[WIP] Modern Aerospace Data Sheet (MADS)

[ZooNamedGames]

The Modern Aerospace Data Sheet (MADS) is a running project I've been making for over a year now where I've been collecting & compiling all data I can find about modern crew spacecraft (Orion, Dragon 2, Starliner, Starship, etc) & rockets (SLS, Super Heavy, New Glenn, Electron, etc). It's a small compilation of data, and a long running WORK IN PROGRESS. If you follow me on Twitter (please do, I post a lot of space related content!), you'll know I've been tracking the progress of modern spaceflight & the progress of all the vehicle's mentioned above, as well as others. It is a short list sadly, but I have expanded if I can get enough data to fill up most of the info on the data sheet.

I bring it to the forums since I'd like to get some help in filling out some of the blanks & open up discussion on it. Though I've been trying to be dedicated to it, help never hurts. As such, I've made a Google Form for people to submit info to- the only difficult requirement for a submission is a source for your information since I want reliable information as this is an unbiased, unopinionated project. All info on it is as neutral as I could possibly make it.

Currently the following vehicles are listed in the Spacecraft Section: Orion, Dragon 2, Starliner, Starship, New Shepard Crew Capsule, & SpaceShipTwo. Rocket Section: SLS Block I, Vulcan, Electron, Super Heavy, New Glenn. There is currently a slot open in the Rocket section, as I have not found enough info of a modern rocket. I am trying to keep company representation fair, & not include multiples of any one companies rocket's (New Shepard & New Glenn, Falcon 9 & Starship, SpaceShipOne & SpaceShipTwo, etc). However I am open to adding another vehicle should the data be sufficient; same goes for spacecraft (but would require reformatting the sheet again).

Again, as its a WIP, there are many gaps, "Unknowns", "???" & other blank info on the sheet. I've either not found a reliable piece of info on it, or the info has simply not been found, which is why I'd like help.

I post MADS updates on twitter semiregularly (given time for me to work on it), but I'll also post them here, should this post have enough activity to warrant it.

 

Link to the MADS: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tODJp9YheCIUGPmptWGfFZ7lY-Ew3FSa4T8t4H0f7IY/edit?usp=sharing

Link to the MADS Data Submission Form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScRnyLdmvxPPNXjOX8gp_b6fPZDLRuy4PFFgelerm52MQd1Ow/viewform

[tater]

You might want to standardize on how you rate things. You list 5 flights for Orion, even if you count boilerplate (EFT-1), it's 1 flight. If you count drop tests CST-100 and Crew Dragon must have dozens—unless you don't count non-flight article drop tests, and they are not dropping flight article, billion dollar Orions out of airplanes.

My suggestion would be "flights" that are flight article vehicles, and some other language for non-flight articles (flight articles being spacecraft actually capable of carrying humans in space).

Also, is there any talk of Orion post-Constellation ever holding 6 crew on a lunar flight? We know for a fact the unit cost on just the capsule is 900M$ in future production, so the cost per seat is nothing like 100M$, not even counting dev or ESM. Every single Artemis mission even penciled in (could it hold 6 to the Moon, vs short LEO flight?) is 4 crew. That's 225M/seat (not counting the SM, or any dev costs.

Again, it's coming up with a standard. The per seat costs of CST-100 and Crew Dragon are contractual, and accurate going forward. Total cost could amortize the dev cost over some number of flights, or could perhaps be tracked separately (as what the taxpayers paid in as dev)—2.XB$ for Crew Dragon and 4.XB$ for CST-100.

Edited April 2, 2021 by tater

[ZooNamedGames]

6 minutes ago, tater said:

You might want to standardize on how you rate things. You list 5 flights for Orion, even if you count boilerplate (EFT-1), it's 1 flight. If you count drop tests CST-100 and Crew Dragon must have dozens—unless you don't count non-flight article drop tests, and they are not dropping flight article, billion dollar Orions out of airplanes.

My suggestion would be "flights" that are flight article vehicles, and some other language for non-flight articles (flight articles being spacecraft actually capable of carrying humans in space).

Also, is there any talk of Orion post-Constellation ever holding 6 crew on a lunar flight? We know for a fact the unit cost on just the capsule is 900M$ in future production, so the cost per seat is nothing like 100M$, not even counting dev or ESM. Every single Artemis mission even penciled in (could it hold 6 to the Moon, vs short LEO flight?) is 4 crew. That's 225M/seat (not counting the SM, or any dev costs.

Again, it's coming up with a standard. The per seat costs of CST-100 and Crew Dragon are contractual, and accurate going forward. Total cost could amortize the dev cost over some number of flights, or could perhaps be tracked separately (as what the taxpayers paid in as dev)—2.XB$ for Crew Dragon and 4.XB$ for CST-100.

"Flights", according to my definition that I'll soon add to the MADS, is anything that includes rocket propulsion; exemption being SpaceShipTwo & DreamChaser. The former since its the same exact article as the rocket flying article, & DreamChaser as the two freeflights are the only ones it has thus far. Things like parachute tests, drop tests, splashdown tests, etc; are not included in any calculations or listings other than to report its status in the list.

I can't remember where but I did see data that suggested 6 for a short period (can't recall how long). If you can source a better number for that or costs, by all means hit the submission form. I'd love the help.

[tater]

Ares 1X was not an Orion flight, again, if that counts the parachute sleds dropped by SpaceX count as Dragons, and I'm sure Boeing has done the same with CST-100. It's comical to have more Orion flights than Dragon which has flown all-up to ISS 3-4 times (depends on if you count the cargo version), not to mention the pad-abort article which was a real spacecraft on top of a real rocket.

Based on your loose "flight" definition, Crew Dragon has flown 5 times from KSC (pad abort) and numerous drop tests.

[ZooNamedGames]

I've updated Orion's listing to 4 crew since I can't find what I found before but if I do, I'll relist it as such.

[tater]

5 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

"Flights", according to my definition that I'll soon add to the MADS, is anything that includes rocket propulsion; exemption being SpaceShipTwo & DreamChaser. The former since its the same exact article as the rocket flying article, & DreamChaser as the two freeflights are the only ones it has thus far. Things like parachute tests, drop tests, splashdown tests, etc; are not included in any calculations or listings other than to report its status in the list.

Then how could you get 5 for Orion, which has flown exactly once as a not fully flight article (EFT-1)?

4 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I've updated Orion's listing to 4 crew since I can't find what I found before but if I do, I'll relist it as such.

4? On what planet? Do "things shaped like Orion with the right mass" count? Then dummy capsules drop-tested also count. Which means you need to find out every single drop test SpaceX did (20? More?). Who knows what Boeing did, a lot I 'm sure.

You really need to count only "spacecraft" for flights, IMO. That or very separately list "test flight" maybe with a note that says it includes mass simulators, boilerplates, etc.

Edited April 2, 2021 by tater

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, tater said:

Ares 1X was not an Orion flight, again, if that counts the parachute sleds dropped by SpaceX count as Dragons, and I'm sure Boeing has done the same with CST-100. It's comical to have more Orion flights than Dragon which has flown all-up to ISS 3-4 times (depends on if you count the cargo version), not to mention the pad-abort article which was a real spacecraft on top of a real rocket.

Based on your loose "flight" definition, Crew Dragon has flown 5 times from KSC (pad abort) and numerous drop tests.

It had an Orion boilerplate, so just as much in common with the Ascent Abort-2 Orion. The Ares 1X was a rocket, while rocketsleds are more assists to throw it out of a plane- not quite the same & thus far, you're the only one to make this complaint.

Cargo is not included as that's following the crew variant (its in the crewed spacecraft section). Also I've included the pad abort test, IFA & other Dragon 2 flights. Cells K63-K68.

Just now, tater said:

Then how could you get 5 for Orion, which has flown exactly once as a not fully flight article (EFT-1)?

4? On what planet? Do "things shaped like Orion with the right mass" count? Them dummy capsules drop-tested also count.

You really need to count only "spacecraft" for flights, IMO. That or very separately list "test flight" maybe with a note that says it includes mass simulators, boilerplates, etc.

Each mission includes which vehicle is used. It says if its a boilerplate or not.

[tater]

Dream Chaser has done more than one drop test, too. One a long time ago had a gear failure to deploy, right?

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, tater said:

Dream Chaser has done more than one drop test, too. One a long time ago had a gear failure to deploy, right?

Yes, I've listed both drops. The one with the landing gear failure & the successful landing in 2017.

[tater]

2 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Yes, I've listed both drops. The one with the landing gear failure & the successful landing in 2017.

Number of flights says 1. Again, drop tests count? What about "captive carry" tests? Seems to me any flight on a launch vehicle not actually capable of making orbit or 100km (for suborbitals) is not worth counting.

Dream Chaser is 2 words, BTW.

9 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

It had an Orion boilerplate, so just as much in common with the Ascent Abort-2 Orion. The Ares 1X was a rocket, while rocketsleds are more assists to throw it out of a plane- not quite the same & thus far, you're the only one to make this complaint.

You claim Orion has orbited. EFT-1 was not an actual spacecraft capable of carrying humans on any mission, of any duration. The capsule was more than a boilerplate, but in terms of ranking "flights" it seems sloppy to me. Crew Dragon and CST-100 have both flown. NS has flown it's suborbital flight a bunch of times (14? You have 6), as has Spaceship/Spaceship2 as you have shown.

You should put the suborbital ones together probably. And Dream Chaser at the end, since it is not a crew vehicle for the near future (they've been using the crew version for all the testing, it's basically the same except it has windows where cargo has carbon fiber).

Also, you count Ares 1X, but then claim dev started on Orion after Constellation. Which is it? If Orion was a thing in 2009 to be tested, then dev starts with Constellation.

EDIT: Dream Chaser and Starship at the end. Both claim to be crew, but neither has a crew version at the moment.

[kerbiloid]

Did you try?

https://spaceflight101.com

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

Did you try?

https://spaceflight101.com

I'll give it a look, seems promising for some numbers.

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Number of flights says 1.

Clearly an error, I'll fix that. Remember it's one guy running this thing.

1 hour ago, tater said:

What about "captive carry" tests?

Its already iffy if I should've even included the free flight tests, but captive carry seems to be more like capsule drop tests to me, hence their omission. I just wanted DC to have something on the list.

2 hours ago, tater said:

Dream Chaser is 2 words, BTW.

Noted, I'll fix that.

2 hours ago, tater said:

You claim Orion has orbited. EFT-1 was not an actual spacecraft capable of carrying humans on any mission, of any duration.

Starship can't carry humans either in it's current form, but if it flies in July as Musk claims, I'm adding that to the "orbit" milestone for Starship despite SN2X being the Starship equivalent of Orion's EFT-1.

2 hours ago, tater said:

Crew Dragon and CST-100 have both flown. NS has flown it's suborbital flight a bunch of times (14? You have 6), as has Spaceship/Spaceship2 as you have shown.

Error, lots of areas to update when something flies, sometimes something gets looked over. Again, one guy.

 

[tater]

Since it is about crew spacecraft, I think it would be reasonable to subdivide "flights" such that you have actual crew flights separated.

Maybe:

Uncrewed test flights (various altitudes up to and including space)

Suborbital crew flights (suborbital in this case being specific to reaching space—might have to be <100km for Virgin though)

Orbital test flights

Orbital crew flights

At some point you'd need Lunar orbital flights.

[tater]

BTW, looking at this exchange, just want to make it clear to take it as constructive criticism. Having all the stuff in one place is a great idea.

[KSK]

The decision to include one rocket per company just looks odd to me. It also means that for two companies, you’ve prioritised boosters which are under development for  which there’s currently very little data, over boosters which are actually flying.

It’s your project of course but I would have thought it would make more sense to follow the old tradition of pairing spacecraft with booster. If you wanted to keep the comparison fairer for SpaceX vehicles you could maybe just include the numbers for Falcon 9 Block 5, since that’s the NASA crew rated one?

At the moment though, it’s rather like you’ve compiled  a dataset for historical spacecraft but missed out STS or Soyuz.

 

[ZooNamedGames]

21 hours ago, tater said:

Since it is about crew spacecraft, I think it would be reasonable to subdivide "flights" such that you have actual crew flights separated.

Maybe:

Uncrewed test flights (various altitudes up to and including space)

Suborbital crew flights (suborbital in this case being specific to reaching space—might have to be <100km for Virgin though)

Orbital test flights

Orbital crew flights

At some point you'd need Lunar orbital flights.

Eh I guess it is time for some better formatting. Blasted I was wanting to delay that, such a pain.

12 hours ago, KSK said:

The decision to include one rocket per company just looks odd to me. It also means that for two companies, you’ve prioritised boosters which are under development for  which there’s currently very little data, over boosters which are actually flying.

The intention was to provide data for upcoming vehicles. If you notice, all spacecraft are from 2010 & later (Orion is apparently up for debate). All rockets are from 2020 onwards with the exception of Electron which is an extremely sore thumb the more I look at it, so I may remove it, maybe not.

If I can get enough data for things like F9 B5 (or previous blocks), I'll add it. As I said to tater, its about time for an update to the format. (Ugh). So adding more vehicles may be an option. I already have a blank slot on the rocket section anyway so adding just 1 won't be an issue, but I'd likely add more than just one from SpaceX.

Again the reason for the 1 per company rule, is that I want to be unbiased, which on Twitter can massively affect your credibility which for a project like this, is all I have. But if I can get enough data for a new rocket, then perhaps I'll add it anyway.

12 hours ago, KSK said:

At the moment though, it’s rather like you’ve compiled  a dataset for historical spacecraft but missed out STS or Soyuz.

Don't tempt me. I've been considering making a HADS.

Edited April 3, 2021 by ZooNamedGames

[KSK]

4 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

The intention was to provide data for upcoming vehicles. If you notice, all spacecraft are from 2010 & later (Orion is apparently up for debate). All rockets are from 2020 onwards with the exception of Electron which is an extremely sore thumb the more I look at it, so I may remove it, maybe not.

If I can get enough data for things like F9 B5 (or previous blocks), I'll add it. As I said to tater, its about time for an update to the format. (Ugh). So adding more vehicles may be an option. I already have a blank slot on the rocket section anyway so adding just 1 won't be an issue, but I'd likely add more than just one from SpaceX.

Again the reason for the 1 per company rule, is that I want to be unbiased, which on Twitter can massively affect your credibility which for a project like this, is all I have. But if I can get enough data for a new rocket, then perhaps I'll add it anyway.

I admit that I hadn't noticed that all spacecraft are from 2010 onwards and all rockets from 2020 onwards.  My first thought though is 'why'? Why have two different cut-off dates for the crew vehicle and the rocket?  I'm sure you have reasons but, if you want to avoid the appearance of bias, you'll need to state them upfront and be prepared to defend them. 

More generally, any time that you've had to make a choice about which data to present, you'll need to be prepared to defend that choice against accusations of bias.

On that basis, the one-per-company rule is maybe not the best idea since any debate about companies and why one company's hardware is included but another's isn't, is where any Twitter debate is likely to get emotive. You'll also get the intransigents who define 'bias' as 'any opinion that differs from mine' but there's not much you can do about that.

You might be better off having one set of criteria for vehicles which you're going to include in your database and then including everything that meets those criteria. For example:

"Hardware under development  for crewed spaceflight but which, to date, has not yet flown it's intended crew to its intended altitude."

That would cover (if I recall rightly), Starship / Superheavy, SLS / Orion, Dreamchaser, SpaceShip 2, New Shepard, New Glenn, Vulcan, and Starliner. It would exclude Dragon 2 / Falcon 9 altogether (have flown crew to intended altitude) and Electron (not intended for crewed flight). SpaceShip 2 gets a pass because its intended crew are commercial passengers who haven't yet flown.

Here your narrative becomes: "This is a database of up-and-coming crewed spacecraft. My definition of up-and-coming is this. Here are all the spacecraft that I've had time to research which fit that definition."

Okay, Blue Origin get two vehicles on the list - but that's because they've got two vehicles under development. That's not bias - that's just presenting all the data. It's also somewhat diplomatic - if any idiot SpaceX fanboi gets all bent out of shape because Dragon 2 isn't included, then you can point out that Dragon 2 isn't an up-and-coming vehicle since it's already flown to the ISS with commercial crew.

Or if you want to go broader.  "Rocket propelled vehicles which have been under development since Year XXXX, where vehicle is defined as a single Block or version of an overall vehicle series."

That would let you keep all your previous data but might also include Falcon 9 and Electron, depending on your cut-off date.

Something like that anyway. Picking unbiased questions to answer is hard - just ask anyone who's had to draft a question to put to a political referendum.

Another way of avoiding bias of course, is just to throw everything you can find into your database and then let folks mine that data any which way they like. That's a lot of work on you though!

Edited April 3, 2021 by KSK

[tater]

And you cannot possible have the "Development start" date AFTER a test of the vehicle.

Orion needs the dev date pushed back to 2005/2006, or you need to remove all the tests that happened before 2011.