Dragon Crew v.2.0

Автор igorvs, 30.04.2014 07:08:57

« назад - далее »

0 Пользователи и 3 гостей просматривают эту тему.

tnt22

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/16/nasa-could-extend-space-station-expeditions-as-hedge-against-commercial-crew-delays/
ЦитироватьNASA could extend space station stays as hedge against commercial crew delays
April 16, 2018Stephen Clark


File photo of acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot. Credit: NASA/Aubrey Gemignani

NASA is working with the Russian space agency to potentially extend crew stays on the International Space Station, the agency's acting administrator said last week, as a cushion against expected delays in the development of commercial crew capsules by Boeing and SpaceX.

Robert Lightfoot, who has led the U.S. space agency on an interim basis since January 2017, told lawmakers Thursday that NASA is looking for ways to ensure U.S. astronauts can fly to the space station in case commercial spaceships designed by Boeing and SpaceX are not operational by the time a transportation contract with Russia expires in late 2019.
Спойлер
One option already under study is potentially extending the first piloted test flights of the commercial crew ships fr om two days up to six months. NASA recently updated its commercial crew contract with Boeing, giving officials the option to lengthen the first piloted test flight of the company's CST-100 Starliner spacecraft from two weeks to six months, along with the possible addition of a third crew member.

The space agency said it would consider a similar arrangement with SpaceX if the company proposes it.

Lightfoot, who is retiring at the end of April, told a House appropriations subcommittee Thursday that NASA does not expect a gap in crew access to the space station between the end of Soyuz missions under contract with U.S. astronauts and the start of regular space station crew rotation flights by Boeing and SpaceX.

But the Government Accountability Office in January reported that the schedules are likely to fall behind NASA's current projection, which anticipates Boeing and SpaceX's vehicles completing their uncrewed and crewed demonstration missions by the spring of 2019.

The GAO's report said certification of SpaceX's Crew Dragon capsule for operational crew rotation missions is likely to slip until December 2019, with Boeing's final certification likely to occur in February 2020.

Lightfoot said NASA is taking further steps to minimize the impact of further commercial crew delays, including the possibility of lengthening the time astronauts live and work on the space station.

"We're working with all our partners and working all the options, but right now we know we still show margin," Lightfoot said.

"One thing we have is a great relationship with our Russian partners, and we're looking at other alternatives about potentially extending the mission durations for the current missions that are there," he said.


File photo of NASA astronaut Ricky Arnold boarding a Soyuz spacecraft during testing at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Credit: NASA/Victor Zelentsov

Space station crews typically spend around six months in orbit, but some crew members have stayed longer. NASA astronaut Scott Kelly and Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko spent 340 days on the space station in 2015 and 2016. Astronaut Peggy Whitson returned from an extended 288-day mission in September.

Scientists are eager for more astronauts to stay on the space station for longer missions. The long-duration missions give researchers important data about how extended exposure to microgravity and radiation affects the human body.

Joel Montalbano, NASA's deputy space station program manager, said April 1 that scientists have asked station officials to find 10 to 12 slots for year-long crew members. There are no firm plans to send a crew to the station for a year, but NASA continues to look for an opportunity, Montalbano said.

"We're looking at ways to ... extend stays that we have currently on the station with the seats that we do have left through the Soyuz program," Lightfoot said Thursday.

NASA is not planning to buy more Soyuz seats from Russia, but officials have previously said that once the commercial crew spacecraft are operational, the station partners plan to accommodate at least one U.S. astronaut and one Russian cosmonaut on each launch. The in-kind arrangement has been negotiated without the exchange of funds between NASA and Roscosmos, the Russian space agency.

Lightfoot said Boeing and SpaceX are "making great progress" on their commercial crew capsules. But like NASA's Space Launch System and Orion programs — part of the agency's deep space exploration plans — the commercial crew vehicles are running into difficulties as engineers build the first flight-ready models of each spacecraft.

The most recent public schedule released by NASA indicate the first test flights by the Crew Dragon and CST-100 Starliner could occur in August, but industry and government officials expect that schedule to slip. Plans to conduct the first Crew Dragon test flight with a two-person crew in November, and fly two test pilots on a CST-100 Starliner spaceship in December, are also widely considered "aggressive" by space program officials.

Lightfoot said Thursday that NASA still expects both companies to complete their unpiloted demonstration flights to Earth orbit by the end of the year. He declined to state a schedule for the crewed test flights.

"We still expect to see the first test flights at the end of this year, from both providers," he said. "These would be the uncrewed flights. We're working through that now."

The unpiloted and crewed test missions will dock with the International Space Station.

The Crew Dragon capsule will blast off on SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, then parachute into the Atlantic Ocean at the end of its mission. Boeing's CST-100 Starliner will lift off on the Atlas 5 rocket, built and operated by Boeing subsidiary United Launch Alliance, then return to a parachute-assisted and airbag-cushioned touchdown at one of five landing zones in the Western United States, likely in New Mexico.

The U.S.-built ships will normally carry a crew of four to the space station, wh ere the capsules will remain docked for up to 210 days before returning the astronauts to Earth. Russian Soyuz spacecraft carry three-person crews.

"Regardless of what is going on in the rest of the world, our space cooperation with the Russians has been very good," Lightfoot said. "It's a good team. We're ready to get our flights from U.S. soil though. We're ready to get back to that."
[свернуть]

LRV_75

вот лошары ))
Главное не наличие проблем, главное способность их решать.
У каждой ошибки есть Имя и Фамилия

Дмитрий В.

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
вот лошары ))
Да уж, Маск с Дрэгоном уже 14 лет колупается, да и Боинг не меньше с CST-100, а все не выходит каменный пилотируемый цветок :cry:
Lingua latina non penis canina
StarShip - аналоговнет!

Apollo13

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-18-016.pdf 
ЦитироватьAUDIT OF COMMERCIAL RESUPPLY SERVICES TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION 

April 26, 2018

ааа

Космические корабли от SpaceX и Boeing будут готовы позже, чем планировалось
marks вчера в 11:26 10,4k

Starliner, Dragon 2, Orion

Новый отчет от НАСА показывает, что космические корабли для пилотируемых миссий, разрабатываемые SpaceX и Boeing будут готовы к эксплуатации не ранее 2020 года. Обе компании идут примерно вровень в плане создания своих космических аппаратов, причем последние выйдут в космос не ранее, чем через два года. 

Партнеры агентства, о которых идет речь, сотрудничают с НАСА по программе Commercial Crew Program. «Оба партнера постепенно продвигаются в плане создания своих транспортных систем, но задержки у обеих компаний, скорее всего, приведут к отставанию от агрессивного графика работ», — говорится в отчете.

https://m.geektimes.com/post/300553/
"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." ©N.Armstrong
 "Let my people go!" ©L.Armstrong

FarEcho

Цитироватьааа пишет:
Новый отчет от НАСА показывает , что космические корабли для пилотируемых миссий, разрабатываемые SpaceX и Boeing будут готовы к эксплуатации не ранее 2020 года.
А не пробовали прочитать этот отчет, на который ссылаетесь? Если все же рискнете, то увидите, что планируемый график тестовых и первых пилотируемых полетов кораблей SpaceX и Boeing не изменился, и нигде в документе нет утверждения о "готовности не ранее 2020 года".

Apollo13

ЦитироватьElon Musk‏Verified account @elonmusk 11h11 hours ago

Replying to @arstechnica

SpaceX Crew Dragon ships to the Cape in about 3 months

Astro Cat

Надо Маску самому пулять пустой Драгон-2 в космос, доказывая его работу. А то с этими перестраховщиками из НАСА он никогда не полетит.

testest2

ЦитироватьFarEcho пишет:
Цитироватьааа пишет:
Новый отчет от НАСА показывает , что космические корабли для пилотируемых миссий, разрабатываемые SpaceX и Boeing будут готовы к эксплуатации не ранее 2020 года.
А не пробовали прочитать этот отчет, на который ссылаетесь? Если все же рискнете, то увидите, что планируемый график тестовых и первых пилотируемых полетов кораблей SpaceX и Boeing не изменился, и нигде в документе нет утверждения о "готовности не ранее 2020 года".
Кроме того, это отчет не НАСА, а Счетной палаты США, которая предостерегает НАСА относительно возможных задержек..
законспирированный рептилоид

Salo

https://vz.ru/news/2018/5/6/921356.html
ЦитироватьМетод заправки ракет SpaceX напугал НАСА и Конгресс
6 мая 2018, 16:14
Текст: Ольга Никитина

Эксперты Национального управления по аэронавтике и исследованиям космического пространства (НАСА) и ряд членов Конгресса США испытывают беспокойство насчет технологии заправки топливом ракет-носителей компании SpaceX, пишет The Washington Post.
Речь идет о технологии заправки, которые в будущем могут быть использованы во время пилотируемых миссий. При подготовке к запуску ракеты Falcon 9 в SpaceX решили применить метод, при котором топливо во время закачки под высоким давлением имеет крайне низкую температуру и, соответственно, занимает меньший объем, что позволяет загрузить больше горючего. Однако заправку нужно производить непосредственно перед запуском, передает ТАСС.
WP пишет, что это предложение вызвало тревогу среди членов Конгресса и консультантов НАСА по безопасности, поскольку управление и SpaceX готовятся запустить людей на орбиту уже в этом году.
Одна из консультативных групп НАСА пришла к выводу, что метод SpaceX «противоречит критериям безопасности ракеты-носителя, которые действуют уже на протяжении более 50 лет».
Поводом для беспокойство называют инцидент, произошедший в сентябре 2016 года, когда Falcon 9 взорвалась во время заправки перед проверкой двигателя. Тогда был потерян спутник стоимостью в миллионы долларов, но обошлось без человеческих жертв.
В ноябре 2016-го в НАСА заявляли, что запуск новых ракет-носителей компании SpaceX с людьми на борту чреват возникновением опасных ситуаций и противоречит технике безопасности пилотируемых полетов в космос.
"Были когда-то и мы рысаками!!!"

Salo

#1450
Источник:
ЦитироватьElon Musk's SpaceX is using a powerful rocket technology. NASA advisers say it could put lives at risk.
Christian Davenport May 5 at 9:10 PM
 
When Elon Musk and his team at SpaceX were looking to make their Falcon 9 rocket even more powerful, they came up with a creative idea — keep the propellant at super-cold temperatures to shrink its size, allowing them to pack more of it into the tanks.
But the approach comes with a major risk, according to some safety experts. At those extreme temperatures, the propellant would need to be loaded just before takeoff — while astronauts are aboard. An accident, or a spark, during this maneuver, known as "load-and-go," could set off an explosion.
The proposal has raised alarms for members of Congress and NASA safety advisers as the agency and SpaceX prepare to launch humans into orbit as early as this year. One watchdog group labeled load-and-go a "potential safety risk." A NASA advisory group warned in a letter that the method was "contrary to booster safety criteria that has been in place for over 50 years."
Concerns at NASA over the astronauts' safety hit a high point when, in September 2016, a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket blew up while it was being fueled ahead of an engine test. No one was hurt, but the payload, a multimillion-dollar satellite, was lost. The question on many people's minds at NASA instantly became: What if astronauts were on board?
The fueling issue is emerging as a point of tension between the safety-obsessed space agency and the maverick company run by Musk, a tech entrepreneur who is well known for his flair for the dramatic and for pushing boundaries of rocket science.
In this culture clash, SpaceX is the daring, Silicon Valley-style outfit led by a man who literally sells flamethrowers on the Internet and wholeheartedly embraces risk. Musk is reigniting interest in space with acrobatic rocket-booster landings and eye-popping stunts, such as launching a Tesla convertible toward Mars.
His sensibilities have collided with a bureaucratic system at NASA that has been accused of being overly conservative in the wake of two shuttle disasters that killed 14 astronauts.
The concerns fr om some at NASA are shared by others. John Mulholland, who oversees Boeing's contract to fly astronauts to the International Space Station and once worked on the space shuttle, said load-and-go fueling was rejected by NASA in the past because "we never could get comfortable with the safety risks that you would take with that approach. When you're loading densified propellants, it is not an inherently stable situation."
 
 
Спойлер
SpaceX supporters say tradition and old ways of thinking can be the enemy of innovation and thwart efforts to open the frontier of space.
Greg Autry, a business professor at the University of Southern California, said the load-and-go procedures were a heated issue when he served on Trump's NASA transition team.
"NASA is supposed to be a risk-taking organization," he said. "But every time we would mention accepting risk in human spaceflight, the NASA people would say, 'But, oh, you have to remember the scar tissue'— and they were talking about the two shuttle disasters. They seemed to have become victims of the past and unwilling to try anything new, because of that scar tissue."
In a recent speech, Robert Lightfoot, the former acting NASA administrator, lamented in candid terms how the agency, with society as a whole, has become too risk-averse. He charged the agency with recapturing some of the youthful swagger that sent men to the moon during the Apollo era.
"I worry, to be perfectly honest, if we would have ever launched Apollo in our environment here today," he said during a speech at the Space Symposium last month, "if Buzz [Aldrin] and Neil [Armstrong] would have ever been able to go to the moon in the risk environment we have today."
NASA is requiring SpaceX and Boeing to meet a requirement that involves some complicated calculations: The chance of death can be no greater than 1 in every 270 flights.
One way to ensure that, as Lightfoot said during his speech, is to never fly: "The safest place to be is on the ground."
 
Shuttles shelved
 
Still, the scar tissue runs deep.
NASA lost 14 astronauts in two space-shuttle disasters, the result of deep systematic problems of a once young and swashbuckling agency that many said had grown sclerotic.
In the investigation into the 2003 disaster, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board blasted NASA for failing to learn "the bitter lessons" from the Challenger explosion in 1986. Columbia was lost as much by a "broken safety culture" as much as the chunk of foam that broke off and damaged the shuttle's heat shield. That second disaster helped lead to the retirement of the shuttle in 2011, leaving NASA in the position of being unable to fly astronauts from U.S. soil.
Instead, NASA pays Russia to ferry its astronauts to the International Space Station, an arrangement that costs the agency millions. In 2006, Russia charged $21.3 million a seat. That jumped to $81.9 million by 2015.
To end the dependence on Russia, NASA has turned to the private sector, outsourcing the responsibility of flying astronauts to the space station to two companies — SpaceX and Boeing — that have been awarded $6.8 billion in contracts combined. Other private companies eventually could compete for other government launch contracts — including Blue Origin, which was founded by Washington Post owner Jeffrey P. Bezos — but none are expected to send people to the space station anytime soon.
The pivot to private companies is enabling NASA to focus on deep space. But SpaceX and Boeing have both faced challenges and delays. Now, as the drought in human spaceflight extends into its seventh year, NASA is facing the prospect of even more delays — and questions about whether the contractors it plans to rely on will have a better track record than the agency that put men on the moon.
"It really is a very, very difficult problem to do human spaceflight," said Phil McAlister, the director of NASA's commercial spaceflight development division. "You've got thousands of pounds of really highly energetic propellants on board. You've got mini controlled explosions going off. You've got to survive the rigors of space, which is not very friendly for the human body. And then you've got to reenter the atmosphere, and the spacecraft gets heated up to thousands of degrees."
SpaceX pulled off 18 successful launches last year, a record, and is aiming for more this year. But it has also lost two of its Falcon 9 rockets in explosions, and amid all its triumphs, it has never attempted flying humans.
The first failure happened in 2015, when a rocket blew up a couple of minutes after liftoff as it was flying cargo and supplies to the space station. No one was on board, and no one was injured. Then, just over a year later, another rocket exploded, this time on the launchpad while being fueled ahead of an engine test.
 
Elon Musk and SpaceX developed the fueling operation to make the rockets more powerful. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images)
 
At the time, Musk declared that if crews had been aboard they would have been safely ferried away by the rocket's abort system. Still, that mishap is forcing the company to redesign bottles of pressurized helium that sit inside the rocket's fuel tanks.
Now SpaceX is getting ready to fly astronauts on an upgraded version of the same rocket. And its decision to add propellant to the rocket with astronauts on board is attracting scrutiny.
To get more power out of its rocket, SpaceX brings its propellants — liquid oxygen and refined kerosene — to unusually low temperatures. That causes them to become dense, meaning SpaceX can pack more fuel into its rockets.
To SpaceX, the approach is another example of how it is breaking the mold. The densified propellant "provides greater propellant margin for increased reliability," the company said in a statement. In other words, should something go wrong on the mission, the rocket would have more propellant to adjust to emergencies. SpaceX's dramatic booster landings also require additional propellant.
But to others it is an unnecessary risk. At a Capitol Hill hearing earlier this year, members of Congress pressed Hans Koenigsmann, SpaceX's vice president for build and flight reliability, about the safety of the load-and-go procedure.
Koenigsmann said that the fueling takes only about a half-hour, a "relatively quick procedure, and we believe that this exposure time is the shortest and therefore the safest approach."
And the company points out that if anything goes wrong during fueling, the rocket's launch abort system would allow the astronauts to escape safely. It also conducts a "static fire," a quick test firing of the engines in the days leading up to the launch to make sure the rocket is operating properly.
And since its rockets and its Dragon spacecraft are reusable, the company gets to inspect them after each flight, giving it an in-depth understanding of how the vehicles perform.
"As with all hazard analyses across the entire system and operations, controls against those hazards have been identified, and will be implemented and carefully verified prior to certification," the company said in a statement.
But in a 2015 letter to NASA, Thomas Stafford, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and then chairman of the agency's space-station advisory committee, wrote that "there is a unanimous, and strong, feeling by the committee that scheduling the crew to be on board the Dragon spacecraft prior to loading oxidizer into the rocket is contrary to booster safety criteria that has been in place for over 50 years, both in this country and internationally."
At the hearing this year, William Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, said the agency had not decided whether it would allow SpaceX to load crews before loading the fuel, but he did not rule it out.
He vowed that the agency would "make sure that we're really, really safe to go fly, and the system is ready for crew before we put them on board."
In an interview, Lightfoot, the former acting NASA administrator, said the agency is in deep discussions with SpaceX about the safest way to go. The agency has a long history with SpaceX, first hiring it to fly cargo to the station and now looking for it to send humans into space.
"It's a matter of having a good risk discussion so that we understand that," he said. "I would just say that instead of working it in the press, we work in the engineering review boards."
 
'You have to humanize it'
 
For all its push-the-envelope swagger, SpaceX says it is serious about flying people safely and is going to great lengths to study every aspect of the vehicle, down to individual valves, so that it will meet and surpass the 1-in-270 chance-of-death metric, said Benji Reed, the director of SpaceX's commercial crew program.
When Reed was down at Cape Canaveral, Fla., on a recent trip, he came across a room on a special tour wh ere the astronauts' families from the shuttle program used to wait ahead of the rocket launch.
They were stunned to see that a whiteboard with drawings made by the children of the crew lost in the 2003 Columbia disaster was still there, preserved.
"That really drives it home," Reed said. "This isn't just the people that we're flying — these are all of their families. So we take this extremely seriously, and we understand that our job is to fly people safely and bring them back safely. To do that you have to humanize it. You have to see them as your friends and as your colleagues."
But even with some of the best engineering minds at NASA, calculating risk is an imperfect science. There are too many unknowns in systems that are inherently dangerous and complex.
"Even identifying all of the risks is impossible," Gerstenmaier said during a speech last year. "Also, risk cannot be boiled down to a single statistic."
Before the very first shuttle flight, NASA estimated that the chance of death was between 1 in 500 and 1 in 5,000. Later, after the agency had compiled data from shuttle flights, it went back and came up with a very different number.
The chance of death was actually 1 in 12.
 
 
The Rev. Robert L. Bush delivers an invocation during a 2003 memorial service in Lufkin, Tex., for the astronauts killed aboard the space shuttle Columbia. (Bill Ingalls/NASA/Getty Images)
[свернуть]
"Были когда-то и мы рысаками!!!"

Искандер

Опять раздувают проблему. Неизвестно что опасней сидеть в готовом к катапультирования КК до начала и во время заправки или "гулять" рядом с заправленной РН, которая может в любой момент рвануть...
Как по мне первый вариант безопасней.
А догмы полезно ломать.
Aures habent et non audient, oculos habent et non videbunt

Not

ЦитироватьИскандер пишет:
Опять раздувают проблему. Неизвестно что опасней сидеть в готовом к катапультирования КК до начала и во время заправки или "гулять" рядом с заправленной РН, которая может в любой момент рвануть...
Как по мне первый вариант безопасней.
А догмы полезно ломать.
Ломая догму, сдуру можно сломать совсем не ее. ;)

Никто ничего не раздувает, проблема вполне реальная. Разница между динамическим (заправка) и статическим (уже заправлено и стабилизировалось) процессами с точки зрения безопасности весьма ощутима.

tnt22

ЦитироватьJeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust 23 мин. назад

Members of a NASA safety panel said Thursday they thought SpaceX's "load-and-go" fueling approach could be viable for commercial crew missions, despite past concerns.
http://spacenews.com/safety-panel-considers-spacex-load-and-go-fueling-approach-viable/

tnt22

ЦитироватьElon Musk‏Подлинная учетная запись @elonmusk 43 мин. назад

SpaceX Crew Dragon ship in anechoic chamber for EMI testing before being sent to @NASA Plum Brook vacuum chamber


Чебурашка

Красавец, мне нравится

Василий Ратников

вот у людей задержки, сдвиги вправо

но и результат посмотреть можно
да оно не летает, но прогресс можно пощупать, вот еще на один шаг стали ближе, а вот еще
и по итогу есть вера что доделают не в 17 так в 19 году, или в 20 но полетит

а когда секретные тайны федерации то ((( пичаль.

Oleg

классно смотрится с двигателями, надеюсь в грузовом варианте будут использовать посадку на реактивной тяге.

Paleopulo

#1458
Цитироватьtestest пишет:
Кроме того, это отчет не НАСА, а Счетной палаты США, которая предостерегает НАСА относительно возможных задержек..
По ссылке вроде отчет NASA Office of Inspector General, Audits Office. То есть это отчет аудиторов НАСА.
Но этот отчет посвящен не пилотируемым кораблям, а состоянию дел с коммерческой доставкой грузов.

Max Andriyahov

ЦитироватьКрасавец, мне нравится