SpaceX Dragon V2 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2014, 08:09:30 am
content: Behold! The newly-unveiled manned version of the SpaceX Dragon capsule.Elon Musk does a walkaround, both inside and out and showcases some of the tech,like the 3D printed SuperDraco engines.http://new.livestream.com/spacex/DragonV2/videos/52348399With the trunk on, it has a very old-school Buck Rogers look with the mid-body engines and all.Neat!!

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2014, 03:01:20 am
content: Looks like a nice machine.Still I really wish we had a "single stage to orbit" vehicle by now. I think technically we could have if a partnership of governments or even the US alone had been willing to commit the money.Dragon V2 puts the still in development SLS / Orion capsule to shame. I know SLS will have more lift but its a lot of recycled shuttle parts and rehashed Apollo technology.Capsule with water landing in 2014?Apollo was awesome. Those people invented the solutions as they went, pioneering breakthrough technology for its time. NASA needs to start thinking outside the box on manned spaceflight or leave it to the private sector in the US.These private companies are going to kick their but when it come to a manned LEO solution.The US is in a very embarrassing spot right now. The Chinese and the Russians can put humans into orbit and we cannot. Worse yet we buy seats from the Russians. Our political leaders and our apathetic citizens let this happen.KT

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2014, 04:06:09 am
content: All though the video im looking at the Dragon V1 suspended over peoples heads and hoping its attached securely to the roof, and that the presenters control panel with those two buttons isn't the release for it

author: Zad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2014, 04:56:30 am
content: I'm really not sure V2 is a great name for a rocket, even as an informal suffix. Anyone who lived in the UK, or has grandparents who lived here 1939-1945 knows exactly what a V2 rocket does. Maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but I'm sure they could have thought of a different nomenclature.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2014, 05:42:55 am
content: I am a bit sceptical about the control panel.SF stories taught me you want controls to be under your hands, not over your head.Inquest of Pilot Pirx by Stanislav Lem:

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2014, 06:15:54 am
content: Quote from: Zad on May 31, 2014, 04:56:30 amI had the same thought. V2.0 would have been a little better. Just Dragon 2 would have been good, or D2. In either case, this is the first spacecraft that looks appealing to ride in. What a space capsule should really look like. No offence to North American aviation who designed the command module, or Rockwell (Still north American aviation) who designed the space shuttle but the command module looked like a telephone switching console inside and the space shuttle insides looked like somebody took a late model B52, ground it up, squeezed it into a mold, and out plopped the space shuttle. This thing looked like they put a picture of a tesla dashboard on the wall and said make it look like that! Nice and clean.

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2014, 01:10:22 pm
content: Looks like one of the kerbal command modules.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2014, 06:16:52 am
content: Quote from: Homer J Simpson on May 31, 2014, 03:01:20 amLooks like Skylon is probably the only hope for that for some time to come. This looks like good news for that:http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27591432It's not "IT WORKS!!" good news, but I'll take it where I get it.Found some nice high-res shots of the Dragon 2 interior over at Nasaspaceflight.com. Interesting how they seem to have taken their interface design cues from Tablet computers more than aviation/MFDs.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=34857.0;attach=586575;imageLike the Gantt chart at the bottom of panel 1 and 3. Good idea.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2014, 08:58:45 am
content: i like the way how space X is doing things... they're doing a better and cheaper research & development than the space agencies.the modern 21st century control is cooland i guess the modern controls and materials are responsible for the weight savings making the powered landing possible. (if you don't have to carry half a ton of "computer" , then you can carry a half a ton of rocket engines and propellant for powered landing).

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2014, 10:00:08 am
content: Who's the Prime Contactor--Mattel???

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2014, 10:13:48 am
content: the prime contractor is NASA of course... but why would they contract someone if they would be able to do it better and cheaper ? look at the shuttle - the idea was to have a highly reusable and cheap space craft. what they ended up with ? the most expensive space transportation ever (even the giant Saturn V was cheaper in terms of $ per mass to orbit).

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2014, 04:03:41 pm
content: Quote from: rob77 on June 01, 2014, 10:13:48 amTime and time again government is proven to be the least cost effective method of getting anything done. Bureaucracy gets involved and costs inflate. NASA knows this and that is why they are now contracting with outside companies. SpaceX is building a good track record with the ISS resupply missions. Others will follow as well.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2014, 12:18:46 am
content: Having worked in both sectors in my own country,I have found that Bureaucracy is live & well in the Private Sector,but in the least likely place.When I left a Govt position to work in a fairly large Broadcasting Organisation,I found it to be very similar to the job I'd just left.Neither had any great level of bureaucracy.The same was not the case with a quite small manufacturing company I subsequently worked at.Things which would be decided at Technician level in my previous jobs required high level Management participation.Old style Govt departments in Australia were headed by Career Public Servants,who were paid,maybe four times the pay rate of those on the shop floor.Nowadays.their replacements are paid 50 times the shop floor rate!And are they any better?-----Not a bit!!Of course,you have to pay them that much,or they'll go to the Private Sector & waste the Shareholder's money instead!

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2014, 12:35:50 am
content: Quote from: rob77 on June 01, 2014, 10:13:48 amThe Shuttle's capabilities went far beyond anything the Dragon V2 can do.Prior to the existence of the ISS,& after the demise of Skylab,the Shuttle was about the nearest thing NASA had to a space lab.It has also launched satellites from its huge cargo bay, & carried semi-autonomous scientific & military modules into space.The Dragon V2 is a "space taxi",the shuttle was more like a "Roadtrain".PS:My "tongue in cheek"comment about Mattel was because I thought the thing looked a bit "Mickey Mouse".

author: LukeW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2014, 02:44:28 am
content: Quote from: Zad on May 31, 2014, 04:56:30 amI know what you mean, but the Nazi-era V2 was a tremendous engineering milestone - the first machine built by Earthlings to, just barely, for a moment, go into space. Humanity's first spacecraft.It was a monumental engineering milestone, even if it is politically incorrect to say that because of its use as a weapon - just like the Messerschmitt Me 262, or the first manmade nuclear reactors.

author: notsob
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2014, 05:29:44 am
content: It's a little difficult to get a feel for the size of the cargo bay in the shuttle, if you have actually been in one, you could fit a bus in it. For the current and projected space taxis, you can only fit a few bags of spuds in them (potatoes=spuds)

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2014, 06:49:52 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on June 02, 2014, 12:35:50 amno-one saynig that dragon can do the job the shuttle way doing.. i mentioned the shuttle as an example of extremely expensive transportation.the dragon is the right vessel for rotating the iss crew and sending some resupply (like the old good and simple soyuz is), you don't need a "space 18 wheeler" for that job. if you need to lift some heavy gear - there are other rockets designed for that job (Delta , Proton).the Shuttle was a "runaway" project (in terms of initial plan vs. what they got) - far far far away from the initial plan of having a cheap space transportation, and the safety record wasn't that good either.

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2014, 06:55:57 am
content: The upcoming heavy falcon 9 rockets are looking pretty impressive.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2014, 09:07:31 am
content: Quote from: calexanian on June 02, 2014, 06:55:57 amyes they are. thumbs up for SpaceX

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2014, 10:42:51 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on June 02, 2014, 12:35:50 amAs a truck, the Space Shuttle wasterribleat it's job. It had a dismal cost/mass to orbit ratio and it had a dismal payload/GLOW ratio.It required a small army to maintain and stretched the definition of "reuseable" to the breaking point. Even at it's best, the Shuttle was a Swiss Army Knife. There is a point, however, when you want more specific tools.Dragon V2 can land anywhere. It can stay in orbit months longer than Shuttle. It can abort at any point during ascent, whereas the Shuttle (due to it's almost non-existent abort modes) would not even pass current "Man Rated" requirements. It's abort-modes all assumed the vehicle could still fly in some fashion. The only crew escape mechanism developed post-Challenger involved jumping out of the vehicle. Even the over-designed silly-big Orion from a crew-safety standpoint is better in almost every way.The Space Shuttle is what we got when we designed as system whereby everyone who worked on Apollo kept their job, plus let the Military dictate throw requirements.The early fully-reusable concepts had less throw, but were clearly much better, fully-reusable designs:http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch8.htm

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2014, 07:16:58 pm
content: Quote from: HP-ILnerd on June 02, 2014, 10:42:51 amWell, not the worst idea. Hiring a bunch of pimply-faced youth with zero experience of actually bringing a man into space and back? Or keeping a bunch of experienced old hands who in fact did it? I think keeping the old hands is a reasonable idea. They already learned their expensive and sometime tragic lessons.QuoteI think they also had constant interference from politics, messing with the budget and changing project priorities.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2014, 08:13:02 pm
content: Quote from: Bored@Work on June 02, 2014, 07:16:58 pmpolitics tends to screw-up everythingi could imagine that guys at nasa got an order "do it different way that Russians do". so they combined their reusable concept with a heavy lifter and a space station, just to not have dedicated heavy lifters and a permanent space station on the orbit like the russians doso they ended up with the shuttle which was pretty versatile but inefficient.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2014, 06:33:26 am
content: Quote from: Bored@Work on June 02, 2014, 07:16:58 pmIn general, no argument. But since they were trying to preserve jobs besides engineers, it led to a system with Apollo-style "waste anything but time" costs, whilst adding wasting time to their itinerary. This can also lead to solving your problems the same way you always solve them, appropriate or no. Note SLS using legacy tech, which (as Musk points out) leads to legacy cost structures. Now we have to hear SLS supporters try to explain how SLS is reallyvery differentfrom DIRECT, which they claimed wouldn't work.QuoteOh yes, the goalposts jumped around pretty good. Nothing like watching bureaucrats trying to justify their own jobs by making promises. They couldn't promise the Moon though. They'd already given them that.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2014, 02:14:05 am
content: Quote from: rob77 on June 02, 2014, 08:13:02 pmThe Russians didn't really plan it that way----theyweregoing to build a Shuttle,but the costs got away from them.They were then stuck with Soyuz,so had to "make the best of it"---& the "best" was very good,indeed!NASA planned a "Mir-style" Space Station,after Skylab,but didn't get the funding.The period of "Mir co-operation" with the USA was one of the few "win-win" situations in life,----the Russkis didn't have to build a Shuttle,& the USA didn't have to build their own Space Station,or a Soyuz equivalent.During the ISS building stage,the Shuttle delivered a lot of awkward shaped components which didn't fit well into Soyuz.In its own right,it operated as a base for many space experiments.SpaceX should be able to produce something good.After all,there have been 30-40 years of Technological progress since the design of the Shuttle & Soyuz .But wait!----Dragon V2 has never flown.The Shuttle & Soyuz have both been there & done that!This guy's comments are interesting:-http://www.cnet.com/au/news/astronaut-musks-capsule-a-good-addition-to-soyuz-q-a/

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2014, 06:14:56 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on June 04, 2014, 02:14:05 amThey did build something similar.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29But couldn't afford it and the end of the soviet union didn't help. They must also have peeked at a few US documents when building itQuoteBut they make an honest attempt to get it to that point. And if I get it right, Space X hired a former NASA astronaut to lead the program. Better than having a pimply-faced youth at the helmet.QuoteBut at some point you can't run the equivalent of the Model T car any more but have to start to build something more modern. That is maybe the real problem, development of successors started too late and, of course, always too many politics involved.QuoteI think his comments make sense.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2014, 02:26:43 pm
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on June 04, 2014, 02:14:05 amactually the russian shuttle Buran with it's carrier rocket Energia completed a unmanned automated flight (in the 80') , but the project was stopped later on a completely canceled after disintegration of USSR. it was rumored that the project was stopped because there was no real advantage over Soyuz and Progres (progres is a unmanned cargo version of soyuz).btw.. the Energia rocket was a quite heavy lifter , 100 metric tonnes to orbit (175ton in the biggest configuration - but that configuration was never flown)- some company was considering to revive the rocket - but no one on Earth needs it's lifting capacityand let me note that the basic building block of ISS was lifted with the Proton rocket - a heavy lifter rocket dedicated for such a job. so it's not only about soyuz on the russian side.of course nasa did most of the lifting for ISS - no doubts, but it was quite expensive thanks to the "not so cost effective" shuttle and the building of ISS was quite delayed (no money on the russian side and way too expensive lifter on the US side)but backt to the topicthumbs up for SpaceX againand let them bring some new technology into the outdated "space age" world

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2014, 08:50:55 pm
content: I think the design is cool, it looks like a reasonable people mover. I really hope this helps the space program come back into the limelight. While many people think the space program is a waste of money, I think it's great for science. If not for returning data but for getting people interested in science in general.Anyway, about russians vs. americans. I've been reading a ton lately about the space race and (as an american) was surprised to read that the russians pretty much beat us in everything, except landing on (and orbiting) the moon with actual people. (Then again, their method was pretty much "LAUNCH ALL THE ROCKETS" and eventually one will make it where as the americans were a bit more reserved. But still, it was interesting to read that some old rocket engines were found in a shed somewhere in Russia and after testing, were found to be one of the most efficient (highest ISP) rocket engines to this day. (Even though it was built in the 60s.)Maybe one day I'll be rich enough to go to space. Not likely, but I can dream.And yes, the space shuttle didn't quite meet its design goal (cheap way of moving things to space.)

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2014, 08:25:44 am
content: Quote from: corrado33 on June 06, 2014, 08:50:55 pmregarding those engines found it a shed... those were the "inside-out engines" (cooled with oxidiser, not the fuel) - nasa guys believed it's impossible to build such a engineand the russians didn't know it's impossible and built them back in the 60's - 70'sbtw.. those engines were bought by the US and are used on rockets (not sure which ones , but probably atlas ) - improving the performance of the rockets thanks to the higher ISP of the engines.i think the whole world should cooperate and share ideas because in every country there are people with great ideas.

author: junkie_business
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 07, 2014, 04:50:22 pm
content: Quote from: HP-ILnerd on June 02, 2014, 10:42:51 amJust a decade earlier, theywerepimply-faced youth with zero experience. The vast majority of those guys were straight out of college. Amazing.Also, back to Spacex. Look at this. Justlook at this shit right here...You don't have to know much about how rocket engines work to understand that what these guys are doing is pretty special.

author: warp_foo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2014, 12:28:28 am
content: Quote from: rob77 on June 07, 2014, 08:25:44 amThere is a decent documentary on those engines:

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2014, 06:41:45 am
content: junkie_business:Just FYI, that wasn't me who said what was in your quote box. That was Bored@Work.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2014, 07:29:10 am
content: Quote from: HP-ILnerd on June 08, 2014, 06:41:45 amYes, and he was so busy with selective quoting that he even cut out the "answer" to what he took issue with:Quote from: Bored@Work on June 02, 2014, 07:16:58 pm