US Commercial Crew Vehicle

Beeker

This looks like the front runner in the race to produce a commercial crew launch system.
The Falcon launch takes place in a few weeks from Cape Canaveral.

Watch this space........................
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/100220rollout/

lord lucan

:(:(:(:(:(:(

ynotdu

Beeker wrote: »

This looks like the front runner in the race to produce a commercial crew launch system.
The Falcon launch takes place in a few weeks from Cape Canaveral.

Watch this space........................
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/100220rollout/

Hi,ya Beeker thank you for the link.SpaceX despite its owners comments that seem sensible, seems like all i feared about the downgrading of NASA.

testing stages i know,but its fuel combinations and design sound like an explosion waiting to happen.
The mention of Military involvement another fear.
Really this 'new direction' by NASA makes very little sense, except to those who have a military mind.

Just after Obamas new direction towards the 'private sector' England announced a major increase in spending on spaceflight and as we know when Obama talks about International partnership above all others England comes at the top of the list!

The real agenda i think is a military one and America it seems to Me have decided to batton down the hatch's and become as Independant as they chose to be in WW2{until pearl harbour}

There are many heavy launch vehicles already up and running,Modified they could do everything the US wants in Rhetoric,but then their potential and design would be 'known to the enemy's' who are rapidly overtaking them.
Political i know but 'innocent' spaceflight ended while America slept.:(IMO

Capt'n Midnight

ynotdu wrote: »

testing stages i know,but its fuel combinations and design sound like an explosion waiting to happen.

if you know how to get into orbit with a rocket that doesn't need an explosive propellant we'd all like to know. If you spilt one drop of liquid oxygen on your hand it would not hurt since it would film boil above your hand without touching it.

High Test Peroxide and the multiple oxides of nitrogen on the other hand would eat right through, HTP also has the added nastiness of being a monopropellant it explodes on contact with dirt. Laughing gas just don't cut it if you want to get into orbit.

Kerosene is so dangerous that one aviation safety official has offered to stand ankle deep in it and drop burning matches into it, if airline boss will do the same for the slightly more economic stuff they use in airliners.

The mention of Military involvement another fear.

this bit ?
The military-run Eastern Range, which oversees all launch operations at Cape Canaveral, will also be heavily involved with the engine test.

There are many heavy launch vehicles already up and running,Modified they could do everything the US wants in Rhetoric,but then their potential and design would be 'known to the enemy's' who are rapidly overtaking them.
Political i know but 'innocent' spaceflight ended while America slept.:(IMO

:rolleyes:
was there ever a US man capable launcher that wasn't customised for the military. Early stuff was all based on ICBM's. The shuttle is far too big - it is sized to take spy satellites dynasoar / hermes are the sort of sizes you need for civilian stuff.*

The shuttle is bigger than a 737 , most missions have had 100 tonnes + 30 tonnes of tank accelerated to orbital velocity - what is the biggest pay load carried into orbit ? what is the total weight of payloads returned ??

and of course the military kept well away from the shuttle so never got to do much of what it was designed to do - instead the military used the existing heavies


what's the difference between Falcon and Atlas/Delta/Titan ?

Bearing in mind that most launch systems have cost more and carried less than originally intended it's hard to justify development of a new system that won't be cheaper than Ariane is

ynotdu

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

if you know how to get into orbit with a rocket that doesn't need an explosive propellant we'd all like to know. If you spilt one drop of liquid oxygen on your hand it would not hurt since it would film boil above your hand without touching it.

High Test Peroxide and the multiple oxides of nitrogen on the other hand would eat right through, HTP also has the added nastiness of being a monopropellant it explodes on contact with dirt. Laughing gas just don't cut it if you want to get into orbit.

Kerosene is so dangerous that one aviation safety official has offered to stand ankle deep in it and drop burning matches into it, if airline boss will do the same for the slightly more economic stuff they use in airliners.

Hi Capt'n,really no need for the roll-eyes,
As has been said most 'boardsies' are not 'experts' but are trying to learn or hope for better things from human spaceflight.

If that brings safer,cleaner.more effective propellants, It will just be an added bonus towards protecting our fragile planet and help our lust to explore, and our wish to explore.

even Laughing gas could not make me laugh at the mess America's space programme has got itself into.

I posted this video on the Video resources thread of the space and astronomy forum just the other day,so i do not believe we are as far apart in our thinking as you believe we are.

this bit ?
The military-run Eastern Range, which oversees all launch operations at Cape Canaveral, will also be heavily involved with the engine test.

:rolleyes:
was there ever a US man capable launcher that wasn't customised for the military. Early stuff was all based on ICBM's. The shuttle is far too big - it is sized to take spy satellites dynasoar / hermes are the sort of sizes you need for civilian stuff.*

The shuttle is bigger than a 737 , most missions have had 100 tonnes + 30 tonnes of tank accelerated to orbital velocity - what is the biggest pay load carried into orbit ? what is the total weight of payloads returned ??

and of course the military kept well away from the shuttle so never got to do much of what it was designed to do - instead the military used the existing heavies


what's the difference between Falcon and Atlas/Delta/Titan ?

Bearing in mind that most launch systems have cost more and carried less than originally intended it's hard to justify development of a new system that won't be cheaper than Ariane is

aaaaaaaaaaaa

ynotdu

some problems on that last post as you can see!:),the aaaaaaa bit is because i got a message saying i had to add more characters.

If you had read my posts over time i too championed Ariane instead of starting a way to get Americans into space at a fraction of the cost Constellation was going to be.

NASA in as much as it was allowed DID have a civilian culture,but it was one thing to use existing US military launchers during the 'space race' quite another now to depend on any Country outside of the USA.It is not nice to contemplate and many have simply had their head in the sands about it, but the West is in decline to the East.

Always good to remember that Kennedy set the moonlanding goal in 1961 and it suceeded in 1969,Mercury had not finished and Gemini had not begun,
Apollo 1 fire was in 1967 but still landed men on the moon by 1969.

My point is given the funding,given a hugh workforce when America set a goal to go to the moon it done so in eight years.
People keep saying the USA needs an economic stimulas plan right now.
Apollo employed literally 100's of thousands of workers for one goal.

FDR would have been proud of it!
The NEW new deal is as i said America accepting defeat in Space with all that will lead to.

Beeker

I like the look of this one. I don't think we will ever see it however, but its nice to dream:)
http://www.spacedev.com/spacedev_advanced_systems.php

lord lucan

Dream Chaser- I like that!:)

Hauk

I honestly think the re-assignment of funds to R&D is crucial today. It's 2010, and were flying 1970's tech.

We need more research into stronger, lighter, and more aerodynamic materials and structures, and new propulsions systems that are lighter and more powerful than ever before.

I can see how NASA sees it necessary to hire private enterprise to give it temporary access to space, i.e. there will be American experiments on the ISS for years, and American systems in operation in the Destiny laboratory which will need a particular skill set.

I've always envisioned a global project(like the ISS), involving NASA, ESA, JAXA, etc, where all the engineers gather at a global conference and decide on a global "new age" vehicle.

One administration would focus on propulsion, another on aerospace structures and materials processing, another on onboard avionics and flight software systems.

I believe if this goal was achieved, a 'standard template' vehicle could be developed that all seperate administrations could tailor to suit their space programs.

I'm talking about a global project because we've seen how successful they can be. Look at the ISS.

I know it's achievable, because when the Apollo program was commisioned, the Saturn five rockets weren't designed on computers, they were designed on paper with a pencil and a ruler, and they were told it couldn't be done. And they did it.

Today we have super-computers that model the tides, the solar system, right down to how individual atoms interact with each other. There is enormous potential here, and there are great minds out there just waiting to pounce on a project like this.

I just wish these administrations would think outside the box for once. >_<

If thats off topic I apologise, but I think I just let my mind spew it all out.

Oh, and no going and stealing my idea. You heard it here first!! :P

ynotdu

Sorry Hauk but all's fair in love,war&Spaceflight! Plagerism is half the fun of the Space/Astronomy forum!:pac::pac::pac::D

This little monkey got a great life when recoverd until it died a natural death, thanks to public opinion! it was used to go into Space before America risked a human being as We are the less intelligent of the Primates!:)

The Russians used dogs,one i know of was called laikia,but i think they let them die in space?

Got to laugh at the size of the aircraft carrier used to rescue this little monkey!:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RJxAqisaWg

ynotdu

Beeker wrote: »

I like the look of this one. I don't think we will ever see it however, but its nice to dream:)
http://www.spacedev.com/spacedev_advanced_systems.php

Beeker it even mentions the ISS! where's the docking port
Or will would be members of the ISS have to float across and bang on the windows of Cupola to get in?:eek:

Hauk

Bah, feckin won't embed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNkuULfgP4U

Go to 4:25 in that video

Plagiarism eh?? *pew* *pew* *pew* ^^,

Beeker

ynotdu wrote: »

Beeker it even mentions the ISS! where's the docking port
Or will would be members of the ISS have to float across and bang on the windows of Cupola to get in?:eek:

Roof of the crew cabin.

Hauk

Beeker wrote: »

Roof of the crew cabin.

That's an emergency hatch. ^_^

They access the ISS through a port in the aft of the ship. Watch the video I posted. You can see it docking there.

lord lucan

Hauk wrote: »

Bah, feckin won't embed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNkuULfgP4U

Go to 4:25 in that video

Plagiarism eh?? *pew* *pew* *pew* ^^,

Hauk

Cheers!

Beeker

Falcon countdown dress rehearsal a 'great success'.


http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/100226wetdress/index.html