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."
SkyRamp FFS (Score:4, Interesting)
FFS Listen to what Von Braun said dammit
Read: http://www.skyramp.org/ [skyramp.org]
its nice to see... (Score:4, Interesting)
Slightly OT: Kerosene? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:can you say vapourware? (Score:5, Interesting)
Could you remind me what Boeing and Lockheed-Martin have produced so far with their contracts to build NASA's CEV? If I recall correctly, all they have so far are design documents and powerpoint slides.
It seems to me SpaceX (which has a full-sized prototype with tested life support) is a good bit ahead of them, using just Elon Musk's out-of-pocket funding instead of NASA's.
Re:SkyRamp FFS (Score:4, Interesting)
About the closest thing they have is on this page [skyramp.org] where they take Von Braun's consultation for a movie as serious evidence that he backed such a scheme. That's not exactly evidence.
BTW, any site that uses Java Applets for each rollover button (something possible without Java) needs to be shot.
Re:can you say vapourware? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, and many many capsules have been launched sans heatshield on the first flight. Saves the trouble of a recovery crew and not accidentally landing on somebody or something.
Of course, seeing the Dragon makes them doing the Falcon 9 instead of the Falcon 5 make much more sense...
Re:can you say vapourware? (Score:3, Interesting)
Boeing and Lockheed-Martin know a lot less than you think. What manned space vehicles have they built in the last 30 years? I will grant that Boeing has been building space station hardware, but that's a lot different than a crew launch vehicle that has to survive ascent and reentry. Any new effort will be essentially starting from scratch. SpaceX and t/Space have been building and testing hardware, while Boeing and Lockheed-Martin have been drawing artist conceptions and writing reports, the same way they've tackled every failed STS replacement program to date. Whatever the differences in approaches, there is no contest between them. One of Boeing and Lockheed will get the $* billion CEV contract. SpaceX is working on a vehicle for ISS resupply, which is a separate, much less expensive ($500m), and better structured program.
Also, SpaceX built their life support system in 2004, before NASA published the requirements for life support systems on vehicles carrying US government employees. That does not mean that the system they designed wouldn't work or even that it would be unsafe. It just doesn't meet NASA's new requirements.
Re:SkyRamp FFS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:SkyRamp FFS (Score:3, Interesting)
had shown they can man and supply outposts in much harsher conditions.
And where, exactly, had the Army been maintaining outposts in conditions harsher than those of hard vaccum, 300K day/night temperature variation, unfiltered exposure to solar and cosmic radiation, and a nearly complete lack of extractable life-support volatiles in the soil?
Can overseas companies get such funding? (Score:1, Interesting)
Let the funding go to suppliers in China, India, and other places
where the $'s might go further than in the US (if only due to the
difference in salaries & office space rentals).
The nationality side:
As it is overseas students from such countries are recruited to
the US, required to become US citizens - even when that entails
renoucing or at least losing their original nationalities (even
Australia's Andy Thomas had to give up his Aussie citizenship -
in order to become a NASA astronaut; of course, he was quick to
become a "dual-national" - ie, American (for NASA) and Austral-
ian (for family & country?)).
Why not make exploration & development of space a true -world-
project where one can make one's contribution without "burning
any bridges" (even temporarily).
The economic side:
As it is: An overseas student recuited from uni/graduate school
has to pay "first world" rentals (if on a short-term project) &
pay higher living costs, eg, while working in USA.
Better if s/he could live & work in her/his own lower-cost land
- both so s/he could increase the economic yield from the work
and so that their country's economy could also win from her/his
living costs being spent locally.
The Internet (and faster networks) make such outsourcing at the
individual lever practical.
Fewer 2-way trips help the environment & more money coming into
the local economy means more culture would be brought there - &
less need to fly off to experience it.
We do this with things (eg, incorporating the Canadian "robotic
arm" into the Shuttle, etc.), & I think it's time to do it also
for people, who might like to be nearer to family, friends, and
their cultural roots.
(Of course, those who choose can still "fly off" to experience
the places & cultures of their choice, perhaps more so - since
they would end up with more disposable income in their pockets
than they would if they lived in higher-cost cities.
What'cha think?
Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Remove the government ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Whoda thunk it.
(N. Machiavelli maybe? [c2i.net])