TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
  1. TMC is currently READ ONLY.
    Click here for more info.

Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) SpaceX and Boeing developments

Discussion in 'SpaceX' started by Grendal, May 12, 2016.

Tags:
  1. e-FTW

    e-FTW New electron smell

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,216
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Am past due on some of my sleuthing. New turbo pump blades? Octoweb 3.0? Blisk turbine wheel?
     
    • Like x 1
  2. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    The blisk turbine wheel is the new turbopump blades. A couple years back there was mention that examination of the turbopump blades showed there was cracking that NASA felt was unacceptable. Granted that those cracks were able to be examined because SpaceX could recover their boosters. The cracking was happening on everyone else's turbopumps too when tested. So it wasn't something unique to SpaceX. Block 5 has the new blades and they seem to remove the issue since they've been tested.

    We'll see the Block 5 booster launch for the first time in just a couple weeks. So we'll see all the new equipment in action then.
     
    • Informative x 3
  3. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    8,229
    Location:
    San Diego
    Yeah, not only does reuse save money, it also allows SpaceX to learn and make the system even more reliable.
     
    • Like x 2
  4. Nikxice

    Nikxice Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,054
    Location:
    Hudson, NH
    The accomplishment bullet points are a sign of progress. A lingering question is whether SpaceX and NASA have worked out a resolution for the Falcon 9 boarding procedure. SpaceX's preference is known as "load and go". The plan is (or was) to get the astronauts on board, commence the approximate 30 minute fueling procedure, then launch. This method facilitates keeping the super-chilled oxygen in a denser liquid state. I know former Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford was on a NASA advisory committee that voiced strong opposition to this procedure. I've linked a letter he wrote highlighting concerns dated 12/09/15. Worth noting that this was written 9 months before the COPV launchpad failure.
    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/FOIA/17-HQ-F-00079-ID.pdf

    The method of boarding proposed by Stafford's committee is to load crew only after the Falcon 9 is fueled and stabilized. Then the astronauts and essential personal would be allowed near the rocket.

    Does anyone know if this issue has been settled? My understanding is that the two major drawbacks to late boarding could either be limiting payload or possibly affecting booster RTLS/ASDS capability.
     
    • Informative x 2
  5. Bobfitz1

    Bobfitz1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,160
    Location:
    Ludlow, Vt
    Did the NASA update reveal any changes to progress and time line of Boeing CST-100 Starliner?
     
  6. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,181
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    • Informative x 1
  7. e-FTW

    e-FTW New electron smell

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,216
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
  8. e-FTW

    e-FTW New electron smell

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,216
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
  9. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,181
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    That article explains it as follows, quote: “...NASA is running short of ways to get its astronauts to the ISS. NASA astronauts currently fly to the station on Russian Soyuz rockets, and the space agency has seats booked on flights of the vehicle for the next two years. The last Soyuz that will carry NASA astronauts will take off in fall 2019. After that, NASA will need to rely on its Commercial Crew partners to take astronauts to and from the ISS.”
     
    • Informative x 1
    • Like x 1
  10. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    Speculation time.

    I expect this may be in response to the recent political upheavals happening with Russia. It is quite possible that at any moment either the USA or Russia prevents US astronauts from launching on the Soyuz rockets. Up until now, NASA has reserved (as ecarfan mentioned) seats to the ISS on Russian rockets up to fall 2019. Since those seats are already reserved it removed the need for either Boeing or SpaceX to be absolutely ready. Which has allowed NASA and oversight committees to get extra nit-picky about safety. There is/was no extra pressure to push for a launch with astronauts. That has suddenly changed. Boeing, being a long time government contractor, reacted quicker than SpaceX to volunteer to have their first test launch with astronauts to have the option of an "extension."
     
    • Like x 2
  11. SwTslaGrl

    SwTslaGrl Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    594
    Location:
    Sweden
    Perhaps the demand for crew transportation will increase with startups like this: Orion Span (revealed only a few days ago).
    They need a low cost launch provider to make it work?
     
  12. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    • Informative x 7
  13. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,857
    Location:
    Michigan
    Sounds like the plan is to have the Atlantic as primary and Gulf as backup.
     
  14. Bobfitz1

    Bobfitz1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,160
    Location:
    Ludlow, Vt
    Still disappointed that NASA (apparently) has not even set some stringent series of metrics which if successfully achieved would permit SpaceX to land Dragon 2s on land as planned.

    Prior to BFR going operational, if SpaceX has F9 or FH missions with crews with no NASA astronauts, will it still be prevented from landing Dragon propulsively on land?
     
    • Like x 1
  15. Nikxice

    Nikxice Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,054
    Location:
    Hudson, NH
    That article answers a previous question I had concerning crew recovery after splashdown. There's no planned ocean egress from the Dragon 2 capsule. Hoisted aboard a ship is likely safer by reducing the chance of water intrusion.
     
    • Informative x 1
    • Like x 1
  16. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    Yes. I'm pretty sure that is true. For one, SpaceX would need to fully test the landing system. That is work they would need to spend a lot of money on to test and confirm it works. I certainly hope that SpaceX has something in place just in case the parachute system completely fails but since it isn't tested then trying to use it otherwise is too dangerous. I expect that there is some regulatory agency that would prevent SpaceX using the system without signing off on it. We know there is a lot of regulations needed to make a rocket acceptable for human use. SpaceX isn't even bothering to get FH human rated even though F9 will be. I can't imagine that getting FH human rated would be incredibly more difficult than just F9.
     
    • Informative x 1
  17. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,857
    Location:
    Michigan
    I may be misremembering (maybe I'm thinking Red Dragon), but I thought the latest version of crew dragon didn't have landing capable thrusters, only the emergency abort ones.

    Is there any use for a NASA crew rated FH? Unless they made a super heavy version of Dragon (in which case send the people on F9, and cargo on FH) the only purpose I see is a moon pass.
     
  18. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    As far as I am aware, the Super Draco thrusters used for the emergency abort are exactly the same ones used for landing purposes.

    I also think that the rules for human rating pertain to both NASA astronauts and commercial tourism customers. NASA does have oversight for Commercial Crew and (I expect) they are being extra picky beyond just a human rating needed by whatever regulatory rules that apply. Falcon Heavy would need that rating for the tourists to launch on it. Falcon Heavy is necessary to get the tourists around the Moon. F9 can get them to orbit and maybe even further but not a free return trip around the Moon.

    NASA could spend the money and ask SpaceX to send NASA astronauts around the Moon. The money would need to include the steps necessary to rate the FH for humans just as Commercial Crew has done for the F9. Unless there is a directive from Congress to fund such a trip and those needed steps then it will not happen. It's been a huge chore to get Congress to fund Commercial Crew. Most of the multiple year delays are because Congress wouldn't give SpaceX or Boeing the money to do what was needed.
     
    • Helpful x 1
  19. Bobfitz1

    Bobfitz1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,160
    Location:
    Ludlow, Vt
    We had some discussion some time back about how much money it would take to confirm Dragon 2 can land repeated and successfully using latest Draco thrusters.
    My assertion then, and now, is that with all they have learned from the Grasshopper testing and the huge amount from tests of Dra.gon 2 and Draco commercial escape, it should not cost a great deal to prove that Dragon 2 can land safely and reliably. They could use the already paid for Dragon 2 test capsule, and test it using Dracos to go up a few hundred feet and return and then a few thousand feet and
    back down to land. Really, how much would that cost in staff time and fuel?
     
    • Like x 1
  20. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,181
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    The issue is with NASA’s high aversion to risk with new ways to do old things. Parachutes work. Retropropulsive landing in a new crew vehicle? They aren’t interested.
     
    • Like x 1

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC