Talk:SpaceX Dragon

Selection by NASA

Looks like it is set in stone now, just got this from spaceX:

NASA SELECTS SPACEX TO RETURN AMERICANS TO SPACE

(Hawthorne, CA) – Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) today won a $440 million contract with NASA to develop the successor to the Space Shuttle and transport American astronauts into space.

This is a decisive milestone in human spaceflight and sets an exciting course for the next phase of American space exploration, said SpaceX CEO and Chief Designer Elon Musk. SpaceX, along with our partners at NASA, will continue to push the boundaries of space technology to develop the safest, most advanced crew vehicle ever flown.

SpaceX expects to undertake its first manned flight by 2015 – a timetable that capitalizes on the proven success of the company's Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft combination. While Dragon is initially being used to transport cargo to the International Space Station, both Dragon and Falcon 9 were designed from the beginning to carry crew.

Under the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative's base period, SpaceX will make the final modifications necessary to prepare Dragon to safely transport astronauts into space. These include:

• Seats for seven astronauts.

• The most technically advanced launch escape system ever developed, with powered abort possibilities from launch pad to orbit. SpaceX will demonstrate that Dragon will be able to escape a launch-pad emergency by firing integrated SuperDraco engines to carry the spacecraft safely to the ocean. SpaceX will also conduct an in-flight abort test that allows Dragon to escape at the moment of maximum aerodynamic drag, again by firing the SuperDraco thrusters to carry the spacecraft a safe distance from the rocket.

• A breakthrough propulsive landing system for gentle ground touchdowns on legs.

• Refinements and rigorous testing of essential aspects of Dragon's design, including life-support systems and an advanced cockpit design complete with modern human interfaces.

SpaceX will perform stringent safety and mission-assurance analyses to demonstrate that all these systems meet NASA requirements.

With a minimal number of stage separations, all-liquid rocket engines that can be throttled and turned off in an emergency, engine-out capability during ascent, and powered abort capability all the way to orbit, the Falcon 9-Dragon combination will be the safest spacecraft ever developed.

--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. They were one of the three selected, plus this isn't the final round of CCDev (there will be a further down select)--Craigboy (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC).

They're definitely the front runner, though. Michaelmas1957 13:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I was simply stating they haven't yet selected "SpaceX to return Americans to space".--Craigboy (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Capacity of SpaceX CRS-1

Why is even the second flight to the ISS only loaded to 15% (550kg)? Is the Falcon9 still at and thrust level incompatible with the 3310kg payload?--Stone (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Great question. I was flabbergasted when I read that low published mass payload number as well. If anyone has a source that explains it, the info ought to definitely be used to improve the CRS SpX-1 article, and perhaps the main Dragon (spacecraft) article as well. It is difficult to believe NASA isn't taking up all the cargo capacity that is a) needed in the station, b) approved for carriage on Dragon (e.g., I don't think Dragon was built to do the large amount of hypergolic propellant that is carried on-board the Russian Prospect resupply spacecraft; could be other special cargo types as well), and c) would fit in the Dragon. Is it perhaps that the pressurized cargo volume maxima is being reached and it just happens that such low-density cargo does not get close to the mass maxima for the space transport trip? Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

6.8 cubic metres (6800 l)with 550kg makes a density of 0.1 kg/l. The other supply spacecrafts have a similar volume to mass ratio. A average density of 0.1kg/l looks very odd. Is it possible that the Falcon9 is not good enough to lift more? --Stone (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If I had to speculate, I would suspect that NASA doesn't quite trust SpaceX yet with vital payloads. There could also be other reasons for the lack of payload, but speculating that the lift isn't there doesn't sound right either. The previous flight included a secondary mission that had the 2nd stage continue a burn to a high altitude orbit (not quite GEO, but the apogee of the final orbit was over 10 million meters. Is it possible in this upcoming flight that SpaceX is trying to put a dummy satellite into GEO, just to prove they can accomplish the task? --Robert Horning (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make ISS people happy send them fresh water and fruits. ISS always needs alot of fuel. These items are not a risk if lost. So I would fill it to max. Also stuff wich you can re-sell after reentry would make more sense than to leave it empty.--Stone (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dragon doesn't transport fuel (only Progress and ATV do) and Zvezda's tanks can only hold so much.--Craigboy (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Might want to check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falcon_9#ISS_re-supply. Doyna Yar (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources so this information could be put into this article? Raw speculation is fine for a fan forum, but I would presume that something of this nature would be talked about by a reputable news organization or at least somebody covering commercial spaceflight activity in one of the various trade journals about spaceflight. It certainly would be something worth adding into this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The numbers of SpaceX are sparse and most of the time with an margin due to advertising. The truth is not clear if you do not have all numbers.--Stone (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I presume that NASA holds press conferences and that presumably somebody from Wikipedia/Wikinews might even be able to ask a question at that press conference about this information? Either that or somebody else who is really hungry for a juicy story to try and get to the bottom of this issue? Even a letter to a congressman asking why tax dollars are being spent so foolishly for sending essentially an empty spacecraft to the ISS? I just can't imagine this getting a pass from those who may be writing articles about spaceflight, especially a known critic of SpaceX like Andy Pasztor of the Wall Street Journal?

Regardless, this figure seems to be comparable with the COTS 2 payload, and the question wasn't raised there. Perhaps this is a tempest in a teapot, but it does seem like something which could be asked in a variety of places which could be turned into a reliable source. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The press conference is on Saturday, I strongly believe someone will bring up the question. SpaceX COTS 2 was a demo mission that was required to perform a lot of different test maneuvers before it could berth with ISS. It was also filled with only low value cargo and I believe at the time the ISS was still pretty full from STS-135 (but don't quote me on that). Also in my opinion Pasztor is an idiot.--Craigboy (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that Andy Pasztor is an idiot, but one thing I think is pretty certain is that he is no SpaceX fanboi who will buy the company line in a press release. If there was anything which could put SpaceX in a negative light, he would be nearly the first person to write an article about such a topic. Sending an e-mail to him as a story suggestion on something like this would be like throwing a match into a gasoline tank. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

In the pre-launch news conference on 6 Oct, SpaceX prez Gwynne Shotwell pretty much answered this question head on (it was the first question of the Q&A portion of the news conference). The cargo upmass on this flight is relatively low-density; thus low mass relative to volume. A few minutes earlier, in her prepared remarks, she indicated that the interior pressurized cargo volume of the Dragon would be more full than was seen on the COTS 2/3 mission, appearing to fill up each of the major areas where cargo can be stowed, including the central region which was unused on the last flight. The NASA guy also seemed to indicate that their might have been some payload processing snafus on the NASA side, but that was less explicit. I suspect we'll see this covered in the space press in the next day or two and will be able to locate a secondary source for this info to go into the SpaceX CRS-1 article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If you review the CRS contract you'll find that NASA decides how much is sent up and returned by Dragon on the CRS flights, not SpaceX. SpaceX is contracted for a minimum of 20 tonnes (metric I think) with options for more flights if NASA decides they are required. SpaceX is like FedEx in this sense, they simply provide the vehicle.
Further investigation by readers will elicit the fact that the F9 was carrying ballest and the OrbCom test satellite which clearly demonstrates considerable capability. If NASA had wanted more carried then the ballest and/or the secondary payload would have been ditched. And further, NASA interview indicated that the extra shuttle flight had stuffed the ISS with extra provisions to allow for delays in the COTS program. Downmass was more important than upmass on this flight and probably future flights as well since no other existing vehicle has this capability, i.e. getting back science experiments, equipment for refurbishment, etc. There's been plenty of discussion about all of these aspects on space-related sites and press but perhaps not in the general news outlets. I refer you to a couple of good ones: www.spaceflightnow.com and www.nasaspaceflight.com --2403:3B00:201:333:891E:FEB9:B328:67CF (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)BeanCounter

Headline Image Free Alternatives

The Headline image is a screengrab from a SpaceX demo video. I am sure that SpaceX is delighted that the image that shows up on Wikipedia is from their promotional material, it seems to go against Wikipedia's policies to use non free media when it is not necessary. Numerous Public Domain/Free Licensed shots of the Dragon exist, such as This One (NASA). Unless an Exterior shot of an ISS rendezvous is considered necessary, I think that we should use a NASA pic, seeing as there are quite a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usacfg (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That only shows the CRS Dragon and not DragonRider.--Craigboy (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What about this picture? Dragon on launchpad205.175.123.207 (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Cargo Craft Payload Capacities and Summary of All Active and Being-Manufactured Spacecraft

For everyone's information, I have collected the following info:

Cargo Craft Payload capacities to Low-Earth Orbit:

• Space Shuttle: 24,400 kg (53,600 lb)
• Progress: 2,350 kg (5,200 lb)
• Automated Transfer Vehicle: 7,667 kg (16,900 lb)
• H-II Transfer Vehicle: 6,700 kg (14,771 lb)
• Dragon: 6,000kg (13,227lb) [approx.]

(information taken from the wiki page of each vehicle)

Please also see a Summary of All Current and Being-Manufactured Spacecraft (with proper names and company names) here:

• Orion_(spacecraft)#See_also

Please use this info and update it/add to it as you see fit. It's some of the most important stuff that people will likely want to know about current human space travel. --Radical Mallard (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgot Cygnus. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's listed under "COTS Related". I was going to wait until Cygnus launched to get the payload info.--Radical Mallard (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should add it because the comparison between the vehicles is much more complicated than just the mass they can deliver to orbit.--Craigboy (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's more relevant to the Comparison of space station cargo vehicles page. Doyna Yar (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination

This article is detailed, well-sourced and well-illustrated without being excessively long - I think it could qualify as a Good Article. I'm going to nominate it now. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dragon (spacecraft)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please adress the concerns raised by User:Stone:

General characteristics

• 18 attitude control thrusters insted of 18 Draco thrusters whoold be mor informative
• The SuperDraco should be separated from the General characteristics because it is a future upgrade and not a

General characteristics.

• With a production of 1 each three months there must be 4 from 2011 and 8 from 2012. Overall 12 Dragons. Is this fact?

Demonstration flights

• launched a stripped-down version Why?
• Operational flights section is a little short amount of cargo andreturn cargo might be a good addition.
• Red Dragon and Mars One Dragon are relative long for the far future developpment they reflect.

Red Dragon

• The 2018 launch for it is no longer possible, it was never in the last three selected missons for 2018. Was it a offical proposal?

Radiation tolerance

• What is the difference to the shuttle or the sojus? It experienced some events which are normal in this aproach.
• Red dragon was always quoted to be different in design?

--Stone (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Also the lead should not contain material and thus does not need citations - could these been removed and the material moved/copied to the body with them?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As it has been a week with no improvements I have to fail this sorry.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)