78 thoughts on “The Dragon 2 Unveil”

  1. .. and then only three more years of paperwork until NASA astronauts are allowed to fly on it! Theoretically, anyway.. they’ve been saying that since 2007.

    It occurred to me this morning that most people are unaware that Soyuz and Shuttle have had the same number of fatal incidents (2 each). Shuttle carried more people, so more people died in each incident, but Soyuz has the honor of being the only vehicle on which astronauts have died in space, and the Shuttle incidents are more recent.

    Elon recently tweeted that flying Dragon without a launch escape system is “probably comparable reliability to Shuttle, but we need to do better”. To me, this really says something different. It says that NASA is willing to send astronauts to Russia instead of flying them on a US vehicle of comparable reliability that is available right now. I think this is so they can pin the blame on Russia, if there’s another incident. They’ve lost the stomach for spaceflight.

    So what? Well, it doesn’t bode well for Dragon v2. Even if Elon is successful and creates a vehicle that is much more reliable than Shuttle and Soyuz, another fatal incident is inevitable. NASA will be looking to pin the blame on SpaceX.

    1. Soyuz, launched on a rocket with a fairly good long-term reliability record already, does also have a launch escape system. Used once back in the 80’s, IIRC, to get the capsule clear of the booster when it developed a major leak on the pad and exploded very shortly after the capsule left the immediate area.

      Me, I’d say it makes sense to wait till Dragon 2’s LES is tested before using it in a non-emergency – but the testing really should be accelerated to be done as soon as possible – months, not years – by cutting out any extraneous NASA paperwork and procedural overhead. Of which I expect the current NASA 3-year plan contains a lot.

        1. Exactly.

          Quite a lot of people seem to think that flying astronauts on a Dragon without a LES precludes ever developing one. I have no idea where they get this logic from.. but I’m guessing NASA – where you can’t admit that what you’re using now is anything other than the best thing that will ever exist.

          1. Rand,

            Yes, with COTS/CCP SpaceX has probably gone too far down the road as a NASA contractor to break free….

        2. “I consider our current dependence on the Russians for human access to space an emergency, even if Congress doesn’t.”

          And if the Russians actually did cut off our Soyuz rides to Station, I’d see it as enough of an emergency to consider bypassing one or both of the LES tests planned. One from the pad, one in-flight, IIRC.

          Note that this still wouldn’t involve flying without an LES, as I understand – corrections welcome – the LES hardware is pretty much ready for test along with the rest of the Dragon 2. It would involve flying with an untested LES.

          As you mentioned here recently, you want to be careful of your safety gear, as that can kill you too if you’re not careful. I’d not want to fly with an untested LES without a very good reason, as any system that energetic is high on the list of things that can add more hazard than they mitigate if something’s not quite right.

          The correct approach for as long as the Russians still haven’t actually cut off Soyuz is to accelerate the LES tests, not skip them. Cut the NASA “safety assurance” procedural bumwad and run the damn tests. I’d be surprised if it couldn’t be done this year.

          1. What? I’m confused.

            You’re saying Russia threatening to deny seats on Soyuz if the US doesn’t relax their sanctions isn’t an emergency? But if they were to actually do it, then it’d be an emergency? That seems, umm, just a little short sighted, don’t ya think?

            According to Elon, the cargo version of Dragon is as reliable as Shuttle, and according to NASA (and just about everyone else) the Soyuz is about as reliable as Shuttle. So, assuming SpaceX has done even a remotely sensible job on Dragon v2, it’s at least as reliable as Soyuz, right now. The next three years of LES testing and paperwork fiddling is merely to improve it.

            So why not give Russia the flick and fly crew on Dragon v2 this year? Why not at least talk about it?

          2. If SpaceX was developing it for the commercial market, the real one not the fake one called CCP, they would because time is money in the business world.

            But as a NASA contractor they need to wait until they have a NASA contract and funding before flying the tests needed. Otherwise they won’t be paid for it.

            Yes, NASA is assimilating SpaceX, resistance is futile…

          4. AFAIK the current plan is to do both LES tests by the end of this year. I favor skipping the pad abort test and going straight to the in-flight Max Q separation test ASAP. The latter is much more “real world” and should convince all but the terminal trolls and stooges that SpaceX can fly crews at least as safely as NASA has these past 30-odd years.

          5. Why not at least talk about it?

            Because no-one in the government has the balls to take responsibility for doing so. Largely because no-one in the government really considers ISS important.

          6. No man. Skimping on testing on a complex system is always a bad idea.

            If it was really pressing they should just go without the LAS. It is only marginally more unsafe than Soyuz and probably about as safe as Shuttle.

          7. SpaceX Completes Qualification Testing of SuperDraco Thruster

            http://www.spacex.com/press/2014/05/27/spacex-completes-qualification-testing-superdraco-thruster

            Sounds like part of lead up to Elon announcing to all “witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!” err… unarmed spaceship. =) Might be a lo-rider with metal flake flames LA-style. Flashing lights and space-sharks with laser beams too. =)

            I’m sure the unveil will be a space-nerd’s dream. GO SpaceX! Go Elon!

          8. Oh my god! Why is this so patently obvious to everyone except to those in Congress? It makes you want to tear your hair out.
            I mean the response of Congress to the Ukrainian crisis in regards to NASA is to increase funding to the SLS. Really?? Seriously???
            Congress’ “logic” in how they make decisions reminds one of the joke about the drunk looking for his lost keys under a street-light. Someone asks him if that’s where he lost them. The drunk says no, but the light’s better over here.

            Bob Clark

      2. That’s only half the story, however. While the escape system worked, one of the two cosmonauts suffered permanent, disabling injuries. So, it cannot be considered a “safe” landing, by any definition.

        1. I assume you are talking about Souyz Les? I would suggest you provide a source for this claim off these life disabling injuries because it’s wrong. They sustained some bruising but required no medical attention as far as I know. And did more space missions.

          1. For the escape system that’s true, but Lazarev did suffer career-ending injuries in the 1975 abort when the third stage failed to properly separate.

    2. “another fatal incident is inevitable. NASA will be looking to pin the blame on SpaceX.”

      That’s called accountability and it is a good thing.

      1. Even with an operating launch escape system, spaceflight is an inherently risky proposition. Just because there’s people to mourn, doesn’t mean there’s people to blame.

        1. spaceflight is an inherently risky proposition. Just because there’s people to mourn, doesn’t mean there’s people to blame.

          Wise words, and also true of other useful-but-dangerous endeavors.

        2. Just because things are dangerous doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any accountability for mishaps, especially if there is negligence involved. If a Falcon 9 were to explode or some other catastrophic mishap, there should be questions asked of SpaceX by NASA. It is mind boggling that you would suggest otherwise.

          Holding people and companies accountable for mishaps is different than not having tolerance for failures.

        3. Spaceflight is inherently risky but if negligence is involved, those responsible should be held accountable. Unfortunately, that seldom happens with government agencies. How many people at NASA were held accountable for the management failures that resulted in the Challenger and Columbia accidents? By held accountable, I mean at a minimum forced to resign as opposed to simply being allowed to retire early. The most reasonable measure of accountability should be the same as corporate officers and employees for fatal accidents such as plane crashes. If an airline officer overruled his mechanics and the result was a fatal crash, he’d likely end up in jail.

          When (not if) space accidents happen (civilian or government), there of course needs to be an investigation as to the cause if for no other reason than to prevent it from happening again. Aviation regulations are written in blood. So shall be space regulations.

          1. Seems like a pretty simple issue to me. Do you want to ride rockets managed by people who will likely lose their jobs if they blow you up or by people who’ve got a good union.

    3. Soyuz has the honor of being the only vehicle on which astronauts have died in space

      Not exactly. In Soyuz 1 Komarov died on impact when his parachutes got tangled up. The three cosmonauts in Soyuz 11 died during re-entry, similar to Columbia’s astronauts. OK, they were higher up when the cabin atmosphere was valved away. Still, it was after the re-entry sequence was initiated.

      But to date, nobody has actually died in orbit.

        1. Trent,

          Yes, although the problem started earlier the actual breakup of the Columbia was at around 200,000 ft (59 kilometers).

          BTW although Major Michael Adams reached an altitude of 81 km on his final flight, qualifying him for astronaut wings by the USAF definition of 50 miles (80 km), the actual breakup occurred much lower, at about 118,000 ft (around 36 km). So although listed as the first death in a U.S. space mission (Soyuz 1 was a few months earlier) it didn’t actually occur in space.

          http://history.nasa.gov/x15/adams.html

          1. If you cannot survive without a pressure suit, you are effectively in space, from a bioastronautic point of view.

            All the discussions of “where space begins” are silly. It’s like asking where the ocean begins — high-time line, low-tide, navigable depth? The real answer depends on the mission.

          2. Actually that could be one of the good outcomes of VG problems, a class action lawsuit against VG by its customers for failing to take them into space could require a U.S. court to legally rule where space begins 🙂

            I suspect the trigger will be if the FAA AST declines to award VG riders with astronauts wings for failing to reach 100 km, as awarded to the SpaceShipOne pilots when they achieve that altitude.

        2. Does it even matter? They died. That’s what matters. The failure mode happened because back then cosmonauts inside Soyuz used a shirt sleeve environment and the capsule depressurized. Guess which other vehicle used a shirt sleeve environment…

          Shuttle had the same failure mode. Just because it never happened does not mean it could not happen.

          1. When the Challenger stack exploded, the crew compartment separated and continued on a ballistic trajectory. The crew was still alive, as evidenced by emergency oxygen packs that were manually activated. The trajectory took the crew to over 60,000 feet altitude. Since they weren’t wearing pressure suits, they would’ve passed out which is a blessing, IMO. They were likely still alive but unconscious when they hit the water a few minutes later.

            After Challenger, the crews wore pressure suits during liftoff and reentry in case they had to use that bogus bean-pole escape system. When Columbia broke up, those suits might’ve kept them conscious for a little while before aerodynamic forces tore them apart.

      2. I think it is worth noting that neither of those Soyuz accidents was due to the launcher. In both fatal shuttle accidents the flaw was due to the launch system.
        In that sense the Soyuz launcher can be consider safer than the shuttle launcher. The inclusion of an LES gives an additional layer of safety on top of that.

        Bob Clark

        1. On the other hand, that ignores the fact that the Soyuz LES was used at least once, and without it the destruction of the launcher would have resulted in the death of the crew.

          Also, it’s silly to judge the safety of a system just by the fatal accidents when there is so much more data available. Shuttle was unquestionably an unsafe system even near the end of the program. There were so many close calls throughout the program (with estimates of the possibility of a fatal accident at around 1 in 10 during the first few years) and at the end everyone knew that there was no way to make the foam/ice strike issue anything other than russian roulette.

          Soyuz is better but does not have a universally stellar record. With the Soyuz-10a abort they came very close to losing the crew because the burning of control cables prevented the LES from being activated until they finally got a radio telemetry link up. There were other cockups though. Such as Soyuz-18a where a late stage abort subjected the crew to 21 gees of acceleration and even then they only survived by the skin of their teeth. And Soyuz-5 where the SM failed to separate but fortunately broke away during reentry before the vehicle burned up. Then, of course, there are the 2 fatal accidents, plus several recent re-entry problems. And the Soyuz launcher itself is not without problems with several failures in recent years. It’s good, but it’s far from perfect.

    4. All the more reason for Elon Musk to skip the temptation of NASA money and start supporting BA. But he is hooked and I see this unveiling as another step down the slippery slop to SpaceX becoming an new “old space” contractor. Recall that both Lockheed and Boeing had such unveiling in their bid to win contracts under the old OSP program years ago…

      1. “People sometimes think the difference between.. ya know, to take a cargo spacecraft and put crew in it requires this enormous amount of magical pixie dust or something but this is not at all the case.” – Elon Musk, December 2010.

        Tomorrow we’ll see the enormous amount of magical pixie dust they’ve come up with. This is why working with NASA for just three and a bit years does to ya.

        2. Trent, you’re not taking into account that maybe they have been doing other things in addition to building Dragon v2 … consider that SpaceX is unveiling not another mockup (like Boeing) but an actual honest-to-goodness, flight-capable spacecraft …

          Let’s see they have been:

          (a) working on what sounds like a castings-related bottleneck on the pintle assembly for the Merlin

          (b) developing and flight-testing a reusable first stage (Grasshopper + F9R (1 &2)) plus actually integrating that into their flight hardware

          (c) developing the powerpack for the LOX/Methane Raptor and the testing facilities (new + upgrades)

          (d) upgrading their testing facilities in McGregor to support a higher launch rate

          (e) designing and building the new LC at VAFB to support F9 v1.1 & FH

          (f) upgrading LC40 @ CCAFS to support F9 v1.1 & FH

          (g) engineering work and production of Falcon 9 v1.1

          (h) engineering work and production for Falcon Heavy

          (i) engineering, development and production for Merlin 1D

          (j) engineering work for LC39

          (k) engineering work for the new commercial LC

          (l) All the government paperwork associated with (a) – (k)

          (m) all the NASA paperwork associated with COTS and CCiCAP

          and probably a whole bunch of other things I have missed.

          So maybe to you it seems that SpaceX has been goofing off for the last 3 years, but when you put all the little tidbits together a lot of forward progress has been going on.

          1. They have done a lot more. IIRC they have finished designing and basic testing of the SuperDraco engines for the LAS. It will need a control system for the propulsive reentry. But guess what they can probably reuse the software they are developing with Grasshopper to do precisely that.

            Once they add life support to Dragon, which is probably what they will unveil tomorrow, not a whole lot left to do but integration and testing.

          2. They may be able to use some of the same software but the geometry is so different that a clean sheet might make more sense.

          3. They may be able to use some of the same software but the geometry is so different that a clean sheet might make more sense.

            IIRC the DC-X used airplane avionics which is something even more different. Sure the software will need recoding in parts but I doubt they made it so hardcoded they need to do everything from scratch. Falcon 9 itself has had so many configuration changes from the positioning of the engines to rocket engine performance parameters that it probably has some amount of configurability built into it already.

            They will of course need to make some modifications and test the changes in a high fidelity demonstrator but that is why they are making the Dragonfly.

    5. With the combined Soyuz-U, -U2, and -FG launchers, you’re looking at 860/873 launches being successful, for a combined failure rate of 1.49%

      STS: 133/135, for a failure rate of 1.48%.

      Falcon 9: 9/9 (one partial failure) for a failure rate of 0%.

      Now, I’m way to lazy (and probably incompetent, these days) to do the p-value computation for a null hypothesis that any of these systems has a higher failure rate than, say, 1.75%, but I’m pretty sure that with Soyuz’s n=873 and STS’s n=135, p is pretty low. But for Falcon 9 (n=9), p is way, way larger than any value that could be considered statistically significant.

      Sometimes a large population is important. I agree with Rand that this is a national security problem and as such higher risks should be incurred. But Elon’s statement that Falcon-9 is about as reliable as STS is statistically absurd, and he knows it.

      BTW, if anybody’s actually done computations like this, I’d be very interested to see them.

      2. Exactly. You can calculate the probability of failure of the components and use that to make an estimate of the probability of system failure. Falcon has a lot more separation events but the engines have proven redundancy which STS did not have. I would not be surprised if Falcon will end up with similar or better reliability than either Soyuz or STS.

        As for launcher reliability historically launchers, once they fixed their teething issues, all have 90% or more probability of success. That is why most people in the satellite launch business only ask for a single demo flight. Even if that client is the NRO. Those big birds are not cheap.

  2. After the launch esacpe system is done, they’ll need an orbital esape system, reentry escape system and landing escape system. Also, some of these systems are unreliable, so at minimum i would add a launch escape escape system.

    1. It’d be funny if it wasn’t for the decades I’ve heard space geeks calling NASA irresponsible for flying without ejector-seats. Chapter 12 of The Rocket Company does a good job of presenting the literal vision of wrapping the astronauts in cotton wool.

      1. I think they should just do it like Hollywood in “Demolition Man” with the foam in the self-drive car = )

    2. Bite yer tongue, someone from NASA Safety Certification may be reading and take that seriously…

    3. Well the SpaceX LAS is supposed to be a landing escape system too in case the parachutes don’t work properly.

  3. Rand, I envy you. Have a wonderful time!!!!

    BTW, can someone enlighten me as to why Dragon can’t carry crew without a tested LAS, but one of the other CCP candidates, Dream Chaser, is being considered in spite of not having a LAS system at all? No pad abort, no ability to boost free of a malfunctioning stack, no MaxQ abort.. it can only abort if the stack terminates all thrust; it can then boost free.

    How, exactly, is a Dragon with an untested LAS less safe than a craft that doesn’t have one? And why the differing standards?

    Yes, I get that the spaceplane design makes a LAS very hard to do, and I see nothing wrong with not having one. What I don’t understand is why it’s okay for one CCP candidate to fly without a LAS, yet not okay for another to fly with one that’s just not yet fully tested?

    1. I think all the launch abort systems under discussion assume a cooperative thrust termination system. It was only during the Ares I days that anyone seriously considered outrunning an out-of-control booster – because it was a solid that couldn’t terminate sanely and if it did have a bad day it’d probably fill the sky with burning fragments.

      That said, I think Dreamchaser is still getting scraps because many at NASA have a soft spot for wings.

      The real question is, why is Boeing still getting money for CST-100 when they’ve outright said they won’t bid on the CCtCap (or whatever the acronym is now) unless the independent financing requirement is removed. I expect they came to a wink-and-smile agreement on that one.

      1. Thrust termination is best, but it’s not the only mode for capsule LAS. The ability to boost free of a still-running booster is inherent; they’re looking at 8G accel in an abort, and the LV will be at a max of about 3G with engines still lit. If they were relying on thrust termination, they wouldn’t need 8 super Dracos putting out 16,400 lbf each (minus 10-15% cosign losses). Four would handle anything they needed, including pad abort. I think (going from memory here, so be skeptical) the CST-100 has similar thrust numbers for its tractor system.

        I’d never heard of that issue with independent financing. Very interesting, thanks! If I’m interpreting you correctly, Boeing wants NASA to pay for everything related to CST-100 up front (no doubt including cost overruns)? If that’s so, that’s a raw deal for the taxpayer.

        So, what a package we’d get with CST-100: A capsule that doesn’t even actually exist yet and is therefor years behind Dragon (I’m ignoring Dragon 2 here and basing this solely on cargo Dragon). It requires a more expensive LV, costs a lot more per seat, can’t carry cargo (no trunk) and to add icing on the cake, its LV requires a Russian engine that’s currently embargoed. Plus we get to pay up front, and one of the many risks we’d take is that the company Boeing owns half of can’t launch the thing. Wonderful.

        I don’t agree with, but I can understand, the allure of wings to NASA, but this is just one more way their “human rating” mandate makes no sense: they’re applying differing standards to the crew contenders.

        2. According to some Boeing documentation that I have, they designed the CST-100 to be launchable on the Atlas V, Delta IV or Falcon 9. IIRC, their LAS is also a pusher design. Orion and Soyuz are still using the tractor design similar to Mercury and Apollo.

    2. why the differing standards?

      Because each company chose to bid a different approach? That’s what happens in a design competition. Or would you prefer that NASA design the vehicle and simply take bids on manufacturing?

  5. You’re confused? Don’t worry, Trent, I have faith in you – you’ll get over it.

    I’m saying that Russia making Soyuz threats is a minor emergency that should be responded to by greatly accelerating the Dragon 2 test program, while actual Russian cutoff of Soyuz would be a major emergency that would justify flying Dragon 2 without further testing. Threats from Russians, make basic preparations, action from Russians, act in response. Capiche?

    “Reliable as Shuttle” meanwhile is no great endorsement – that’s a 1.5% fatality rate – that’s stupid-unsafe; only NASA could convince themselves that’s “safe”. Elon is optimistic (but careful in his wording if you check); F9’s success rate thus far implies a bit over 90% reliability – less if you count the 9R as a major redesign, which it is. And Dragon has only fown on a few of those so far. And Soyuz’s current reliability is significantly higher than Shuttle if you’re not trying to stretch a point, as both Soyuz fatal losses were early on in versions since extensively redesigned, then flown some large number of times in a row without fatalities.

    Really, you look to be having fun playing argumentation games here – I know you know better on a number of these points. I’m bloody exhausted and I’m *not* having fun, so third parties should not interpret my failing to further thrash this with you as any actual concession. Later.

    1. My, I was cranky last night. And somewhat imprecise in my original posting, which was at least part of the problem. That working for a living will get you!

      1. Henry, even at your worst, you’re better than most. Thank you for everything you’ve been doing for so long now.

    2. both Soyuz fatal losses were early on in versions since extensively redesigned, then flown some large number of times in a row without fatalities.

      But with a lot of close calls, which are rarely discussed.

      1. The service module separation failures that resulted in side wall-forward, high-g re-entries—now, that’s a sphincter failure mode if I ever heard of one.

  6. IIRC, Dragon Rider has a different docking mechanism than the cargo version and is waiting on a compatible docking adapter to be installed on the ISS. Maybe I got part of that wrong but if not, there are issues other than an escape system holding up the show. Sure they could alter the design and use the old docking method but that will add extra cost and screw with their assembly.

    Elon wants to pump these out like cars not custom motorcycles. It makes sense to wait until the ISS is ready for the Dragon Rider as it is designed. And if things are to be sped up, it isn’t just SpaceX that needs to accelerate development.

    1. In case it hasn’t been clear, my take is that NASA “safety certification” procedural bumf is the great majority of what stands between now and a usable US crew-transfer capability via Dragon much sooner than 2017. The delay does not seem to be primarily actual SpaceX development work.

      Always good to hear more about the specific hardware work that needs to be done, though. Again I’d say that, as long as the Russians are merely making threats – they tend to do that a lot – we should stick to contingency planning, plus speeding up the existing process as much as practical. If and when the Russians act is when we should consider firther shortening the process in ways that may actually take larger chances with mission success.

      1. Hrrmph. And I’m still punchy – must be catching something. “Further” not “firther”, plus if it’s not obvious the contingency planning should include a way to either hasten the new Station docking arrangements, or to bypass the need for them temporarily.

        Back to work now…

      2. It astounds me that we, as a nation, are relying on NASA (whose internal foul-ups caused Challenger and contributed to Columbia) to be the sole deciding authority on what is and isn’t safe.

        It’s sort of like putting a repeat killer drunk driver in sole charge of a driving safety program.

        They’re dictating man-rating criteria that no launch system that’s ever existed could meet. And not only that, they are doing so inconsistently, with one set of rules for one candidate, another for another, and yet another for themselves.

        As for launching crew on cargo Dragon or an untested Dragon 2, my take is that if we were in a sane world, we’d have high officials publicly talking about contingency plans to use cargo Dragon (I’m ignoring Dragon 2 for this as we won’t know much about it until tomorrow) or perhaps the X-37B (add a pressurized compartment in the cargo bay) for near term (this year) emergency ISS access if needed. Just the fact that we were making contingency plans and publicly discussing them would make actually needing them less likely (via showing the Russians that we have options and aren’t afraid to use them, thus taking away their leverage and gains from a cutoff or threats thereof.).

        1. It astounds me that we, as a nation, are relying on NASA (whose internal foul-ups caused Challenger and contributed to Columbia) to be the sole deciding authority on what is and isn’t safe.

          The part that’s boggling is that that is an honest improvement.

          They’re no longer actually driving the car with beer-goggles. They’re sitting in the passenger seat (drunk) and screaming “No, I won’t let you drive, you’re too drunk. And you need a fourth tail-light! Did you check the gas cap? Why is there a blank page in this manual? Is this spare tire guaranteed runflat? Get me a tea. Oh, and tea is illegal in the car.”

        2. A little hyperbolic, but not unfair about NASA gauging other people’s safety choices.

          But – one last time – can we please officially bury this nonsense about one of the credible emergency scenarios being to put crew up on a jury-rigged cargo Dragon? The Dragon 2.0 may be having its deb ball tomorrow afternoon, but it has been extant – and probably in two or more copies – for some time. You don’t build such complicated test articles in a few fiddling days or weeks before the tests they’re to star in. And SpaceX has said it intends to get both the pad abort and in-flight abort tests done this year. I can hardly wait for 6 PM to roll around so we can finally drop this silly pretense that the Dragon 2.0 didn’t exist before it sprang, full-grown, from the brow of Elon Musk on stage in Hawthorne. Sheesh!

        3. That was one of the predictable outcomes of COTS/CCP. If Dragon Rider was developed as a commercial vehicle for commercial markets than their commercial customers and FAA AST would have made the decisions on what is space.

          But since NASA is awarding the contracts, and since SpaceX is providing it to NASA under those government contracts, NASA may place whatever requirements in wants in terms of safety specs. In short, when you take NASA’s money you must play by NASA rules…

          However the real danger here is if NASA safety requirements spill over into commercial markets either by the FAA AST buying into them and/or the insurance firms requiring them. That is why COTS/CCP was always a bad idea for developing commercial human space flight.

    2. That is correct. Also, in order to accommodate both cargo and crewed capsule visits the ISS needs a substantial amount of re-arranging, which won’t get done until mid-2015 as currently planned. Potentially they could move a lot of things up though, if there was a need.

  7. It must be, or is it Musk be =) , a major change otherwise they would call it Dragon v1.1 vs Dragon v2.0.
    Consider the change from Falcon 9 v1.0 to Falcon 9 v1.1 ….

    1. Probably because it has the SuperDracos in it. Those required a capsule redesign remember?

      It also completely changes the capabilities of the system to begin with so it is not misguided to call it 2.0. Although all versioning systems like this are subjective to begin with.

      In software systems we usually only change the major version number when we break API or file compatibility. So in that sense the major version number is an indicator for users of the system that it requires changes to other systems interacting with it. However a lot of people use the major version number to indicate a major change in capabilities.

  8. Is there a PR reason for putting it during prime time on the east coast?

    Bob Clark

  9. Meanwhile, a new Space Camp for would-be NASA astronauts!

    HUNTSVILLE, AL—Aiming to provide attendees with an authentic glimpse into the nation’s space program, representatives for the U.S. Space & Rocket Center announced Thursday that its newly updated Space Camp will allow children to simulate the anger and mounting frustration experienced by NASA personnel over a continual lack of funding.

    Camp organizers explained that the redesigned education program will offer kids the unique opportunity to contend with all of the budgetary restrictions and bureaucratic red tape impeding the progress of actual astronauts and researchers, allowing children from grades four to six to immerse themselves in a true-to-life NASA environment in which financial shortfalls and endless procedural delays plague them at every turn.

    From The Onion via Parabolic Arc.

    1. The interior is unlike any other launch vehicle interior I’ve ever seen. I guess that’s the logical result of replacing a bundle of copper wires as thick as your arm with an ethernet cable.

Comments are closed.