CCiCap was announced, SpaceX and Boeing were selected

[Sky_walker]

The Dragon V2 trunk carries solar panels. The capsule is designed to be able to operate for up to 30 days in orbit, IIRC. Not as long as the CST-100, but it's not like the only mission profile it can fly is a station rendezvous.

As I pointed out - it's very similar to the Soyuz.

Dragon V2 itself, as in: capsule, is just a descend module with rockets and (in this case: optional) parachute.

Additionally it has a service&orbital module (in this case unified into one called by SpaceX "trunk" so that crowds would hear something familiar) with solar panels and cargo space.

Also, it's not like reusability provides much of an advantage when there are only 6 flights planned.

True. But they can always use it to sell some additional flights - and if they would: prices can go down.

--------------------------------------------

A nice image for those who think that Boeing lagged behind the competition:

Edited September 17, 2014 by Sky_walker

[hugix]

I don't get the hatred against the CST-100. Its a capsule. WITH WI-FI! How could it nog win?

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/ccts/index.page

[Streetwind]

Also, it's not like reusability provides much of an advantage when there are only 6 flights planned.

True. But they can always use it to sell some additional flights - and if they would: prices can go down.

Fun fact: although both CST-100 and Dragon V2 are reusable, NASA doesn't want it (yet). They're chartering completely factory-new hardware (launcher and capsule) for every single launch. I assume this is because of some government safety stipulation and the unproven nature of said reusability. Maybe in the followup contract they'll accept pre-flown hardware.

So what happens to those two sets of six seven capsules (and F9 cores, if SpaceX can return them by then) after they fly their individual missions? They remain property of the launch provider, i.e. Boeing and SpaceX. So both companies get to build up a stockpile of reusable spacecraft that only have had a single flight each. This is sort of a hidden gift from NASA to the industry, because suddenly a lot of commercial customers can be serviced cheaply and in parallel if they agree to fly on the pre-flown craft.

A nice image for those who think that Boeing lagged behind the competition:

Note that each company chose their milestones themselves. This isn't a graph that shows that Beoing was faster at anything specific than the other two, but rather a graph that shows that Boeing was better at estimating what they could pull off (and that they felt confident enough in their ability to win to not set incredibly audacious goals like SpaceX did in a bid for attention).

For example, Boeing defined its abort tests as a CCtCap milestone (i.e. it's coming up under and is funded by the current contract they just won), whereas SpaceX defined its abort tests as a CCiCap milestone (i.e. it was part of and funded by the previous round). SpaceX then had to ask for an extension because they did not manage to deliver said abort tests before the conclusion of the CCiCap program timeframe, and thus they did not achieve 100% milestone completion in the above graph.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Streetwind

[Kryten]

There is a NASA licensing process for reusing vehicles; SpaceX stated they could have gone through it for cargo dragon, but decided not to. It's probably too expensive for a limited number of flights.

[Streetwind]

Does anyone at all use that licensing process, though? That smacks of some remnant of the shuttle era which is completely unsuited for these capsules for half a million reasons

[Kryten]

Cargo dragon would have been the only vehicle before this even capable of using that, so it's not a very meaningful question.

[Nibb31]

Does anyone at all use that licensing process, though? That smacks of some remnant of the shuttle era which is completely unsuited for these capsules for half a million reasons

Have you actually seen what a capsule looks like after reentry ? It certainly won't be "fill her up and fly her again". The first returned capsules will have to be torn down for post-mission analysis work to determine if they can be reused, and since there are only 6 flights in 3 years, it's not really enough to build the confidence in reusability and not worth the cost of establishing the recertification procedures.

I suspect that the capsules will be gutted or stored for later use, like the current Cargo Dragons. The actual systems will probably be refurbished and reused, but the "airframe" and skin will be new for each flight. It's not like they actually need a fast turnaround either.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Nibb31

[B787_300]

Hey SkyWalker you know that graph you posted with the % milestone .... YEAH about that both SpaceX and SNC had MUCH MUCH more difficult milestones,

Boeing has 2 testing articles right now, a chute and airbag tester and a structural pressure vessel for testing...

and IIRC the last two milestones that SpaceX has is a Pad Abort test (November) and a Inflight abort test at MaxQ (February/January)...

YES SNC was changing engines from hybrid to liquid... that is a good choice because hybrids have never been used *in space*, and anyways they had just aquired a company that produces small Liquid fuel engines so it makes sense that they would change.

they went with Boeing as to not .... off Old Space and their congressional backers, Remember NASA is still a political agency with their goals changing every 4 years or so because of the elections.

Personally I wanted SNC and SpaceX to win but that is because both of them are actually innovating where as Boeing is going we built the apollo capsule (they acquired the company) and are just scaling it up and making it with modern technologies (sorrta like the difference between the 737-2 and the 737-8/9 just bigger and more modern).

Oh and who ever said that the propulsive landing is pop and pray it is not, you meant parachutes... in a propulsive landing the way sapcex is doing it is on 8 engines, it can be done with 4 so there is redundancy, the engines are throttleable and controlable, unlike chutes. and even if all the engines were to miraculously fail, EVERY LAST DRAGON WILL HAVE PARACHUTES. while boeing has essentially no redundancy in parachutes, if 2/3 fail the capsule will hit the ground much harder than anticipated, it would be survivable but VERY unpleasant. if all 3 were to fail, good bye capsule good by people in capsule.

oh and Kryten. NASA does not force the vehicles to undergo any special NASA refurbishment before reflight... SpaceX hasnt done it becasue it is not cost effective for them to try on Dragon v1 and there is no need yet. THey might try before trying a refurb on Dragon v2 just to see but there is a good bit of difference between v1 and v2

[Kryten]

Hey SkyWalker you know that graph you posted with the % milestone .... YEAH about that both SpaceX and SNC had MUCH MUCH more difficult milestones,

Boeing has 2 testing articles right now, a chute and airbag tester and a structural pressure vessel for testing...

and IIRC the last two milestones that SpaceX has is a Pad Abort test (November) and a Inflight abort test at MaxQ (February/January)...

That means boeing knew what they could do with the time and budget they had, and SNC and SpaceX didn't. It's not a good sign for moving forward.

YES SNC was changing engines from hybrid to liquid... that is a good choice because hybrids have never been used *in space*, and anyways they had just aquired a company that produces small Liquid fuel engines so it makes sense that they would change.

It's a choice they shouldn't have had to make. Picking an unworkable propellant combination, and switching literally days before selection, again does not reflect well on future operations.

they went with Boeing as to not .... off Old Space and their congressional backers, Remember NASA is still a political agency with their goals changing every 4 years or so because of the elections.

SNC is old space; they're a traditional subcontractor founded in the 60s.

Personally I wanted SNC and SpaceX to win but that is because both of them are actually innovating where as Boeing is going we built the apollo capsule (they acquired the company) and are just scaling it up and making it with modern technologies (sorrta like the difference between the 737-2 and the 737-8/9 just bigger and more modern).

This makes no sense. Dreamchaser was different, which can be argued to be 'innovative', but it wasn't any better. All it had was cross-range and slightly lower g-forces, neither of which are needed or terribly useful for this mission.

Oh and who ever said that the propulsive landing is pop and pray it is not, you meant parachutes... in a propulsive landing the way sapcex is doing it is on 8 engines, it can be done with 4 so there is redundancy, the engines are throttleable and controlable, unlike chutes. and even if all the engines were to miraculously fail, EVERY LAST DRAGON WILL HAVE PARACHUTES. while boeing has essentially no redundancy in parachutes, if 2/3 fail the capsule will hit the ground much harder than anticipated, it would be survivable but VERY unpleasant. if all 3 were to fail, good bye capsule good by people in capsule.

And what happens if just one of dreamchasers control surfaces has a hard over? Goodbye people in lifting body. Capsules haven't had a parachute failure since Soyuz 1, and that was a design failure, while the only dream chaser flight so far went six million dollar man.

oh and Kryten. NASA does not force the vehicles to undergo any special NASA refurbishment before reflight... SpaceX hasnt done it becasue it is not cost effective for them to try on Dragon v1 and there is no need yet. THey might try before trying a refurb on Dragon v2 just to see but there is a good bit of difference between v1 and v2

They have requirements for it, same as they have requirements for letting people on it in the first place.

[Sky_walker]

Hey SkyWalker you know that graph you posted with the % milestone .... YEAH about that both SpaceX and SNC had MUCH MUCH more difficult milestones,

Competition was to know what you're doing and complete the milestones, only company that achieved that in 100% was Boeing. That's the brutal truth about this whole thing.

Personally I wanted SNC and SpaceX to win but that is because both of them are actually innovating where as Boeing is going we built the apollo capsule

And SpaceX is Soyuz capsule made with modern technologies.

Oh and who ever said that the propulsive landing is pop and pray it is not, you meant parachutes... in a propulsive landing the way sapcex is doing it is on 8 engines, it can be done with 4 so there is redundancy, the engines are throttleable and controlable, unlike chutes. and even if all the engines were to miraculously fail, EVERY LAST DRAGON WILL HAVE PARACHUTES. while boeing has essentially no redundancy in parachutes, if 2/3 fail the capsule will hit the ground much harder than anticipated, it would be survivable but VERY unpleasant. if all 3 were to fail, good bye capsule good by people in capsule.

I already mentioned that Dragon V2 has a capacity of landing with parachutes.

The approach Boeing chose is perfectly fine. What dragon offers has virtually no practical advantage over the system picked by Boeing. As Kryten already pointed out - failures of parachutes in capsules basically never happen. (Though I will laugh so hard if they'll make a PR stunt and purposely "fail" to deploy the chute "rescuing" the pod with rockets just to show how their design is awesome and safe while implying that Boeing's isn't)

Edited September 18, 2014 by Sky_walker

[B787_300]

well they have to test the chutes under a failure condition and they might use the engines and what ever fuel is left as a suicide burn... who knows. Eventually the chutes will just be back up or used in the case of an IFA where they dont have enough fuel to land under rockets

[Sky_walker]

well they have to test the chutes under a failure condition and they might use the engines and what ever fuel is left as a suicide burn... who knows. Eventually the chutes will just be back up or used in the case of an IFA where they dont have enough fuel to land under rockets

Or the other way around - rockets will be a backup to the chutes.

If their landing sequence will include suicide burn then parachutes won't help you if engines are going to fail / won't ignite. To make any use of parachutes in case of engine failure - they would have to either make two burns or one long throttled burn (eg. max-long minimum-max-touchdown with parachutes working as a failsafe in first maximum and minimum throttle burn).

[deadshot462]

It's in my understanding that Dragon V2 will do "test" burns at a high altitude to make sure the engines work. Even after that, Elon stated that the V2 can land with like 2 or 3 failed engines.

If engines fail during the test burn, parachutes are used as the main landing system.

[Rakaydos]

My question is, in the event of a known heat shield failure, can the Dragonrider use propulsive breaking to limit atmosphereic heating until it's low enough to use parachutes?

[B787_300]

rakaydos in a nutshell no. the amount of dV needed would be way to high if they knew about it the dragon would just stay docked to a station or try to get to a station for a repair to be carried out or a rescue craft sent up

[gbleck]

randl mour's new book what if covers the reentry without heat shield question. I guess the real question is how damage is it and how? If it creates to large an asymmetrical aerodynamic force your going to have a bad time. The supper draco may provide a lot sas but probably not roll damping the regular draco would provide that.

Edited September 18, 2014 by gbleck

[Rakaydos]

randl mour's new book what if covers the reentry without heat shield question. I guess the real question is how damage is it and how?

Well, lets consider an Apollo 13 type situation- something unstable was loaded in the vaccum trunk below the capsule, damaging the solar cells and scraping the heatshield slightly, near one edge.

In apollo, their only option was to pray the heat shield would hold. By coincidence, (and a lack of moon rocks) they also ended up in the shallowest flight path "allowed", resulting in the longest comm blackout in the apollo program- Im not sure if this had any heat-related benifits.

Assuming Dragon wasnt in a good inclination to visit a space station, what would be their options?

[Kryten]

Given the endurace a lone, crewed dragon would be likely to have? They could;

1) hope the heatshield functions

and/or

2) die

[Nibb31]

If your heatshield is toast, no amount of retro firing will save you (unless you are loaded with 8000m/s of delta v).

This is also one of the reasons why Dragon and CST-100 are safer than DreamChaser. Their heatshields are safely protected from MMOD damage right up until the last minute.

[Nicholander]

Sorry I was a bit late to check who won this, but I was actually hoping for the Dream Chaser to be one of the winners. (Yes, I know they've said that they'll still try to make it)

[B787_300]

Nicolander... Both ESA and JAXA have expressed interest and they can still get money from NASA it just wont be nearly as much and not a secured

[NASAFanboy]

Dreamchaser isn't giving up without a good fight.

SNC just filed a legal protest with the Government Accountability Office against Boeing and NASA.

[Pixel of Life]

What I would really like to see is SpaceX and SNC working together. Why not make the two systems compatible with each other and slap a DreamChaser on top of an F9R booster?

[deadshot462]

I like that Boeing can't delay their progress without looking bad now, pretty sure SpaceX will fly manned missions before them. They kind of shot themselves in the foot if they plan to pull the same moves they do with Orion/SLS and their fighter jets.

[astropapi1]

Dreamchaser isn't giving up without a good fight.

SNC just filed a legal protest with the Government Accountability Office against Boeing and NASA.

I love spaceplanes (only when they're used for LEO, though) and I was really sad to learn that Boeing's "Nothing new" capsule was elected over Dream Chaser. DC had many advantages over CST-100, including reduced G forces (for delicate experiments and hurt crew members) and the cross-range capability.