Thanks for posting that photo. Great to see the Crew Dragon! I didn’t realize the “cut outs” for the Super Dracos were so large. Such a shame that they won’t be used for retropropulsive landings.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Commercial Resupply Services and Commercial Crew report on expenditures:
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-18-016.pdf
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-18-016.pdf
This is so frigging annoying. The summary says:
Whereas deep in the report, it says:
So NASA saved $110M per launch with SpaceX in CRS-1, yet the IG highlighted that SpaceX is charging more for CRS-2? And that's not even mentioning that before these competitive non-cost plus contracts were handed out, NASA was paying substantially more for launches.
Later in the report, it says SpaceX is charging 50% more for CRS-2 as compared to CRS-1, and ATK, 15% less, so let's do the math:
SpaceX CRS-2: $228M
ATK CRS-2: $222M
In other words, virtually the same. I just found it very annoying that if you skimmed the report, you'd believe that SpaceX is overcharging NASA.
BTW, the report is very interesting, has lots of cool diagrams, and is very informative. Recommended reading if you want to learn more about this program and the three rocket companies (SpaceX, ATK, and Sierra Nevada).
Whereas deep in the report, it says:
So NASA saved $110M per launch with SpaceX in CRS-1, yet the IG highlighted that SpaceX is charging more for CRS-2? And that's not even mentioning that before these competitive non-cost plus contracts were handed out, NASA was paying substantially more for launches.
Later in the report, it says SpaceX is charging 50% more for CRS-2 as compared to CRS-1, and ATK, 15% less, so let's do the math:
SpaceX CRS-2: $228M
ATK CRS-2: $222M
In other words, virtually the same. I just found it very annoying that if you skimmed the report, you'd believe that SpaceX is overcharging NASA.
BTW, the report is very interesting, has lots of cool diagrams, and is very informative. Recommended reading if you want to learn more about this program and the three rocket companies (SpaceX, ATK, and Sierra Nevada).
The numbers make more sense if you look at cost per kg instead of cost per mission.SpaceX is the lightest hauler in terms of pressurized (2,500kg), and less in terms of total (~3,300) whereas ATK can do ~3,700 pressurized.
SpaceX also provides Down-Mass, so that probably makes up for the lower Up-Mass. Especially considering nobody else is providing cargo return capability.
Yah, that is an advantage vs ATK, but Sierra will theoretically have that, so I left it off. Relooking, Sierra is only 1,750kg to SpaceX's
2,507kg.
It all makes perfect sense when you understand that the extra work needed for confirming everything with NASA and various approval groups hired by NASA. That's not to say that the extra paperwork hasn't led to a much better Falcon 9 and Dragon 2. The other, less noticeable, comment in the report is that costs will drop with SpaceX if reused boosters are approved and used. The contract specifically states that the prices are based on only new boosters but NASA will evaluate whether previously flown Block 5 boosters would be okay for use. NASA did that with Block 4 and Block 5s are even better designed for reuse than B4. So I expect that SpaceX cranked up the price on new boosters to subtly push NASA into using more reused boosters. There is no official word but I expect a Block 5 booster, with its upgraded improvements, costs more than Block 3 or Block 4 ever did. There's no doubt a Dragon 2 is more expensive than a Dragon 1 even if it is only a cargo version.
e-FTW
New electron smell
e-FTW
New electron smell
Giant thermal vacuum chamber?
That is some solid engineering pr0n!
Is that the first photo SpaceX has released of the production version of the Crew Dragon?
So I understand better: the large dark inset areas at the base of the Crew Dragon are the Super Draco thrusters, and the much smaller dark ovals are cold gas thrusters?
I wonder why the trunk section isn’t painted.
So I understand better: the large dark inset areas at the base of the Crew Dragon are the Super Draco thrusters, and the much smaller dark ovals are cold gas thrusters?
I wonder why the trunk section isn’t painted.
Why would they? Like the F9 Block 5 interstate, the trunk is one use only, so no need for extra protection/ weight.
That video is amazing. The staged chutes are cool and the way the final set progressively opens is a thing of beauty.
Wow! That is lovely. And far more complicated than I imagined. Tell me if I have this right:
1 - single drogue chute
2 - two small chutes
3 - four large chutes that progressively expand to their full size
I’ve never seen anything like that. Much more complex than the A
1 - single drogue chute
2 - two small chutes
3 - four large chutes that progressively expand to their full size
I’ve never seen anything like that. Much more complex than the A
A great article on SpaceX and Commercial Crew progress:
Crew Dragon undergoes more tests as it progresses to operational readiness
Crew Dragon undergoes more tests as it progresses to operational readiness
Nikxice
Active Member
Grendal I didn't see much of anything new in the article. Author just consolidated several of your recent posts. Recognizing a good source, he could be following you on TMC. 
From NASA, the unit being tested in Ohio is going to do the first un-crewed demonstration flight.
I think SpaceX only has two Crew Dragons, so it will likely go on to other missions as well.
Similar threads
