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

Think ahead...

[OriginalSpaceMan]

If they thought ahead they would have realized that it's much more efficient to put 2 robotic arms on IIS. One to catch the capsule and one to throw it back to Earth. Now IIS will have to take it's glove off before it can throw the capsule back down.

Re:Think ahead...

[whyrat]

If they intend for people to visit the ISS someone will also need to design and build a gift shop module.

Re:Think ahead...

[garrett714]

If they thought ahead they would have realized that it's much more efficient to put 2 robotic arms on IIS. One to catch the capsule and one to throw it back to Earth. Now IIS will have to take it's glove off before it can throw the capsule back down.

So if you did this would IIS finally become a real server?

;-)

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

[QuantumG]

Very true. If you want to attribute anything to Von Braun, attribute in-orbit assembly. His proposals for military installations on the Moon in the late 50s were elegant and advanced. He relied on what today we would call medium-lift launch vehicles and in-orbit assembly. At the time the army had a proven capability to fire off hundreds of these rockets a month and had shown they can man and supply outposts in much harsher conditions. The only thing lacking was a mandate. From an economical point of view medium-lift launch vehicles make a lot of sense. See The case for smaller launch vehicles in human space exploration by Grant Bonin, part 1 and part 2.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[iamlucky13]

I suppose cost is one of the big reasons a rocket sled hasn't been tried. A full scale ramp would be a major investment. If the sled is rocket driven, you still deal with burning lots of fuel, although reuse of components could be made simpler. If it's magnetic, you're dealing with developing new technology on a very large scale. I'm not sure if pneumatic or steam systems are even reasonably realistic at the velocities in question. Either way, you need a very long and straight ramp, which means a lot of real estate pointed roughly west-east, and you still have deal with high speeds in the densest portion of the atmosphere. As far as alternatives to vertical ground launches go, dropping from a carrier plane sounds like a better way to go to me...unless we can build a space elevator, that is.

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?

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[QuantumG]

The "harshness" of maintaining an outpost is all about the logistical difficulty of resupplying it.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[Kiryat Malachi]

Ejecting at hypersonic speeds is *always* more dangerous than hoping your vehicle doesn't blow up. Your vehicle might not blow up. Unprotected exposure to hypersonic flow is generally contraindicated for humans.

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.

Remove the government ...

[SengirV]

... and you get performance at a tiny fraction of their price.

Re:Remove the government ...

[LordKazan]

This isn't universally true, but it's far too true.

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:Remove the government ...

[TheDugong]

Isn't that more or less what happens?

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?)

El Segundo?

[Red Flayer]

"Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) is asking NASA to help fund the demonstration of a reusable space capsule the El Segundo, Calif.-based company has been developing in secret with its own funding for the past 18 months."

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).

Re:El Segundo?

[FleaPlus]

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.

From the article:

Musk declined to say how much he has spent on Dragon so far, but said it was only a small part of the $100 million he has invested in SpaceX to-date building the Falcon 1 and getting started on the larger and more powerful Falcon 9.

Also, from what I understand, SpaceX isn't asking for one of the typical cost-plus contracts, but this is part of a competitive bid for a delivery contract from the COTS program. If another company has a solution which can deliver to the ISS at a better price, NASA will buy from them instead.

Re:El Segundo?

[FleaPlus]

Musk supposedly has never said how much of his own cash he's invested in SpaceX, but the article, as well as other estimates, place it at around $100 million so far. No mention of other contributions.

SpaceX is almost entirely self-funded by Elon Musk, with a few small investments by "friends and family." He has mentioned though that after the first Falcon I flight he'll be pursuing some outside funding to raise another $50 - $100 million for the development of things like the next-generation Merlin 2 engine (which would be the largest rocket engine in the world). If the company's launch products are successful, he plans on an eventual IPO in "three to four years."

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.

can you say vapourware?

[QuantumG]

The prototype lacks a reaction control system for maneuvering in space and a heat shield that would prevent it from burning up upon re-entry, Musk said, but could otherwise be launched into space.

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: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?

[QuantumG]

full-sized prototype == big tin can.

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:can you say vapourware?

[RocketGeek]

> full-sized prototype == big tin can.

No, it's a full sized prototype with all internal systems working. Your average tin can on a shelf in Walmart generally doesn't come fitted with seats and working controls, etc.

> tested life support? He clearly says that the life
> support system used is not up to spec and will not fly.

No. Read the article again. It says the life support system has been thoroughly tested. It is just a case of the whole system does not meet the arbitrary pile of paperwork test required for NASA, and the reaction control system and heat shield are not fitted. Both clearly essential for a spaceflight (or one that returns to Earth), but the rest of the vehicle is functional.

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?

[J05H]

>LOL, that's brilliant. What does it have?

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: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:can you say vapourware?

[FleaPlus]

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.

Not to nitpick, but Boeing and Lockheed are actually both on the list of vendors expressing interest for the COTS program. I have no idea if they ended up submitting a proposal, though.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[RocketGeek]

> "arbitrary pile of paperwork test"?

Yes, arbitrary in the sense that much of the paperwork is needless. Much of the space qual specs were developed before the major space agencies had launched manned vehicles / and / or were developed during the early years of manned spaceflight. There are many places where they could be relaxed with today's knowledge, and other places where they could be tightened up.

> I think you're taking your anti-NASA hyperbole a little far here.

Not anti NASA. Anti NASA and anti ESA in terms of the paperwork requirements. The level of paperwork is certainly worse for both of those agencies than the Russian requirements.

> Do you have any idea how difficult it is to safely launch a person into space and bring them back again?

Yes, I used to be a payload test engineer on a number of payloads for manned missions to Mir, and had to write the documentation to go with the payloads in question amongst other things. Oh, and I run a small rocket propulsion consultancy as a sideline nowadays, so yes, I also know my delta V from my c*.

> Nevermind. You answered my question in your post.

Good, I'm glad.

> Arbitrary pile of paperwork, indeed.

Yes, arbitrary.

I take it that as well as your expert knowledge on paperwork for manned missions, that you have seen the SpaceX Dragon capsule in the flesh then ?

Alternate submission; why they announced

[FleaPlus]

Dang... I just saw this on slashdot a few minutes after I submitted it myself. For the curious, here's my version of the submission, which includes some different info and a link to a SpaceRef story which has more pictures of the capsule:

SpaceX has revealed that for the past few years they've been secretly developing the Dragon space capsule, which will be the first privately-built manned orbital spacecraft. The company has already built a full-scale working prototype and thoroughly tested its life support system, with the capsule development using 'only a small part of the $100 million [CEO/founder Elon Musk] has invested in SpaceX to-date building the Falcon 1 [orbital rocket] and getting started on the larger and more powerful Falcon 9.' According to Musk, 'I feel very confident about being able to offer NASA an ISS-servicing capability by 2009 and am prepared to back that up with my own funding.' It's believed that Musk will also compete for crew/cargo delivery contracts to private space station modules built by Bigelow Aerospace.

All in all, I'm very excited about this announcement. I'm sure SpaceX wishes that they could have gotten their Falcon I rocket off the ground before announcing the capsule, but the deadline for NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems (COTS) program was a few days ago. The COTS program is the means by which NASA hopes to award competitive contracts to delivery crew and cargo to the International Space Station, in order to reduce reliance on the Russians and promote the development of private spaceflight. Since the capsule is a critical part of their COTS proposal, SpaceX pretty much had to let the secret out.

Re:Alternate submission; why they announced

[iamlucky13]

Sorry, I beat you to it. Actually, I saw the SpaceRef article only a few minutes after I made my submission. It's a little bit better write up, if only for the fact that it has pictures and doesn't have space.com's ponderous wealth of ads and background images. Interestingly enough, I found the SpaceRef article when, out of curiosity, I checked wikipedia to see if there was any prior mention of the capsule, since I remembered Musk suggesting a year or two ago that he was interested in manned space flight. Instead, I found that someone had already added a section about the capsule this morning to the SpaceX entry. Crazy nerds!

Also, as you probably know but others may not, SpaceX already has a tentative contract to launch one of Bigelow Aerospace's prototype inflatable modules sometime next year (barring delays from either company, which is a longshot) aboard a Falcon 9.

What's with the naming???

[ssummer]

Scaled Composites has the "White Knight", SpaceX has the "Dragon", what's next? The "Grand Wizard" orbiting space station?

Re:What's with the naming???

[iamlucky13]

Actually, another article said the capsule was originally referred to as "magic dragon," a reference to a certain Peter, Paul, and Mary song you might have heard. So the question is, are the engineers at SpaceX role-playing nerds or stoners?

An appropriate acronym...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

From the story (if you read it...):

The Dragon capsule is the centerpiece of the proposal SpaceX submitted March 3 under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) demonstration program.

An appropriate acronym, COTS, already used for "Commercial, Off The Shelf"...

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?

[cmowire]

Kerosene is not the most efficent, in terms of mass, but it is rather efficent in terms of density. It's rather much like jet fuel, so there's already hardware to deal with it.

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:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[Jonathan_S]

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?

Liquid kerosene / LOX is more efficient energy per volume, while liquid hydrogen / LOX is more efferent energy storage per mass.

For 1st stage rockets that aren't going to burn for very long, the reduced tank volume possible with kerosene / LOX can be enough of a total weight savings to offset the lower ISP and greater mass of kerosene / LOX over hydrogen / LOX.

On upper stages, where you are going to carry the fuel higher, and burn the engines longer, the mass efficiencies and higher ISP of hydrogen / LOX win out.

Hence the Saturn V switched fuels as it went through its stages.

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[cmowire]

Okay, so I'm not a petrol engineer... but then when does that sort of thing stop any good slashdotter?

RP-1 is a highly refined kerosine fraction.

Jet-A / Jet-A1 is a slightly less refined kerosine fraction.

K-1 Kerosine is yet another kerosine fraction. In some places, they skip out on K-1 and just sell Jet-A1 as kerosine for simplicity's sake.

There are other jet fuels that take a "wider cut" and include some napatha and gasoline fractions.

If you want, you can run turbines on all kinds of crazy stuff, although with modern catalytic oil processing, that's far less useful than it used to be.

Diesel engines can be made to burn Jet-A or RP-1.

Either way... the hardware to pump jet fuel/kerosine/etc. sorts of fluids is pretty well understood and easy to get ahold of. Not so for hydrogen.

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[Keebler71]

Also, LOX/Hydrogen are cryogenic which means that they must be maintained at extremely cold temperatures. This necessitates all sorts of additional requirements such as more robust seals (Challenger) and insultating foam (Columbia) on the external tanks. Moreover, there is a huge logistics and support footprint for cryogenic fuels. They must be stored near the launch site and the spacecraft fueled immediately prior to launch and de-fueled if there is an abort. This further constrains flexibility of operations. In other words, while the Isp is much higher for cryos, there are other factors that in some cases trump the extra power per mass of propellant.

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:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[RevRigel]

Challenger's o-ring breach was in the solid rocket booster, which is not cryogenic.

Disclosure is also a factor

[Jeff Molby]

people are apathetic about government waste so the government gets away with it.

That's true, but government's performance is also harder to judge than a publically listed company. Large parts of the budget are vague (or completely misleading) and i doubt there is much (if any) independent auditing.

Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of the budget goes to items which are inherently non-profit, so how can you compare efficieny when you can't compare an expense to "what the market will bear"?

Re:But when cost is the barrier...

[FleaPlus]

I can tell you that something VERY much cheaper than the complex hunk of junk known as the Space Shutle could have fulfilled all the requirements.

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government DOES NOT monopolize space. It doesn't own it, for one thing.

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.