What I meant that we also use several networked Windows PCs and have a projector - LOL!

LOL

Frpm this point of view, there is no difference. AMOF, I suspect that some of our PCs are actually more powerful than what they have there, but then they don't need very powerful PCs anyway.

Indeed. Not to mention the computers and laptops at MCC Houston. They also use Windows btw. From what I have seen so far is Windows XP at Mission Control (you can see the taskbar on the big screens sometimes) and even Windows 2000 (or at least the standard Windows look), mostly on Laptops (on the IBM Thinkpads aboard the ISS as well I think). What makes NASA's mission control look more professional actually just is the big consoles which house the flat screens these days (and not that much electronics anymore). And of course they do need much more flat screens since they have much more complex systems to control, including the ISS.

The ISS control room which is the old Apollo control room (note the Windows XP tasbar on the center screen):

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-128/hires/jsc2009e156744.jpg

Windows 2000 aboard the ISS?

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/hires/s124e005916.jpg

[Admin]

Indeed Windows 2000. If ain't broken don't fix it. It would cost a huge amount of time and money to re-certify, debug and test any new software.

And they'll never use Windows Vista of course (or Android LOL). Maybe they will go for Unix/Linux.

/Admin

[bjbeard]

I still don't know why we didn't just extend the shuttle thru 2015, one flight per year per Shuttle.  The whole shuttle stack is safer now than it's ever been, SRB's=redesigned, ET=redesigned, Shuttle=inspected, upgraded, and maintained better than any other piece of technology on the planet.  Only downside is the capes infrastructure, it needs some heavy cash poured in to upgrade it and keep pace with the corrosion that comes from being on the coast, not to mention 50+ years of rocket propellants, solvents, etc used everywhere.  Just my 2C.

Atlantis is a gamble everytime it is launched. Her OMDP expires in Jan 2011. Unlike Discovery, Atlantis is showing its age more. 104 had major thrust structure corrosion, stingers separating, and propellant/storage tanks showing cracks. In fact Atlantis tanks are not fully filled until just before launch.

Discovery is violating the 5.5 year/8 mission OMDP regulation, however she has not shown any of the issues that Atlantis has.

All in all, should the program get an extension, 104 will likely be retired, 103 will go into OMDP in 2011, and 105 will fly though 2015 with an OMDP waiver. But as 105 is 19 years old and 103 is 24, the risk of extending is minimal.

Course this would be easier if we still had 102 and 099.

SpaceX is nothing more than a shot in the dark. I wish them the best, and hope they actually get the vehicle manned, but I really do not think it will ever happen.

[Moonwalker]

SpaceX is nothing more than a shot in the dark. I wish them the best, and hope they actually get the vehicle manned, but I really do not think it will ever happen.

Well, people thought that SpaceX won't ever get off the ground (I was thinking this as well two years ago). Next, people thought that Falcon9 won't reach low earth orbit. Now, people think they won't send cargo and humans to the ISS...

To me it seems that people aren't just pessimistic, they actually don't want to see somebody else than NASA doing more progress right now in terms of developing a new system. Especially because it's a small company with less propaganda. To be honest: it's NASA right now which is a shot in the dark without any bright future. Constellation was an epic fail in almost all directions, and it was even predicted by many people from the beginning. The thing is that once SpaceX manages to get cargo and crews off the ground and back, NASA isn't really needed anymore to do this by employing the entire USA. Times change. And we are experiencing such a change. I seriously think that the big days of NASA are numbered already, and partly justifiably so.

[Admin]

This person thinks that SpaceX might some day become a great space transportation company, but no manned exploration from them any time soon!

/Admin