SpaceX Developing Orbital Crew Capsule

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."

Comments

SkyRamp FFS

[LordKazan]

All these "carrier plane" based ideas make me barf, but the "new" launch vehicle nasa is coming out with makes me want to barf even more.

FFS Listen to what Von Braun said dammit

Read: http://www.skyramp.org/

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[AKAImBatman]

I don't see any quotes from Von Braun. In fact, Von Braun thought the Saturn V was his baby for launches. Using accelerators to get up to speed in thick atmosphere is a very different idea that AFAIK, he never got behind.

About the closest thing they have is on this page 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:SkyRamp FFS

[Buran]

Actually, carrier-plane based systems are very successful. Take a look at the Pegasus booster and SpaceShipOne, for instance, and the rumored Blackstar program. Plus, with a manned aircraft launching from high altitude, the hard work of getting off the pad and through the lower atmosphere has already been done, and there's less to throw away -- the launcher simply returns to its launch site just like a normal aircraft does (and in fact the Pegasus has always used modified aircraft built for other purposes rather than needing a specialized design).

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[isomeme]

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?

its nice to see...

[ganjadude]

Eventhough some of the designs are flawed... it is still nice to see a sort of Spcae Race again, I am only 20 so i missed the first Space race, however i enjoy the prospects involved with the process, as well as the idea of making something that no one else has before. Remember the wright brothers, they had a few failing designs before the suceeded. Just because we are still in the early stages of development, flaws are to be expected, designs will crash and burn. But so what? isnt this what Space exploration is about?? learning and using what you have learned to further the learning??? I for one am thrilled that the spaceX foundation is doing great things, even if it isnt perfect. was the x1 perfect when chuck Yeagur broke the sound barrier??? NO. and neither will spaceX be perfect. Shit NASA still cant even get it right all the time.

Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[kclittle]

Could someone briefly explain why liquid kerosene and liquid oxygen are one of the preferred fuels for orbital rockets, at least for the first stage? I know the F-1 engine on the Saturn V used kerosene, but I never understood why; the J-2 engines on the second stage of the Saturn V used liquid hydrogen and LOX -- why the mix?

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[Coocha]

I filmed Mr. Musk's guest lecture at Virginia Tech, and I remember him mentioning that LOX+Kerosene is also very cheap compared to other rocket fuel combinations. Part of SpaceX's design/implementation strategy is minimizing costs in order to undercut Boeing/Lockheed's prices, so that's just another reason to use it.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[FleaPlus]

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.

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:can you say vapourware?

[cmowire]

I would think that it's better to say that it clearly won't meet NASA specs, because given the way NASA has worked in the past, if you have hardware ready and they won't like it, the spec will be carefully constructed to exclude your existing hardware. :)

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?

[wronkiew]

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.

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:Remove the government ...

[Eunuchswear]

And, suprise suprise, it turns out that private armies are much more expensive than publicly owned ones.

Whoda thunk it.

(N. Machiavelli maybe?)