credit Space Exploration Technologies
For those of you who didn't spot it in my colleague John Croft's NASA commercial resupply services (CRS) analysis Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) has apparently started a study for NASA on how to send to the International Space Station (ISS), in the payload bay of a Space Shuttle, one of the Californian company's Dragon capsules to act as a crew return vehicle for the station's crew
SpaceX is also studying, at NASA's request, using a Dragon as a "life boat" replacement for, or supplement to, Russia's Energia-built Soyuz capsules for station egress. Davis says the Dragon life boat, built in a year and to cost $2-3 million more than the basic pressurised version, would be delivered in a Space Shuttle's cargo bay before the fleet is decommissioned
Before the fleet is decommisioned being the operative phrase here. Could there really be an STS-135 in late 2010?
A Shuttle delivered Dragon brings back memories of the X-38, a lifting body design that was the basis for a crew return vehicle that landed using a parafoil and skids and was to arrive at ISS via an orbiter. It was cancelled in 2001 despite being a joint project with the European Space Agency
According to SpaceX's Dragonlab data sheet the vehicle has a width of 3.6m (11.8ft) and a length, with its service module, of 5.2m (17ft) so it looks like it can easily fit in the 18.3m (60ft) long, 4.5m (15ft) wide orbiter payload bay
But I would imagine the Dragon could be used as a crew return vehicle without its service module making life even easier for NASA's space operations mission directorate (SOMD) and its Shuttle programme contractors; if only they knew about the proposal
Contacting NASA and asking SOMD and the commercial crew and cargo office about it the answer was, we haven't requested anything
Odd, because I trust my US office co-worker John Croft and having dealt with SpaceX for a number of years now I find it hard to believe they would cite NASA in such a claim if it was just PR fluff. SpaceX may make many claims about its ability to make its first and upper stages reusable but it doesn't drag government agencies into it
Could someone inside the Space Shuttle Programme (SSP) or the people working on the SSP extension study have asked SpaceX for this work?
It's possible but with a two-day holiday in the US I'm not in a position to double check so its time for that blogging favourite, cosmically wild speculation
But my speculation is why it isn't going to happen. Even with the best intentions Shuttle is not going to operate beyond 2015 (spot the hostage to fortune!) and its missions, if it lasts that long, will be ISS down mass cargo and crew related. Up mass cargo being the province of COTS, assuming those guys get it together by 2011, or maybe 2012
SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft development plans are for three demonstration flights, each with increasing capsule technical capability (e..g adding solar arrays, environmental control etc with each flight) and a Dragonlab mission in 2010 along with the first ISS CRS flight, and then another Dragonlab in 2011, probably with another CRS flight. Seven launches between now and perhaps mid-2011
In the meantime NASA is paying the Russians for crew transport and emergency return and that means a deal has to be signed at least two-years before any hardware arrives. And with an SSP latest end-date of 2015 SpaceX has to deliver by 2013, so really we're back to 2012 again. That means everything has to go right, everything
Bothering to learn from history suggests that everything going right is unlikely. Its not just Dragon, it is its booster Falcon 9 too. That has to be proven to get Dragon up there to prove it can come down again. It took four launches to get Falcon 1 to orbit successfully and the obstacles along the way weren't even big issues, they were niggling little technical faults but that's all it takes
And just for a wildcard what if Orion doesn't get cancelled, could Lockheed Martin get an Orbiter payload bay compliant capsule ready in time? Is there a parallel LM study ongoing as I type? How different are the two spacecraft in terms of technological readiness at this point in time?
Remember its just wild speculation but interesting at least to me, all the same...
on January 20, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply
.
so... NASA and SpaceX will develop, build and launch MY idea of a "Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle" (MORV) suggested TWO YEARS AGO in this article:
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/017morv.html
also, they'll send it to the ISS with the Shuttle... as suggested in the same article... :)
of course (an again) I suppose the idea was "developed internally" by NASA and SpaceX (at least) in 1977... :(
HOW could NASA design its next rockets, vehicles and missions without internet and my blogs? :)
.
on January 21, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply
Why would they choose to launch the Dragon on the Shuttle with a cost in the billions, when they can launch it on the Falcon V in the 10's of millions? It doesn't make sense to me...
on January 21, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply
I noticed you tried to post this twice. You only need to fill out the form once and then if you are a new user I just have to approve the comment. After that the computer should recognise your email address and automatically publish your comment. As you regularly make comments on this site I am surprised that I had to approve the comment, did you remember to include your email address?
on January 21, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply
Good question. Hopefully at some point I will get to the bottom of this mystery study request. I think Dragon could fit in the payload bay along with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) experiment, which I understand takes up about a third of the bay. If you're taking one bulky object, why not another? If Obama extends Shuttle then I would imagine the AMS mission will slip into 2011 giving SpaceX enough time to get a CRV Dragon done.
on January 21, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply
"I noticed you tried to post this twice."
I've posted it twice since the first time the comment is not appeared (but probably I've used the wrong mail address)
on January 21, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply
I find this interesting. I posed the question on the NASA Watch web site as to why a NASA management, which advocates the re-use of prior US technology, never studied the use of an Apollo command module with downsized service module. During the Skylab missions the Apollo command module was certified to fly a crew of 5 for a rescue mission (2 up plus the 3 member Skylab crew). Based on specifications posted on the Encyclopedia Astronautica web site (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apolocsm.htm) the capsule should easily fit into the space shuttle payload bay.
I realize that the entire thing would have to be re-certified but that would be the case with any capsule. The new service module could be built using shuttle RCS thrusters or orbital maneuvering engine which are already man rated and use solar panels instead of fuel cells. As for docking, either the capsule could be upgraded with docking adapter that the shuttle uses or PMA 3 could be returned to earth and modified to use an Apollo docking adapter.
The whole idea of NASA not utilizing the ISS to the fullest extent is mind boggling. To anyone left in NASA management, I realize that a better space station could have been built and orbited using the Saturn V but it wasn't, SO GET OVER IT! Use what you have, not what you want.
on January 23, 2009 3:40 AM | Reply
Rob Coppinger
Hello Robbie.
I guess you must be someone's nephew 'cause you don't know Rocket Science, that's for sure.
Whether a volume can fit in the shuttle cargo-bay is less important than it's total mass.
Also what is the point of sending up only one crew rescue vehicle? Think it can just sit there forever?
Grow up.
Besides, what Dragon? I don't fly paper airplanes around my office unlike you, apparently.
Never seen a Dragon myself, quite frankly. Have you?
Maybe you believe in the tooth-fairy as well.
Keep your fingers crossed.
Me.
on January 23, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply
Well I know the Dragon's mass is way below the Shuttle's payload capability so that seemed to be a fairly unimportant point to me. Volume seemed to be the issue to highlight. I must admit I had assumed that readers would know what Falcon 9's likely payload capability would be and that a Dragon spacecraft with no Launch Abort System and no service module would be well within the Orbiter's capabilities. As for whether I have seen a Dragon, I have, when I was at SpaceX's facility in California last year. And that SpaceX engineering development unit has since been under going a series of tests. I also know the company has passed a number of milestone reviews, eg. SRR, PDR, CDR, for the COTS demo flights that are planned so I guess NASA has seen a Dragon as well. And maybe even a tooth fairy.
And thanks for those other really mature points I am sure every one visiting this site will get a good laugh, at you.
on January 24, 2009 5:03 AM | Reply
Rob, with regard to your last comment, you would still need some kind of service module on the Dragon to provide power and some kind of loiter and de-orbit capability. If there is an ISS emergency that required evacuation there would be no guarantee that you would be able to de-orbit immediately due to landing opportunities.
on January 26, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply
I think you are assuming that the Dragon can't take power from ISS and would require solar arrays. That is not clear at the moment and Shuttle has demonstrated station to spacecraft power transfer. I would expect Dragon to be used in tandem with Soyuz (if you were Russian wouldn't you?) and extra batteries and consumables could be added with just three crew onboard Dragon (I think its designed for seven). True a need to escape and landing requirements could mean a prolonged stay in orbit, a day or so instead of hours or minutes. SpaceX did tell Flight that the "life boat" Dragon would cost up to $3 million more than the pressurised version. I had been told that the crewed Dragon only differed from the cargo version with its seats. Again additional consumables could be onboard for that prlonged stay scenario. And the deorbit burn could just be a very long firing of the Draco thrusters. Admittedly I can't remember off the top of my head what their capability is.