SpaceX Developing Orbital Crew Capsule 122
iamlucky13 writes "Private aerospace firm SpaceX has revealed that it has secretly been working on a crew and cargo vehicle since late 2004. Development of the capsule, named Dragon, has so far been funded by SpaceX and its partners, which includes the Canadian company that built the robotic arm for the International Space Station. Dragon would be launched atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 and dock at the ISS with assistance of the robotic arm. While SpaceX founder Elon Musk is prepared to complete development of the capsule with his own resources, SpaceX is seeking funding from NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, which makes up to $500 million available through 2010 for private spacecraft development."
Remove the government ... (Score:2, Insightful)
El Segundo? (Score:4, Insightful)
Their own funding? Some guy from a Tribe Called Quest told me he left his wallet in El Segundo, I think I know what happened to the cash that was in it.
Also, until we see figures on how much they've spent on development themselves, I bet it pales in comparison to what they ask for from NASA. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as long as any tech they develop enters public domain (I wish).
can you say vapourware? (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL, that's brilliant. What does it have?
"As part of a top secret project, we've already built a prototype flight crew capsule, including a thoroughly tested 30-man-day-life-support system, which is sitting on our factory floor right now," Musk told Space News. "It doesn't meet all the NASA requirements, so it will probably not see flight, but it has served as a valuable learning experience."
So nothing. You have a tin can. Brilliant.
Neither Dragon nor its Falcon 9 rocket is ready to roll out to the launch pad. But the Falcon 9 is in development for a 2007 debut..
The Falcon I hasn't even got off the launch pad.
Look, I love SpaceX. Elon Musk is trying to dig a big hole in the middle of the overweight aerospace industry and so far he's doing a good job of it. But this is nothing but vapourware. I hope NASA gives them a big chunk of that funding but frankly, it's a high risk proposition right now.
Re:Remove the government ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Government can be efficient if people take them to task for not being, but people are apathetic about government waste so the government gets away with it.
In NASA's case it's an oldguard groupthink problem from what i've been told by someone who used to work there.
Re:can you say vapourware? (Score:5, Insightful)
tested life support? He clearly says that the life support system used is not up to spec and will not fly.
SpaceX needs to prototype this stuff before they can design a real system because they have no experience making spacecraft. Boeing and Lockheed-Martin can focus on gathering requirements and doing engineering, on paper, because they know what they are doing. The only reason NASA has to go with SpaceX is because they are likely to get a better deal, but they've gotta wear the risk.
Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hydrogen is more efficent in terms of mass, but it's not very dense, so you need huge tanks to store it. Also, it's cold enough to give you nasty materials problems that you don't get with just LOX.
So usually it makes more sense to use kerosene + LOX on the first stage because you are going to need a lot of fuel and you are going to have to push it through the atmosphere and stuff. Then once you are above the atmosphere and have ejected the first stage, the rest of the stages work better with hydrogen as the fuel.
Re:What's with the naming??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SkyRamp FFS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:can you say vapourware? (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything else: tested life support, avionics, the Service Module with main engine (Kestrel? SM is probably shortened version of their second stage), maybe a full cockpit and some kind of pressure vessel. From the quote, it sounds like it's flight-weight or very nearly. I half-agree on calling it vapourware: I'll give Dragon more credit when they start drop tests. The 30-man-day lifesupport test is no small cookies. They do have an impressive base of contractors for it, they definitely can build this vehicle with funding.
This vehicle is an interesting contrast to t/space's CXV. t/space has focused on a demo-or-die drop test and tour vehicle, while SpaceX has focused on the internals of their capsule. They are both blunt cones, one reenters 'sideways' the other base-first. The CXV has both Burt Rutan and Gary Hudson's prints all over it, their is a certain fly-boy cachet to the craft: dropped from a high-altitude craft with an innovative rocket attached. From the first look at SpaceX's Dragon, it seems to take a very conservative approach to aerodynamics and basic design. Elon even called it a mix of Soyuz and Apollo, they are focusing on a functional capability and relying on brute-forcing the vehicle to orbit with their Falcon 9. A lot of aerospace cost is getting the last 10% of weight shaved off the craft. If you own the rockets and they are delibrately over throwweight for an average capsule (5 tons), you have the option to not bother losing that extra 10%. With the estimated costs and business savvy that SpaceX has shown, the added mass cost is not going to matter. So, it'll cost them slightly more per flight, but they'll still be able to profit while undercutting every other provider.
1. Get rich in Internet biz
2. ??Build rockets??
3. Profit!
Josh
Re:But when cost is the barrier... (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt a much cheaper system would have been able to perform the Space Shuttle's most important requirement, delivering a sufficient number of jobs to key constituent districts.
Re:Space, The Final Frontier... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where there is commercial gain in going to space, like satellite TV, corporations make use of it. Where there is no commercial gain in going to space, like manned space flight or blue-sky research, corporations don't do it, and it's left to government agencies to do the stuff which benefits humanity overall but doesn't make any money.
If you want to understand these discussions get a clue about the differences between reality and hollywood sci-fi.
Re:What's with the naming??? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Remove the government ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SkyRamp FFS (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, the Shuttle lacks a good supersonic ejection capability. The crew escape mechanism works at subsonic speeds, but at supersonic it's a more risky maneuver. However, the mid-deck seats are *inside* the fuselage. Working a supersonic ejection capability in for mid-deck is probably unfeasible, certainly unfeasible given the plans for the Shuttle.