End of an Era: Shuttle program coming to a close

[homeforsummer]

陕西有色金属控股集团有限责任公司

I'm pleased to find out that actually means something, but disappointed to find out it's a real company and not something you made up...

 

[CodeRedR51]

 

[PeterJB]

In fairness, I have read that the moon could be used as a space dock of sorts, to launch from, to other planetary bodies. I'm not sure how plausible that is though.

It doesn't seem that practical, since at it's closest point you've had only travelled 1/100 of the distance to Venus.

 

[homeforsummer]

It doesn't seem that practical, since at it's closest point you've had only travelled 1/100 of the distance to Venus.

a) We won't be going to Venus, for any manned missions at least. Sulphuric acid rain isn't particularly conducive to human exploration. Mars is much more likely.

b) Mentioned on the last page: The moon's gravity is only 0.16 that of the Earth. That makes it much easier to launch from, should a base be set up for such a thing. Escape velocity from the moon's surface is just under five times less than that needed to launch from Earth.

 

[FoolKiller]

It doesn't seem that practical, since at it's closest point you've had only travelled 1/100 of the distance to Venus.

It has nothing to do with distance to the planets. It would be a staging point. A ship necessary for an interplanetary manned mission will need to be large. You can't expect a crew, fuel, supplies, scientific labs, and all to be stuck in something the size of a large recreational vehicle/caravan for years. It is far easier to ferry the parts to space via rockets and construct them in orbit or on the moon than to launch one giant ship at once. By launching it from somewhere with little or no gravity you remove the need for the ship to have a launching system to get it into orbit. Also a craft designed to never enter an atmosphere does not need to have aerodynamics in mind for atmospheric flight, which allows it to be more purpose built.

A space station could work as well, but I am unsure if ISS is what it would need. Ideally I would imagine an orbital facility around the moon supported by a moon base. Exiting orbit would be easier there and initial acceleration would be efficiently done by a slingshot or flyby of Earth on the way out. Also, having a facility for staging set up means that the windows for shortest travel to other planets do not risk being missed because of weather, so long as you get your astronauts up from Earth in advance.

 

[Stevisiov]

It doesn't seem that practical, since at it's closest point you've had only travelled 1/100 of the distance to Venus.

As the others have covered, its nothing to do with distance, more that it is staging point at which the escape velocity is much reduced. The reason this might be valuable, is if you could re fuel a a rocket so that it were launched from the moon, it could travel much further and much faster from there.

It's also been discovered that there is a fair bit of water to be found under the surface of the moon, this might turn out to be a useful way of extracting hydrogen for the use of fuel.

I'm sure such a task is far beyond what we are technically or at least econmically capable of, but its not out of the question as being useful in the future.

 

[gogatrs]

I'm sure such a task is far beyond what we are technically or at least econmically capable of, but its not out of the question as being useful in the future.

When you say we, do you mean the US, or man kind.

If it were to be an international effort, and we were all working together, then it might turn out to be a relatively easy task...
Well, let me rephrase that, it'll be MUCH easier, not easy.

But IF we were to work together, I'd imagine that it COULD be designed and started within the next twenty-thirty years.
I'd also imagine that it'll be like the ISS where it's never completely finished.

When a station like that would be finished enough for us to use it, I'd imagine would take ten to fifteen years.

Just my guess.

 

[Stevisiov]

When you say we, do you mean the US, or man kind.

If it were to be an international effort, and we were all working together, then it might turn out to be a relatively easy task...
Well, let me rephrase that, it'll be MUCH easier, not easy.

But IF we were to work together, I'd imagine that it COULD be designed and started within the next twenty-thirty years.
I'd also imagine that it'll be like the ISS where it's never completely finished.

When a station like that would be finished enough for us to use it, I'd imagine would take ten to fifteen years.

Just my guess.

I say 'we' as in mankind, but obviously NASA would likely need to be of heavy involvement given their place at the top of the space exploration food chain.

 

[FoolKiller]

The private era is a step closer to beginning.

http://www.universetoday.com/95328/spacex-successfully-launches-dragon-into-orbit/

Do you believe in Dragons? In a spectacular night launch, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket carrying the Dragon capsule is now heading for the first commercial rendezvous at the International Space Station. With an official launch time of 07:44:38 UTC/3:44:38 a.m. EDT, the Dragon capsule is now safely in orbit with its solar array wings deployed, and the mission begins for the COTS-2/3 cargo delivery demonstration mission.

“Falcon flew perfectly!! Dragon in orbit, comm locked and solar arrays active!! Feels like a giant weight just came off my back ,” Tweeted Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO.

 

[Danoff]

I found myself wondering why we're using spacex (private company) instead of the usual Boeing or Lockheed (private companies) for launch. Almost every NASA mission that actually does science is launched on a delta (boeing) or atlas (lockheed) launch vehicle, and they have a phenomenal track record of success for far more complex objectives - sending spacecraft to other planets. Why the need for spacex all the sudden? Do Boeing and Lockheed simply need another competitor?

 

[Keef]

Lockheed Martin may as well be a government organization honestly. Their business model depends heavily on defense contracts, much more so than Boeing or especially Airbus, and it shows in their low efficiency and high costs. The company is cool and they make outstanding products but it could be done better. That sort of shows in the fact that they've never made a competitive air transport plane to compete with Boeing and Airbus. About half of Boeing's money comes from contracting, but most of that is simply converting existing private sector transport planes for military duty. Conversion - half of their income. That should tell you something.

But none of that matters. My point is, what's wrong with another competitor? Competition is good, you know that. Even the military knows that another contract competitor will help lower their costs and reduce their dependance on Lockheed, a dinosaur of a company, and Boeing.

 

[Danoff]

Ok fine but spaceX seems to be setting themselves up to be just as dependent on government contracts. So if lockheed isn't private, neither are they.

I guess I'm fine with it, I'm just wondering what the problem was. Because we have some very good extremely reliable rockets built by private companies capable of launching things to the station - and we chose not to use them.

 

[Keef]

Maybe SpaceX was promising great things for way cheaper, or maybe the military really is promoting startups or something, iono.

 

[Exorcet]

That sort of shows in the fact that they've never made a competitive air transport plane to compete with Boeing and Airbus.

The C-130, C-141, and C-5 all beat out Boeing competition. The L-1011 wasn't a bad plane, and it wasn't military if you wanted to exclude military aircraft.

The F-35 has gone overbudget and is suffering from technical difficulties, but I don't think it's based on outright incompetence from Lockheed. It's a big program in terms of what it's trying to accomplish, and the state of the world economy as it is now probably couldn't be clearly forecast in 1996. The old days when Lockheed could throw out a working new fighter/new plane in a period of time measured in days might be gone, but that's true of everyone else in the business.

 

[Dotini]

I found myself wondering why we're using spacex (private company) instead of the usual Boeing or Lockheed (private companies) for launch. Almost every NASA mission that actually does science is launched on a delta (boeing) or atlas (lockheed) launch vehicle, and they have a phenomenal track record of success for far more complex objectives - sending spacecraft to other planets. Why the need for spacex all the sudden? Do Boeing and Lockheed simply need another competitor?

I think the basic idea is get NASA out of the business of routine low orbital missions and milk runs. If SpaceX is hot to compete with the big boys, then so much the better.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[FoolKiller]

I found myself wondering why we're using spacex (private company) instead of the usual Boeing or Lockheed (private companies) for launch. Almost every NASA mission that actually does science is launched on a delta (boeing) or atlas (lockheed) launch vehicle, and they have a phenomenal track record of success for far more complex objectives - sending spacecraft to other planets. Why the need for spacex all the sudden? Do Boeing and Lockheed simply need another competitor?

You may remember when I posted this link last year.
http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

If allowed to compete, SpaceX can help the Department of Defense save at least one billion dollars annually in space launch services, while providing a truly independent family of vehicles to help assure access to space.
The Falcon Heavy is classified as an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). The EELV program was established by the United States Air Force to launch satellites into orbit more economically. The program was intended to both secure access to space for the Department of Defense and other United States government payloads and lower costs by at least 25%, and with a goal of 50%.
Unfortunately, primarily due to lack of competition, costs have actually escalated–increasing by over 30% for FY 2012 alone. The total cost of the current program now exceeds $2.7B, with over $1B paid to a single provider just to sustain the program. That is one billion dollars per year, whether they launch or not.
Falcon Heavy with more than twice the payload but less than one third the cost of a Delta IV Heavy, will provide much needed relief to government and commercial budgets. This year, even as the Department of Defense budget was cut, the EELV launch program, which includes the Delta IV, still saw a thirty percent increase.
The 2012 Air Force budget includes $1.74B for four launches, an average of $435M per launch. With Falcon Heavy priced at $80-125M per launch SpaceX has the potential to provide the US government significant value. In addition, the medium-lift Falcon 9 could support a number of medium-lift Air Force launches at only $50-60M per launch, if SpaceX were allowed to compete for this business.

Better and cheaper. You know, the usual privately funded stuff.

And a quick glance at their launch manifest shows that NASA represents a third of their launches (12 of 36 scheduled flights). Basically, they've taken at least some of the satellite work off of NASA's hands for them.
http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

In fact, if you see the Iridium missions on there, those represent the largest commercial rocket launch contract ever signed.

It doesn't look as if they are too bound to NASA yet. And I am willing to bet that the moment Dragon is approved for manned flight by NASA that there will be tickets sold.

 

[Danoff]

You may remember when I posted this link last year.

Better and cheaper. You know, the usual privately funded stuff.

"Privately funded" is incorrect. This is a government contract, just like Boeing and Lockheed. But it is good to see that they are trying to reduce costs. That may come at another price though -reliability. I wonder what the track record will be. We shall see.

Twice the payload at one third the cost of the Delta-IVH is a bigtime claim. I really hope they can deliver, because it'll help out robotic missions in a big way. I couldn't care less about station or even space tourism. But we have the potential to do a lot more science with that kind of cost savings.

And a quick glance at their launch manifest shows that NASA represents a third of their launches (12 of 36 scheduled flights). Basically, they've taken at least some of the satellite work off of NASA's hands for them.
http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

Off of boeing and lockheed's hands, not NASA. NASA still foots the bill.

It doesn't look as if they are too bound to NASA yet. And I am willing to bet that the moment Dragon is approved for manned flight by NASA that there will be tickets sold.

Interesting prediction. I'd bet against you on that. But I agree that if they can really pull this off for... say $200 million (because I don't believe the $80-150M figure), you might be able to launch one rocket with two people willing to foot a $100 million ticket price. It is an intriguing thought.

 

[FoolKiller]

"Privately funded" is incorrect. This is a government contract, just like Boeing and Lockheed. But it is good to see that they are trying to reduce costs. That may come at another price though -reliability. I wonder what the track record will be. We shall see.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services#section_4
According to Wiki the COTS contract is for $278 million, a tenth of the $2.7 billion development cost. And it is paid out as specific milestones are met, not before. So, unless NASA is using some odd way of hiding $2.7 billion paid to a for-profit company, or I misunderstand it, that is private funding being put up front.

Also, their company page is crediting their president for generating $3 billion in revenue from their current contracts, of which NASA is currently a small amount.
http://www.spacex.com/company.php

As President of SpaceX, Ms. Shotwell is responsible for day-to-day operations and for managing all customer and strategic relations to support company growth. She joined SpaceX in 2002 as Vice President of Business Development and built the Falcon vehicle family manifest to over 40 launches, representing over $3 billion in revenue. Shotwell is a member of the SpaceX Board of Directors.

Twice the payload at one third the cost of the Delta-IVH is a bigtime claim. I really hope they can deliver, because it'll help out robotic missions in a big way. I couldn't care less about station or even space tourism. But we have the potential to do a lot more science with that kind of cost savings.

DragonLab on the manifest are all unmanned science missions with orbital experiments. I imagine if the project succeeds they will aid in deep space robotic missions as well. Why not, if their claims are true? I'm not the rocket scientist, so I can only assume they intend to back up what they say after burning billions on it.

Off of boeing and lockheed's hands, not NASA. NASA still foots the bill.

Because I am literally unaware of how things get funded with launch pads and whatnot, how so?

Interesting prediction. I'd bet against you on that. But I agree that if they can really pull this off for... say $200 million (because I don't believe the $80-150M figure), you might be able to launch one rocket with two people willing to foot a $100 million ticket price. It is an intriguing thought.

They already took 300+ cremated remains on this mission. Why not sell a ride of some form where you have the margins to fit them in? You don't need to sell tickets to be the only cargo, just enough to cover any adjustments needed to accommodate an additional 100-200 pounds of weight.

 

[Keef]

The C-130, C-141, and C-5 all beat out Boeing competition. The L-1011 wasn't a bad plane, and it wasn't military if you wanted to exclude military aircraft.

Thanks for elaborating when I didn't: None of the planes you mentioned are private market planes - a market dominated by more efficient companies like Boeing and Airbus - except the Tristar which had everything going against it and was the eventual cause for Lockheed's pulling out of the private market altogether.

 

[Danoff]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services#section_4
According to Wiki the COTS contract is for $278 million, a tenth of the $2.7 billion development cost. And it is paid out as specific milestones are met, not before. So, unless NASA is using some odd way of hiding $2.7 billion paid to a for-profit company, or I misunderstand it, that is private funding being put up front.

That's kinda splitting hairs. The initial investment in the company exists to generate revenue from space contracts - which come from NASA, DOD, and perhaps the occasional non-government communications satellite. It's the creation of a company designed to go after a substantial amount of government funding. None of this is any different from Lockheed or Boeing.

The launch that just occurred is being funded by NASA, I wouldn't call it privately funded. Whether it's spaceX, lockheed, or boeing, it's all private companies working for government funding.

Also, their company page is crediting their president for generating $3 billion in revenue from their current contracts, of which NASA is currently a small amount.
http://www.spacex.com/company.php

How many of those contracts are government sponsored in some way.

DragonLab on the manifest are all unmanned science missions with orbital experiments.

I'd love to know what fantastic scientific breakthroughs are going to come from these orbital experiments. I'm very skeptical.

I imagine if the project succeeds they will aid in deep space robotic missions as well. Why not, if their claims are true? I'm not the rocket scientist, so I can only assume they intend to back up what they say after burning billions on it.

Let's hope they can do it. I'm sure they intend to. Robotic missions are where the overwhelming majority of space science comes from. Cutting launch costs by 2/3 is massive for robotic exploration where often times launch costs are half of the cost of the entire project. It could result in launching 30% more robotic missions, or the same number at only 2/3 the cost. Either way, serious results.

Because I am literally unaware of how things get funded with launch pads and whatnot, how so?

NASA announces a call for proposals. Some organization bids a space mission to NASA. NASA selects the winning bidder and coughs up the money (according to the budget profile approved). The organization managing the mission then doles out money for engineering, spacecraft fabrication, launch costs, operations costs, etc. eventually returning science as promised in the proposal.

JPL, for example, might propose a Mars rover of some sort in response to a NASA call for proposals. If NASA selects the JPL project, NASA agress to pay the JPL project according to the profile - including launch costs, which would get paid to ULA (boeing + lockheed). Here's an example of a JPL mission (paid for by NASA headquarters) contracting to ULA for the launch:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-launches-dawn-mission-for-nasa-58316487.html

They already took 300+ cremated remains on this mission. Why not sell a ride of some form where you have the margins to fit them in? You don't need to sell tickets to be the only cargo, just enough to cover any adjustments needed to accommodate an additional 100-200 pounds of weight.

Well... it'd be more than 100-200 lbs of weight. The difference between human cargo and other cargo is night and day. You need to create an atmosphere, maintain thermal conditions, probably add space suits in case of depressurization... I'd wager 100-200 lbs just for the space suit.

I don't know how much mass the biggest spaceX rocket can lift to low earth orbit, but I think there's a decent chance you have no room for anything else if you have just a couple of people on board. I could be wrong on that, maybe they have more lift capability than I think.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's kinda splitting hairs. The initial investment in the company exists to generate revenue from space contracts - which come from NASA, DOD, and perhaps the occasional non-government communications satellite. It's the creation of a company designed to go after a substantial amount of government funding. None of this is any different from Lockheed or Boeing.

I have always thought that the goal of private rocketry companies of this form, where eccentric billionaires like Musk and Branson are just out to prove they can do it, was to ultimately remove the need of a governmental agency, returning science to where it is guided more by results and return on investment.

Keep in mind, these are the same sorts of guys who are starting space tourism companies, asteroid mining ventures, and so forth. Whether you think these guys will sink or fail, we are entering an era where we can do it without draining taxpayer dollars. I will hazard a guess that Mr. PayPal and Mr. Google are already acquainted and working out a deal for a partnership.

These companies differ from Lockheed and Boeing in one big way. These new guys only need NASA because NASA was the only guys in the game. They showed up with the cash to make it happen on their own. If NASA were cut out of the federal budget these guys would still make a go at it. Lockheed and Boeing would refocus elsewhere.

The launch that just occurred is being funded by NASA, I wouldn't call it privately funded. Whether it's spaceX, lockheed, or boeing, it's all private companies working for government funding.

The launch, yes. It is a test to meet two of NASA's required milestones to develop a new launch vehicle. But this rocket itself was not developed with funding by NASA. The engine failure over the weekend cost NASA nothing. Space X had to pay for engine repairs.

Which I wonder, how costly is it to shut down after main engine ignition? I get the feeling rocket boosters don't easily flip on and off like a lightbulb.

How many of those contracts are government sponsored in some way.

Judging by the names on the manifest, 20 are non-NASA, non-test/demo missions. 12 of those are for non-US satellites (like AsiaSat), 8 of which specifically name a country of origin next to them. I am sure things like Iridium and ORBCOMM can have government funds tracked to them, as I don't see the government staying out of satellite constellation based telecoms, but they are not operating government contracts, and Iridium is supposedly their biggie from a telecom business angle.

I'd love to know what fantastic scientific breakthroughs are going to come from these orbital experiments. I'm very skeptical.

I long gave up on expecting much that is worthwhile. I grew up hearing about the health effects of zero-G, like the space age equivalent of a TB hospital was just around the corner.

That said, we do collect a lot of data that can affect us from orbital satellites, some regarding the effect of our own solar system on us and others regarding data from other galaxies that could not be gathered from the ground. I don't know what the DragonLab module is capable of holding. But if were trying to do research and needed data from an orbital lab but couldn't get on the schedule but could afford to get my research as part of DragonLab, I'd go for it. It won't be as high quality or accurate as a purpose built satellite's data, but it should be enough to get you time on one after you publish your findings.

That said, their site calls them fully commercial missions that can be used for in-space technology demonstrations and scientific instrument testing. So, I could see it being more to test new satellite based communications technology and whatnot. At that point how important it proves to be has a lot to do with how important you consider stuff like your phone to be.

While looking at the Dragon page I did find the value of the ISS mission contract.

In December 2008, NASA announced the selection of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft to resupply the International Space Station (ISS) when the Space Shuttle retires. The $1.6 billion contract represents a minimum of 12 flights, with an option to order additional missions for a cumulative total contract value of up to $3.1 billion.

So that comes out at $133.34 million per ISS resupply flight. Sounds like they are betting on that $80-$150 million per launch you are so skeptical of. Today's mission is their final milestone to make that contract go into full legal effect. And they are still $1 billionish in the hole.

Let's hope they can do it. I'm sure they intend to. Robotic missions are where the overwhelming majority of space science comes from. Cutting launch costs by 2/3 is massive for robotic exploration where often times launch costs are half of the cost of the entire project. It could result in launching 30% more robotic missions, or the same number at only 2/3 the cost. Either way, serious results.

Their claim is 53 metric tons to LEO or interplanetary craft. The Falcon Heavy produces 3.8 million pounds of thrust. I have a feeling this launch was producing data to prove their claims to NASA.

Also, they have pricing listed with a sales contact:

PRICING
SpaceX offers open and fixed pricing for its launch services. Modest discounts are available for contractually committed, multi-launch purchases.

PAYLOAD PRICE
Up to 6.4 ton to GTO $83M*
Greater than 6.4 ton to GTO $128M*

*Paid in full standard launch prices for 2012. Please contact us for details at sales@spacex.com

Either this is a failed business model already, or they are making good on their claims.

Well... it'd be more than 100-200 lbs of weight. The difference between human cargo and other cargo is night and day. You need to create an atmosphere, maintain thermal conditions, probably add space suits in case of depressurization... I'd wager 100-200 lbs just for the space suit.

I was basing my idea on the fact that Dragon has a pressurized capsule and an unpressurized cargo trunk. For cargo or crew missions the internal configurations are near identical. If (and I know it's a big if) they have a flight for unpressurized cargo with no pressurized cargo, why not sell six tickets (leaving one seat for a Space X representative)?

I don't know how much mass the biggest spaceX rocket can lift to low earth orbit, but I think there's a decent chance you have no room for anything else if you have just a couple of people on board. I could be wrong on that, maybe they have more lift capability than I think.[/QUOTE]
As I stated above, 53 metric tons capacity and 3.8 million pounds of thrust.
http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

But it should also be noted that Space X has already full tested and put into operation the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9.
http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

They are capable of getting your stuff into space for as little as $10 million. And they offer discounts for long-term contracts.

 

[Danoff]

Either this is a failed business model already, or they are making good on their claims.

I'll believe it when they're charging a similar amount after getting many flights under their belt. I want to see a track record of success and low prices over many launches before I'll believe this is sustainable longterm. Then I'll buy the claims.

Perhaps more importantly, then NASA will buy the claims. At which point new exploration missions can use these figures in a budget for a mission that launches 5 years from now. I understand that NASA just funded a launch. But if you were to propose a new mission today based on the current cost figures and capabilities I think NASA would refuse the risk.

I was basing my idea on the fact that Dragon has a pressurized capsule and an unpressurized cargo trunk. For cargo or crew missions the internal configurations are near identical. If (and I know it's a big if) they have a flight for unpressurized cargo with no pressurized cargo, why not sell six tickets (leaving one seat for a Space X representative)?

As I stated above, 53 metric tons capacity

People come with stuff. A lot of stuff. Even pressurized is not enough to keep people alive. You still need a new supply of oxygen as you go. You still need space suits. You still have much more severe thermal constraints. You still need food and water.

Dragonlab appears to top out at 7 astronauts. I'd imagine that assumes zero cargo space for anything else. Remove 1 astronaut and you might save 500 lbs or so. That's enough to carry an experiment (possibly two if they're really small), or maybe some equipment.

 

[FoolKiller]

Perhaps more importantly, then NASA will buy the claims. At which point new exploration missions can use these figures in a budget for a mission that launches 5 years from now. I understand that NASA just funded a launch. But if you were to propose a new mission today based on the current cost figures and capabilities I think NASA would refuse the risk.

How is NASA not buying it? They have a $1.6 billion contract signed for transportation of crew and supplies that is contingent on the current mission's success.

People come with stuff. A lot of stuff. Even pressurized is not enough to keep people alive. You still need a new supply of oxygen as you go. You still need space suits. You still have much more severe thermal constraints. You still need food and water.

There are two storage units. I am not suggesting crew share room in the cabin with a satellite.

Here, read their description.

The Dragon spacecraft is comprised of 3 main elements: the Nosecone, which protects the vessel and the docking adaptor during ascent; the Spacecraft, which houses the crew and/or pressurized cargo as well as the service section containing avionics, the RCS system, parachutes, and other support infrastructure; and the Trunk, which provides for the stowage of unpressurized cargo and will support Dragon’s solar arrays and thermal radiators.

There is room for a crew section and unpressurized cargo.

Here are the diagrams:

Pressurized Cargo

Crew

Note this is a zoomed in view of the Spacecraft, not showing the Trunk.

Dragonlab appears to top out at 7 astronauts. I'd imagine that assumes zero cargo space for anything else. Remove 1 astronaut and you might save 500 lbs or so. That's enough to carry an experiment (possibly two if they're really small), or maybe some equipment.

The payload configuration:

Payload Volume: 10 m3 (350 ft3) pressurized, 14 m3 (490 ft3) unpressurized

With crew it can still carry 14 m3 worth of unpressurized cargo.

And pressurized cargo vs crew outfitting:

For cargo launches the inside of the spacecraft is outfitted with a modular cargo rack system designed to accommodate pressurized cargo in standard sizes and form factors. For crewed launches, the interior is outfitted with crew couches, controls with manual override capability and upgraded life-support.

I don't see why what I described is unreasonable if the mission is to put a satellite into orbit or something. The only thing I can see that would make it prohibitive is if it will take an extended time period to get setup in the proper position for the satellite.

 

[Danoff]

How is NASA not buying it? They have a $1.6 billion contract signed for transportation of crew and supplies that is contingent on the current mission's success.

They're buying exactly that much of it. I don't think they'd be willing to accept further buy-in until that pays back. I very highly doubt that current proposals will be using spaceX launch prices as the basis for their budget.

In fact, I wonder if there's not some sort of instructions on that particular issue. I should maybe even know this...

With crew it can still carry 14 m3 worth of unpressurized cargo.

In a very odd shape... but the issue is mass, not volume. With a crew of 7, those colored balls look like oxygen tanks, water, food, etc.

I don't see why what I described is unreasonable if the mission is to put a satellite into orbit or something. The only thing I can see that would make it prohibitive is if it will take an extended time period to get setup in the proper position for the satellite.

Only if the satellite needs to be in the exact same orbit that the astronauts need to be in (very unlikely). This thing isn't going to be carrying enough propellant to put cargo in a significantly different orbit.

For a satellite launch you're almost certainly looking at a dedicated flight because of particular orbit requirements for ground coverage and ground station viewperiods. It's possible that someone might make an extremely small satellite for very limited application and not really care what orbit it ends up in. But the importance and utility of that satellite is going to be minimal as well.

 

[FoolKiller]

They're buying exactly that much of it. I don't think they'd be willing to accept further buy-in until that pays back. I very highly doubt that current proposals will be using spaceX launch prices as the basis for their budget.

In fact, I wonder if there's not some sort of instructions on that particular issue. I should maybe even know this...

So, are you saying that SpaceX will likely have to meet and continue their current pricing rate to get an extension? That sounds typical for a government contract. I've been involved in the writing of contracts for state government at my new job and the boilerplate terms and conditions say that on all of them. In fact, no changes are allowed to be initiated by the vendor, but the government agency is allowed to send an email cutting funding or altering the terms. The vendor can request a change, but they don't control it. And all funding from the government is contingent on funding availability.

So I'm not sure why what you are saying is some sort of big deal. I also expect that as other companies meet their milestones contracts will open to bidding. In fact, it is required by law on my state level.

In a very odd shape... but the issue is mass, not volume. With a crew of 7, those colored balls look like oxygen tanks, water, food, etc.

6,000kg minus crew and included necessities can still be held in the unpressurized trunk. I'm not sure why a cylinder is an odd shape though. And the colored balls are in both the cargo and crew configurations, so those are already accounted for.

Or as they state it:

the Spacecraft, which houses the crew and/or pressurized cargo as well as the service section containing avionics, the RCS system, parachutes, and other support infrastructure;

Only if the satellite needs to be in the exact same orbit that the astronauts need to be in (very unlikely). This thing isn't going to be carrying enough propellant to put cargo in a significantly different orbit.

Now we are well beyond my understanding. Why do tourists just wanting to say they went to space need a specific orbit? They aren't doing EVAs, they aren't docking to anything, and they aren't doing experiments. They're just eccentric rich people who want to get a picture of them waving with the Earth in a viewport behind them.

Is there a very narrow orbital range that is safe for humans?

Basically, I picture the space age equivalent of buying passage on a livestock transport or cargo ship crossing the Atlantic in the 19th century.

 

[photonrider]

And that's it. In a nutshell.

 

[Touring Mars]

For viewers in the UK, SpaceX Dragon is currently docking with the ISS as we speak

Also on NASA TV

 

[CodeRedR51]

I was going to stay up and watch it last night, not knowing the schedule. They were talking about final burns and docking, so I thought it would be soon but when I found out it was a few hours away I just turned off the TV.

 

[Danoff]

So, are you saying that SpaceX will likely have to meet and continue their current pricing rate to get an extension?

I'm saying they'll have to meet and continue their current pricing rate on this contract to get a new contract for something else - like launching a rover to mars.

So I'm not sure why what you are saying is some sort of big deal.

It's not, but it's just to say that NASA is in a trial period with spaceX, as am I.

6,000kg minus crew and included necessities can still be held in the unpressurized trunk. I'm not sure why a cylinder is an odd shape though.

And the colored balls are in both the cargo and crew configurations, so those are already accounted for.

I see, I was misinterpreting the drawing. So in that case, life support goes in the trunk.

Now we are well beyond my understanding. Why do tourists just wanting to say they went to space need a specific orbit? They aren't doing EVAs, they aren't docking to anything, and they aren't doing experiments. They're just eccentric rich people who want to get a picture of them waving with the Earth in a viewport behind them.

Is there a very narrow orbital range that is safe for humans?

Well... the answer to that question is kinda. But it's not really part of this discussion.

Let's say you want to launch a spacecraft to Geostationary orbit (which is where a lot of telecom spacecraft want to go). The only time anyone has ever been out that far is to go to the moon. It's a LOT more expensive (propellant wise) to get to geostationary orbit than it is to get to low earth orbit, and getting back is similarly expensive. You wouldn't want to push a crew and all of their equipment out that far if you didn't absolutely have to. Besides, their photos wouldn't look like they wanted.

Now, that's an exaggeration, but the same is true in lower orbits. GPS satellites are half-way to geostationary - still super expensive. But let's say that you want your satellite in a super low orbit more suitable for a tourist. Unless you want your orbit to be specifically in the inclination consistent with the launch site (highly unlikely), you're going to want a dedicated launch.

Lots of low earth orbiting satellites want to be in polar or near polar orbits. It would be a massive waste of money to ALSO put 7 people in polar orbit to tag along when they'd have been just as happy at a 28.6 degree inclination. Similar story for orbital eccentricity, ascending node, and argument of periapsis.

Basically, there is a specific shape and orientation to an orbit that you likely want for your satellite (for purposes of ground coverage for imaging/spectroscopy/etc., and for the purposes of having good visibility from ground stations for downloading data). That shape is likely to be expensive. Tourists don't care about the shape or orientation to the orbit, so having them tag along is inefficient (and potentially dangerous). Unless, as I said, you have a really cheap satellite with super loose requirements on which orbit it's in. In which case, your satellite probably isn't very important either.

I'll tell you one thing I thought of while typing this that any extra capacity would be useful for - flight qualifying hardware. A lot of proposed NASA missions have a problem with spacecraft hardware that goes something like this:

"You want to use this new fancy instrument?"
"Yes."
"Has it ever flown in space?"
"Well... no. But..."
"Well then we can't risk it. What if it doesn't work?"
"Well we simulated..."
"Can't risk it."
"Every instrument has to fly for the first time on..."
"Can't risk it."

So there's some value in just taking certain circuitboards to space and making sure they still work as expected. That's something this could be used for. I'm sure there are other applications too. My point is that, for example, tourists won't be riding along with the next telecom satellite anytime soon. Maybe not even a space telescope (which is probably the best real satellite I can think of for tourists to ride with). Note in the figure below that Hubble has over twice the orbital radius as sputnik. Sputnik is high enough for tourists. Hubble wanted to be further from the atmosphere. Hubble is almost twice the orbital distance from ISS. (Not that Hubble would fit with the crew anyway, the thing is huge)

We'd need to look at specific scenarios to really get into this. It's just not as simple as throwing a little extra weight in the trunk.

 

[Danoff]

How'd I manage the double post?