Since Crew Dragon's Debut, SpaceX Has Flown More Astronauts Than Anyone (arstechnica.com) 69
After 170 days in space, four astronauts splashed down in the Atlantic Ocean on Friday, bringing an end to a successful NASA-SpaceX mission to the International Space Station. From a report: Following two days of weather delays, SpaceX's Crew Dragon Freedom returned to Earth off the coast of Jacksonville, Florida, beneath clear blue skies and into mild seas. The spacecraft's descent through Earth's atmosphere appeared to be nominal, with two drogue parachutes deploying on schedule, followed by four clean main parachutes, allowing Dragon to splash down at about 25 km per hour. "SpaceX, from Freedom, thank you for an incredible ride up to orbit and an incredible ride home," Kjell Lindgren, the NASA commander of the spacecraft, said after landing.
Lindgren led a mission that included NASA astronauts Bob Hines and Jessica Watkins, as well as European Space Agency astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti. Upon landing, the spacecraft was met by two SpaceX "fast boats" that secured the toasty-looking vehicle before it was brought on board the Megan recovery ship, named after Megan McArthur, an astronaut aboard an earlier SpaceX flight. This mission, Crew-4, was the fourth operational mission flown by SpaceX for NASA. Earlier this month, the Crew-5 mission launched four astronauts to the space station, where they will remain for about six months. Including an initial demonstration mission in 2020, and two private spaceflights -- Inspiration4 and Axiom-1 -- Crew Dragon has now carried 30 people into orbit.
In a little more than two years, SpaceX has surpassed the total number of astronauts launched into orbit by China, whose human spaceflight program dates back to 2003; and in the time Crew Dragon has been operational, it has exceeded even the Russian Soyuz vehicle in terms of the total number of people flown into space during that period. Over the last two years Dragon had a few flaws, including an intermittently problematic toilet and a lagging parachute on one flight, but NASA officials have been extremely pleased with the vehicle's performance. It has safely returned the United States' capability of human spaceflight, which had been lost since the space shuttle's retirement. Had Dragon not been available, NASA would have been in the uncomfortable position of relying on Russia for crew transport amid the Ukraine war.
Lindgren led a mission that included NASA astronauts Bob Hines and Jessica Watkins, as well as European Space Agency astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti. Upon landing, the spacecraft was met by two SpaceX "fast boats" that secured the toasty-looking vehicle before it was brought on board the Megan recovery ship, named after Megan McArthur, an astronaut aboard an earlier SpaceX flight. This mission, Crew-4, was the fourth operational mission flown by SpaceX for NASA. Earlier this month, the Crew-5 mission launched four astronauts to the space station, where they will remain for about six months. Including an initial demonstration mission in 2020, and two private spaceflights -- Inspiration4 and Axiom-1 -- Crew Dragon has now carried 30 people into orbit.
In a little more than two years, SpaceX has surpassed the total number of astronauts launched into orbit by China, whose human spaceflight program dates back to 2003; and in the time Crew Dragon has been operational, it has exceeded even the Russian Soyuz vehicle in terms of the total number of people flown into space during that period. Over the last two years Dragon had a few flaws, including an intermittently problematic toilet and a lagging parachute on one flight, but NASA officials have been extremely pleased with the vehicle's performance. It has safely returned the United States' capability of human spaceflight, which had been lost since the space shuttle's retirement. Had Dragon not been available, NASA would have been in the uncomfortable position of relying on Russia for crew transport amid the Ukraine war.
better than before (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, SpaceX is able to launch MUCH more frequently than the space shuttle, and at a MUCH lower cost.
So as much as I miss the space shuttle, this is a big improvement. Although the space shuttle was a much more "general purpose" space craft, and there are still some gaps that we need to find a way to fill in. Dragon is much more of a Soyuz replacement than a space shuttle replacement. And it doesn't look like Starship is going to be as general purpose either. Maybe musk has some ideas on this though.
Re:better than before (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm, Starship can put 100T of cargo to LEO, and Shuttle can put 29T of cargo to LEO. Starship is 100% reusable. Shuttle, not so much.
Not sure where Starship is going to be less capable than Shuttle...
Re:better than before (Score:5, Insightful)
Shuttle, not so much.
Oh, they were reusable but the refurb in terms of time and cost between launches became an enormous burden on NASA vs. when they originally planned the shuttle program. A lot of those missions that the shuttle flew were launching satellites which could have been done with more economical equipment, Deltas, Titans IIIs, etc.
The problem is that once NASA gets a new system they tend to over-focus on its use rather than the appropriate tool for the job.
The ISS couldn't have been built without it but now I'm wondering if even the ISS was a good use of resources considering it ran overbudget as well.
We should be on Mars now, we should have a permanent Moon base now. We've squandered a lot of funds on ISS and Shuttle along with all the engineering talent that went into them.
Re: (Score:2)
The ISS couldn't have been built without it but now I'm wondering if even the ISS was a good use of resources considering it ran overbudget as well.
I mean... when all was said and done, we needed the shuttle to build the ISS, and we needed the ISS so that the shuttle would have somewhere to go. Viewed from that perspective, the answer to the above question seems straightforward.
We should be on Mars now, we should have a permanent Moon base now. We've squandered a lot of funds on ISS and Shuttle along with all the engineering talent that went into them.
And, in the finest traditions of the US government, we're squandering even more on the SLS. I don't expect the idea that the primary purpose of NASA is to distribute pork to change as long as we have the money to fund NASA (and I'm betting that when we no longer have the money
Re:better than before (Score:4, Informative)
Shuttle was only reusable if you don't count the External Tank, which was thrown away.
Last I looked, Starship is 100% reusable. Of course, if it takes a year or three to refurbish a Starship between flights, calling it 100% reusable is a bit short of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"...
Re: (Score:2)
Plus the SRBs that were dropped in the ocean had to be pretty much entirely refurbished. Also a lot of explosive bolts that need replacing
Re:better than before (Score:4, Informative)
Well not all of the SRBs (SRM/RSRM) could be reused completely. There was an inherent issue with the nozzles and the ablative coating that was supposed to make them reusable. This led to a high scrap rate on post-flight inspection. Later design and layering of the ablative coating helped but it was late in the program. The SRB sets for SLS won't be refurbished nor recovered after use.
Re: (Score:2)
Well not all of the SRBs (SRM/RSRM) could be reused completely. There was an inherent issue with the nozzles and the ablative coating that was supposed to make them reusable. This led to a high scrap rate on post-flight inspection. Later design and layering of the ablative coating helped but it was late in the program. The SRB sets for SLS won't be refurbished nor recovered after use.
The segment sections also returned to Earth bent out of shape and had to be straightened in a press, often to a level which exceeded the the specifications, but they were reused anyway despite the damage.
Tank [Re:better than before] (Score:3)
Shuttle was only reusable if you don't count the External Tank, which was thrown away.
Big in volume, but low in cost, since it was mostly just a big empty aluminum can. The expensive stuff was engines and avionics.
Initial plans for the shuttle included a (reusable) fly-back booster, but it turned out that the tank was so cheap it didn't make sense to develop another vehicle simply to return it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I think the launch vehicle was touted as "reusable." but from this , [wikipedia.org] $1.5B/launch adjusted for inflation was a bit beyond the $450m estimate per launch
Criticism of the Space Shuttle program stemmed from claims that NASA's Space Shuttle program failed to achieve its promised cost and utility goals, as well as design, cost, management, and safety issues.[1] Fundamentally, it failed in the goal of reducing the cost of space access. Space Shuttle incremental per-pound launch costs ultimately turned out to be considerably higher than those of expendable launchers.[2] By 2011, the incremental cost per flight of the Space Shuttle was estimated at $450 million,[3] or $18,000 per kilogram ($8,200 per pound) to low Earth orbit (LEO). In contrast, the comparable Proton launch vehicle is said to cost as little as $110 million,[4] or around $5,000 per kilogram ($2,300 per pound) to LEO, despite not being reusable.
When all design and maintenance costs are taken into account, the final cost of the Space Shuttle program, averaged over all missions and adjusted for inflation (2008), was estimated to come out to $1.5 billion per launch, or $60,000 per kilogram ($27,000 per pound) to LEO.[5] This should be contrasted with the originally envisioned costs of $260 per kilogram ($118 per pound) of payload in 1972 dollars (approximately $558 per pound adjusting for inflation to 2019).[6]
SPOT ON (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shuttle was only reusable if you don't count the External Tank, which was thrown away.
The main engines were not reusable in the conventional sense, or in the sense that NASA originally advertised. They required complete refurbishment between missions to repair damage which would disqualify other engines from being used at all. Feynman discussed this in the appendix of his report.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they were reusable but the refurb in terms of time and cost between launches became an enormous burden on NASA vs. when they originally planned the shuttle program. A lot of those missions that the shuttle flew were launching satellites which could have been done with more economical equipment, Deltas, Titans IIIs, etc.
The economic analysis of the time showed that it would only be economical if it flew a lot. The idea was that it would be the national launch system, and all orbital launches would be by the shuttle. This wasn't NASA's proposal, by the way, it was OMB's requirement.
The argument in fact made sense; the greatest part of cost of a shuttle launch was the fixed cost (and exactly the same argument was recycled again decades later when hypothetical SSTO vehicles were the launch flavor of the decade).
...We should be on Mars now, we should have a permanent Moon base now. We've squandered a lot of funds on ISS and Shuttle along with all the engineering talent that went into them.
Funded by wh
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. You might want to look up skylab. Put up under Nixon and allowed to fail under carter.
I have no idea why this statement makes me "wrong".
Skylab was originally Apollo Applications Program. It was what they did with the leftover Saturn V after Apollo 18 was cancelled. It was an outgrowth of the Apollo program, and had little to do with the post-Apollo planning nor Agnew's Task force.
There's a good report "NASA and the Decision to Build the Space Shuttle, 1969–72", by Roger Launius, if you want more details.
Re: (Score:2)
The ISS couldn't have been built without it but now I'm wondering if even the ISS was a good use of resources considering it ran overbudget as well.
So you're about halfway there in your understanding of a cost-benefit analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
1) It allowed America to work and teach all of our western allies how to exist in space. Prior to this, it was pretty much USSR/Russia and America that were the only 2 capable of living in space. BUT, to go to the next level i.e. a base on the moon and mars, we need NUMEROUS nations/companies to work together to build these.
2) While America had gotten to the moon, mars, etc with numerous landings, the fact is, that USSR/Russia was the ONLY nation that had decent t
Re: better than before (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"We should be on Mars now, we should have a permanent Moon base now. We've squandered a lot of funds on ISS and Shuttle along with all the engineering talent that went into them."
This is the age old debate and it shifts with politics. Some people think we should use space capabilities to just send probes and gather science purely for science sake. Others think science for science sake is valuable because it is forward thinking but the ultimate goal is to advance mankind and applied science. The latter want
Re: (Score:2)
The ISS couldn't have been built without it but now I'm wondering if even the ISS was a good use of resources considering it ran overbudget as well.
I agree with most of your sentiments, but I just have to say the ISS is only 5.6X the mass of Skylab and 2.5X the volume and took 30 shuttle missions, while Skylab only took one Saturn V launch. ISS modules were restricted to only 2/3rds of the diameter of Skylab as well. So, I'm pretty confident that the ISS _could_ have been built without the shuttle, but the ISS certainly _would not_ have been built without the shuttle because the ISS was a big mess of compromises forced by the space shuttle's limitation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was not perfect, but it was a design that fit the budget that was given to them. That's the wrong philosophy depending on what side of the issue you're on.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't a good design at all. It started as a good design. It was a small, reusable shuttle to supplement the Saturn IIb and the Saturn V in the lift and heavy lift roles respectively. It was to be used to transport crew and resupplies to a Space Station Freedom and reboost it. But the Saturn was cancelled by Nixon out of spite. The Air Force required massive redesigns to turn the shuttle into a heavy launcher to carry their spy satellites and essentially turn it into the ersatz space bomber they always w
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm, Starship can put 100T of cargo to LEO, and Shuttle can put 29T of cargo to LEO. Starship is 100% reusable. Shuttle, not so much.
Need to add the words "is projected to be able to" after the word "Starship" in those two sentences.
Actual specs on Starship are yet to be seen.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the difference is that SpaceX has been pretty much spot on.
And I hope that continues! SpaceX has a pretty good history of reusing rockets. You just never know for each rocket type until it happens.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't look like an airplane unless you squint real hard while it's in belly-flop. Unsurprisingly, there are still people that see the Space Shuttle as a giant leap forward from the old capsule / tower approach, and see any move back to a capsule / tower vehicle as a step backwards. Forget lift capacity, forget dimensions, forget reusability, we need wings for spacecraft! Because pretty outshines lift.
Re: (Score:3)
Starship is designed to put 100T of cargo to LEO. Currently, it can't even get to space, let alone orbit. That is without any cargo. Startship may be amazing, but for right now it's all paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Startship may be amazing, but for right now it's all paper.
Startship is more than paper, but less than proven (and definitely less than an operational system).
Not everything works first time, and specs can change between not-yet-proven-prototype and flight system. We'll see.
Re: better than before (Score:2)
The fact that something as complicated as falcon heavy had a successful maiden flight says a lot about just what SpaceX is capable of.
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt it can do the soviet satellite snatching mission that ended up driving much of the design of the shuttle.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it can do the soviet satellite snatching mission that ended up driving much of the design of the shuttle.
Ignoring any question of whether such a thing is necessary or useful in this day and age, I am not sure why that would be the case. There does not seem to be any reason why you could not have a cargo bay and robotic arm and a crew on the cargo version. It seems like you absolutely could collect a satellite out of orbit with it.
Re: (Score:2)
The shuttle had oversized wings to give it more "cross-range" capability. That and a few other design elements were at least in part driven by a mysterious requirement from the US military that it be able to launch from the US, deploy or retrieve something in orbit, then land in the US, *within one orbit.*
The bit at the end is what makes it especially difficult, and presumably was required because whatever was deployed or retrieved would make someone seriously want to shoot at it. Starship doesn't have the
Re: better than before (Score:2)
Why couldn't it? The atmosphere produces enough drag...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not drag. You need lift if you want to change your direction is some other way than slowing down. Starship's fins are sized to show it down to a reasonable speed to land propulsively. The shuttle's wings were not only large enough to allow it to glide and land with no power (Starship can't) but apparently had to be even larger to allow for that particular mission.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol mods.
Re: (Score:2)
All depends. The shuttle had a cargo bay with a robot arm that could be used to facility satellite repairs (Hubble for example) and even bring a large object down from orbit. Shuttle also could carry modules to the space station and then use the robot arm to move them into place. Not saying the shuttle did any one thing particularly well, but it did have some general capabilities that I'm not sure Starship has, but probably doesn't need.
Space Shuttle was more station (Score:2)
I'd argue that the Space Shuttle was more a semi-reusable re-launchable space station than it was a "vessel". It was like one of those semi-portable mobile drydocks
So it's possible that, by default, the shuttle would be able to do more "stuff" in the science realm than the starship. Of course, by the same token, you could practically chop those aspects OUT of a shuttle and put them into the starship as a payload - and not need to waste that mass launching it when it isn't necessary either.
Another misleading headline. (Score:5, Informative)
Another misleading headline.
The grammatically correct statement would have been "SpaceX Has Flown More Astronauts Since Crew Dragon's Debut Than Anyone."
The space shuttle still easily holds the record for most astronauts flown, total. The Dragon capsule has flown more astronauts, if you count only the period of time since it entered service.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to directly compare Dragon's performance to the Shuttle. I wonder what the most astronauts the Shuttle has put in space over a two year period is.
Numbers [Re:Another misleading headline.] (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be interesting to directly compare Dragon's performance to the Shuttle. I wonder what the most astronauts the Shuttle has put in space over a two year period is.
Well, shuttle totaled 833 astronauts in 30 years, so it averaged 28 per year (more per hear you don't count the years during the stand-down periods when the shuttle wasn't flying). So, Space-X's 30 astronauts in 2 years and 4 months doesn't even make half of the average year for shuttle.
Full list here, if you really wanted to go through and check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Also remember that the Shuttle put up to 10 people in orbit in one flight where Dragon is currently limited to 7. I mean, since Shuttle we had to limit to 3 on Soyuz, so don't forget that while the Shuttle may have been costly, it was capable.
And also appreciate the differences between Shuttle and Crew Dragon:
Re: (Score:2)
The grammatically correct statement would have been "SpaceX Has Flown More Astronauts Since Crew Dragon's Debut Than Anyone."
They're both grammatical. Yours is arguably clearer. Personally, I would have scrapped the hype and put the year in the headline, instead.
Re: (Score:2)
The grammatically correct statement would have been "SpaceX Has Flown More Astronauts Since Crew Dragon's Debut Than Anyone."
They're both grammatical. Yours is arguably clearer. Personally, I would have scrapped the hype and put the year in the headline, instead.
Both are proper grammar, but the headline as written was not correct, because the clause "Since Crew Dragon's Debut" was misplaced, and therefore the sentence stated something that was not intended and not correct.
Re:better than before (Score:4, Interesting)
It will be interesting to see as Starsip development shakes out over over the next few years what options they come out with in terms of cargo access doors. Seems like the big advantage of the shuttle was that nice cargo bay that opened fully to space, had the option for the arm so it could carry, deploy and service something like Hubble. Starship has the volume and then some but access into that space is an interesting question, especially if they have to keep the spherical header tank up in the nosecone.
Really with it's planned ability to be refueled in orbit it should be able to do everything shuttle could and then some. Even if it was a big flap on the cylindrical portion that's alot of space to be used.
Re: (Score:2)
Starship has yet to work without a cargo bay, let alone with an as-yet not designed cargo bay. Starship is riddled with promised features that have yet to be demonstrated even in the small scale. Adding cargo bay doors to Starship is not a trivial change to its internal structure.
Such a modification is not impossible but it's yet another promise that has yet to be demonstrated on a vehicle that is yet to fly.
Re: (Score:1)
"Careful. You are stepping on the toes of everyone trying to call the money SpaceX and therefore Musk gets for this is a 'government handout.'"
And apparently some of them have mod points and are triggered by it. It remains that case that remuneration for services rendered/equipment is not a 'government handout.'
Re:better than before (Score:5, Informative)
And it doesn't look like Starship is going to be as general purpose either. Maybe musk has some ideas on this though.
As far as I know, the current plan is to have variants of Starship [spacex.com](pdf warning, page 2) fill various needs to LEO. There will be a crew version, a cargo version, a Starlink version (smaller door than cargo) and eventually a tanker.
Although the design changes seem to be slowing, they are still very much focused on just getting the thing to orbit and back right now. Once they figure that out, I suspect they will figure out the details to maximize utility. However, due to SpaceX being a for-profit enterprise, expect it to mainly haul satellites to orbit for a few years. It's a good way to make some money while they gain the confidence to fly humans.
Re: better than before (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to be critical of fifty plus year old technology. Shuttle design started in 1968. If you wanted a spaceship much bigger than an Apollo capsule that was reusable, it pretty much had to be a spaceplane, because it had to be flyable by a human. Falcon and Starship both require automatic control technology that just wasn't available. The shuttle had pretty remarkable capabilities, considering.
The real shame was that nobody did much follow-on development until forced retirement created a crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
And it doesn't look like Starship is going to be as general purpose either.
Quite the opposite. There will be multiple versions of starship, but a tanker, a freighter, and likely a passenger/cargo craft.
Considering that is how we run commercial aviation, this is not surprising.
Stupid headlines (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't that true the first time they put an astronaut in space?
Idiotic headline.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it's only a bit better than things like "I've personally flown as many astronauts to as anyone since this morning".
Re: (Score:3)
What would be long enough to be significant? 5 years? Let's check back in 3 years. Who is going to beat Space X in volume in the next 3 years? I see nobody remotely close.
Re:Stupid headlines (Score:5, Informative)
The whole point was the headline. It did not say "the most in 2 years", but "the most since the debut", which was a headline that is true at the moment of any spacecraft's debut, for some amount of time.
Yes, the feat is impressive, but the headline is still stupid as there is no information, it only makes sense if you know when the Dragon Crew debuted.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point was the headline. It did not say "the most in 2 years", but "the most since the debut",
Actually what it said was "since the debut, the most". Which is inaccurate. "The most since the debut" would have been correct.
start from clean sheet, no baggage from past (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But then Mercury and Gemini were not as sloped as Apollo so maybe that high slope is needed when entering at 25,000 mph.
Apollo was a design that generated lift on entry, and not just drag. This requires flying at a non-zero angle of attack, which means you need a higher slope on the backshell.
Would they even be able to? (Score:2)
Had Dragon not been available, NASA would have been in the uncomfortable position of relying on Russia for crew transport amid the Ukraine war
I thought that the sanctions imposed because of the war had mostly shut down Russian internal industry because of their inability to get materials and parts. Supposedly they are not able to fly a lot of their airliners. Does this somehow not apply to their space industry?
Just like Star Trek... (Score:2)
LEO: To boldly go where thousands have gone before.
Re: (Score:2)
Not thousands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"As of July 20, 2021, a total of 574 people from 41 countries have gone into space according to the FAI criterion (587 people have qualified when including the US Department of Defense classification). Of those 574, three people only reached a sub-orbital flight, 567 people reached Earth orbit, 24 traveled beyond low Earth orbit and 12 walked on the Moon."
SpaceX: Boost +1.25/month, Mission Control +2 (Score:1)
Sorry for this ad. But it's not really an ad -- more like fanaticism.
I'm just become obsessive about Terra Invicta. [steampowered.com]
It's kind'a coloring everything.
Glad to see USA boost capacity restored.
Propaganda (Score:1)
Are we forgetting about cosmonauts? (Score:2)
This is fake news!
We all know who put the most people in space!
Not even close. (Score:2)
The headline is wildly inaccurate in implying spacex have flown more overall now that they are flying people, or by narrowly-targeting a small window in time (a couple years) in an attempt to make the look more competent/capable than anybody else.
Crew dragon has flown 5 times for NASA (4 seats each time) plus one two-man test flight, plus one four-person private manned flight - a total of 26 people
Russia, via Soyuz, has flown far more people to space, 85 three-person missions just since the end of the cold