Dragon in Orbit
- Thread starter saundby
- Start date
saundby
SOC-14 1K
Sorry about that!
Here are a number of them:
Launch video, short version (1:50)
Launch video, long version (16:00) and worth it!
Launch text press release, stills, additional video links.
Dragon Fly-by of ISS video (3:30).
Fly by & C2 mission tests text press release with still images and additional video links.
Dragon capture by ISS, video (2:44)
Dragon berthed to station video, (9:44)
ISS crew opens Dragon hatch, video (2:02)
Text and stills for capture and opening.
NASA Dragon Video Gallery
Articles on Dragon, text & images, from nasaspaceflight.com.
The last two links will include future events as they're posted.
Sorry about that!
Here are a number of them:
Launch video, short version (1:50)
Launch video, long version (16:00) and worth it!
Launch text press release, stills, additional video links.
Dragon Fly-by of ISS video (3:30).
Fly by & C2 mission tests text press release with still images and additional video links.
Dragon capture by ISS, video (2:44)
Dragon berthed to station video, (9:44)
ISS crew opens Dragon hatch, video (2:02)
Text and stills for capture and opening.
NASA Dragon Video Gallery
Articles on Dragon, text & images, from nasaspaceflight.com.
The last two links will include future events as they're posted.
That's a lot of links...
saundby
SOC-14 1K
Yeah, and for some reason the last one is no good today. Here's another try:
NASA ISS/Dragon Videos
They did a trial run today on using DEXTRE to unload cargo from the "trunk" section of Dragon. Apparently all went well.
DEXTRE inspects Dragon video, (3:00)
text article with stills
NASA ISS/Dragon Videos
They did a trial run today on using DEXTRE to unload cargo from the "trunk" section of Dragon. Apparently all went well.
DEXTRE inspects Dragon video, (3:00)
text article with stills
Cool - thanks for all the links!
Looks like the Dragon is doing really well.
(Bitter sweet memories of the CanadaArm - in the early '80s dad made some enhancements to the control for the shuttle remote manipulator arm that the astronauts liked in the simulators, but management didn't want him innovating. Final straw prompting him to move on from NASA...
)
Looks like the Dragon is doing really well.
(Bitter sweet memories of the CanadaArm - in the early '80s dad made some enhancements to the control for the shuttle remote manipulator arm that the astronauts liked in the simulators, but management didn't want him innovating. Final straw prompting him to move on from NASA...
)
saundby
SOC-14 1K
Cool - thanks for all the links!
Looks like the Dragon is doing really well.
(Bitter sweet memories of the CanadaArm - in the early '80s dad made some enhancements to the control for the shuttle remote manipulator arm that the astronauts liked in the simulators, but management didn't want him innovating. Final straw prompting him to move on from NASA...
Yeah, NASA does not match its public image. I've worked on plenty of innovations that are on shelves, and never got to space, too. Still, there are people there who see the commercial route as their future that are supporting it. There are at least two NASAs.
I've never been a NASA employee, myself, only a contractor. To date that's always been the best situation for me. There are plenty of people at NASA I think the world of, though.
saundby
SOC-14 1K
Spaceflight Companies Team Up for Private Space Station Flights, text article at space.com.
I've seen Genesis I and Genesis II. Both have been extremely successful tests of commercial space station technology. The BA330 is coming down the pike now, and it's the real thing.
It's all very exciting.
One of the problems is that CST-100 capsule - it's likely to come in no cheaper than Dragon...boeing is notorious for cost overruns... and isn't as capable. Plus, airbag landings are MUCH riskier. Water, grab your life vest take a few seconds to hyperventilate, seal up the suit, exit the capsule and trigger the flotation vest. (Noting, tho': the Dragon floats without it's float bags, at least when not heavy-loaded with cargo.)
The Dreamchaser also looks promising, especially if it adds a parawing backup.
The Dreamchaser also looks promising, especially if it adds a parawing backup.
saundby
SOC-14 1K
Yes, the CST-100 is a very conservative design from a company with a lot of pull and a long history of lowballing contracts. Without wandering into politics, I think this is what some think they'll get if there's a downselect to one crew vehicle right now.
Dragon is a more flexible design, and will likely be the first proven cargo vehicle in a number of hours, so its production is assured, making a man-rated version likely cheaper for real than CST-100's remaining work.
Dream Chaser is the continuation of lifting body work, and is likely the best path long-term for an orbital crew vehicle that confines costs, has a high potential flight rate, and gives a great basis for fully-reusable low cost flyback stack development (though that case could also be made for the Blue Origin biconic vehicle, if it ends up operating as anticipated.)
And Dream Chaser is advancing apace, hopefully its exposure will make it harder to kill.
Liberty has a team with lots of pull and the capsule gives the Orion team a lot of possible upgrades "for free" (so far as the Orion program is concerned.)
Basically, it's still too early to start cutting IMO, though the pressure is on to do so. Personally, I'd like to see all of them go forward for at least another year.
I think Dragon is pretty close to an inevitability right now for crew, even if it means being the "follower" in a two-vehicle "leader-follower" crew development program (leader gets the big bucks, follower gets life support funding in case the leader botches something big time.)
I'd pick either Liberty or CST-100 as the other survivor in a two vehicle program. Which will depend on the backers' ability to maneuver in D.C. Liberty has been outside CCDev so far, getting funding through a door Congress wants to close. CST-100 has been treated as a CCDev-2 front runner because of recent emphasis on "total package" integration of the crew vehicle with a launch platform, which makes Boeing's connection to ULA and the Atlas V more significant than might otherwise be the case if the case were based mainly on the crew vehicle.
This lack of a "package" was given as the reason for dropping Orbital Sciences from commercial crew at the last round, though they're looking at being the #2 COTS supplier (commercial cargo) later this year if everything shakes out well with Antares and the new launch facility.
Still, I'm hoping they keep them all going for a while. Dream Chaser and Blue Origin are getting us lots of basic research on the cheap through their development, at the very least. Liberty gets us some alternatives for Orion when (not if) a vehicle mass crunch hits that program. Dragon gets us cargo, crew, and potentially a deep space alternative to Orion in case Orion hits a wall or gets cut. CST-100 gets us a pretty much sure thing orbital crew vehicle if everything else falls flat.
In another year, IMO, it'll be more clear which show promise and which are going to soak up funds building hangar queens. Right now all the vehicles have promise from what I can see.
And we're getting all this for significantly less than the cost of the Orion alone (though it's a bit of an unfair comparison, as Orion is being developed for long term deep space missions while the others are limited to LEO or MEO for now.)
Dragon is a more flexible design, and will likely be the first proven cargo vehicle in a number of hours, so its production is assured, making a man-rated version likely cheaper for real than CST-100's remaining work.
Dream Chaser is the continuation of lifting body work, and is likely the best path long-term for an orbital crew vehicle that confines costs, has a high potential flight rate, and gives a great basis for fully-reusable low cost flyback stack development (though that case could also be made for the Blue Origin biconic vehicle, if it ends up operating as anticipated.)
And Dream Chaser is advancing apace, hopefully its exposure will make it harder to kill.
Liberty has a team with lots of pull and the capsule gives the Orion team a lot of possible upgrades "for free" (so far as the Orion program is concerned.)
Basically, it's still too early to start cutting IMO, though the pressure is on to do so. Personally, I'd like to see all of them go forward for at least another year.
I think Dragon is pretty close to an inevitability right now for crew, even if it means being the "follower" in a two-vehicle "leader-follower" crew development program (leader gets the big bucks, follower gets life support funding in case the leader botches something big time.)
I'd pick either Liberty or CST-100 as the other survivor in a two vehicle program. Which will depend on the backers' ability to maneuver in D.C. Liberty has been outside CCDev so far, getting funding through a door Congress wants to close. CST-100 has been treated as a CCDev-2 front runner because of recent emphasis on "total package" integration of the crew vehicle with a launch platform, which makes Boeing's connection to ULA and the Atlas V more significant than might otherwise be the case if the case were based mainly on the crew vehicle.
This lack of a "package" was given as the reason for dropping Orbital Sciences from commercial crew at the last round, though they're looking at being the #2 COTS supplier (commercial cargo) later this year if everything shakes out well with Antares and the new launch facility.
Still, I'm hoping they keep them all going for a while. Dream Chaser and Blue Origin are getting us lots of basic research on the cheap through their development, at the very least. Liberty gets us some alternatives for Orion when (not if) a vehicle mass crunch hits that program. Dragon gets us cargo, crew, and potentially a deep space alternative to Orion in case Orion hits a wall or gets cut. CST-100 gets us a pretty much sure thing orbital crew vehicle if everything else falls flat.
In another year, IMO, it'll be more clear which show promise and which are going to soak up funds building hangar queens. Right now all the vehicles have promise from what I can see.
And we're getting all this for significantly less than the cost of the Orion alone (though it's a bit of an unfair comparison, as Orion is being developed for long term deep space missions while the others are limited to LEO or MEO for now.)
saundby
SOC-14 1K
Orion is currently being funded from the same pot as SLS, as a deep space vehicle with some guidance that it be able to perform ISS crew transfer if none of the CCDev contenders can meet program objectives according to the timeline (each has different objectives from the list, I know several are performing to plan, all might be.)
Current Orion development has only been cut from the levels that continued work to the Constellation program plan called for. In fact, Constellation was never fully funded.
The nutshell version is that while Orion has been cut, its program requirements have been significantly reduced as well. The 7 seat ISS transport version is out of scope now, all work is on the 4 seat deep space version. Dropping the Ares I mass restrictions means a lot of work to cut weight has become unnecessary, too, saving money and reducing program risk a lot.
Right now work is focused on an unmanned flight atop an Atlas V to demonstrate re-entry and recovery systems. Later a flight atop an SLS will take it to lunar orbit. If all goes well a replay with a crew on board may be next. While there's been no political statement of mission for Orion, NASA program office planning is 100% for deep space at this time. If ISS transport comes back in scope it'll have an uphill battle to do so, as there'll have to be more dollars allocated to make that happen, far more than the quarter billion in CCDev right now.
NASA's current policy is one of a dual pronged approach, with CCDev for ISS crew transfer and Orion for exploration.
Current Orion development has only been cut from the levels that continued work to the Constellation program plan called for. In fact, Constellation was never fully funded.
The nutshell version is that while Orion has been cut, its program requirements have been significantly reduced as well. The 7 seat ISS transport version is out of scope now, all work is on the 4 seat deep space version. Dropping the Ares I mass restrictions means a lot of work to cut weight has become unnecessary, too, saving money and reducing program risk a lot.
Right now work is focused on an unmanned flight atop an Atlas V to demonstrate re-entry and recovery systems. Later a flight atop an SLS will take it to lunar orbit. If all goes well a replay with a crew on board may be next. While there's been no political statement of mission for Orion, NASA program office planning is 100% for deep space at this time. If ISS transport comes back in scope it'll have an uphill battle to do so, as there'll have to be more dollars allocated to make that happen, far more than the quarter billion in CCDev right now.
NASA's current policy is one of a dual pronged approach, with CCDev for ISS crew transfer and Orion for exploration.
Similar threads
