NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Early Days Archive Section => Topic started by: meekGee on 08/09/2014 05:17 am

Title: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 08/09/2014 05:17 am
We need a dedicated thread for this, especially since new information is probably forthcoming.

Several people posted this link:
http://new.livestream.com/AIAAvideo/space2014/videos/58462185

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 08/09/2014 05:20 am
This from JBF over at the live unveiling event thread:

Some interesting comments from Garrett Reisman at the AIAA space Human Flight panel see 30:15 http://new.livestream.com/AIAAvideo/space2014/videos/58462185 (http://new.livestream.com/AIAAvideo/space2014/videos/58462185)

1. The capsule that was shown has the Interior Structural Qualification Article.
2. The exterior is the TPS panels that will be used on the Pad Abort vehicle.

Point 1 is especially important - there was plenty of discussion a while back on whether the seats/flight console/hatch/door/door-handle were final design or just mock-ups.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Norm38 on 08/09/2014 05:31 am
Moved my post over here
http://new.livestream.com/AIAAvideo/space2014/videos/58462185

Dragon V2 Operations Critical Design Review scheduled for 2 weeks from now.  28:30 in the video.
Lots of good V2 updates and milestones leading up to the abort tests.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: tobi453 on 08/19/2014 06:19 pm
SpaceX at IAC-14:
http://www.iafastro.net/iac/paper/id/26573/summary/

SpaceX Plans for Commercial Human Spaceflight
Dr. Garrett Reisman, SpaceX, United States
2014-09-30 09:45

Only NASA or also other customers? ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: jabe on 08/21/2014 07:02 pm
An interesting  tweet (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/502513269656289280)
not sure if it is a "slip of an embargo" or not

Quote
CCtCap: Boeing CST-100 called 'simpler' - but a "powerpoint tiger?:" SpaceX way ahead on design and test of real hardware for Dragon V2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 08/21/2014 07:58 pm
An interesting  tweet (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/502513269656289280)
not sure if it is a "slip of an embargo" or not

Quote
CCtCap: Boeing CST-100 called 'simpler' - but a "powerpoint tiger?:" SpaceX way ahead on design and test of real hardware for Dragon V2.

Owww.... harsh!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 08/21/2014 08:08 pm
An interesting  tweet (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/502513269656289280)
not sure if it is a "slip of an embargo" or not

Quote
CCtCap: Boeing CST-100 called 'simpler' - but a "powerpoint tiger?:" SpaceX way ahead on design and test of real hardware for Dragon V2.

Owww.... harsh!

But no reference who is supposed to have said it.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: jabe on 08/21/2014 08:13 pm

But no reference who is supposed to have said it.

Sent a tweet asking for clarification..no reply yet... but not expecting one .. Charles is pretty quiet in the twitter world...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 08/21/2014 08:17 pm
An interesting  tweet (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/502513269656289280)
not sure if it is a "slip of an embargo" or not

Quote
CCtCap: Boeing CST-100 called 'simpler' - but a "powerpoint tiger?:" SpaceX way ahead on design and test of real hardware for Dragon V2.

Owww.... harsh!

But true... Boeing's ratio of "paper"/"powerpoint" milestones to hardware milestones ratio for CCiCap is much higher than SNC or SpaceX. Besides the pressure vessel and abort engine (from another project), precious little CST-100 hardware has seen the light. Boeing does not want to spend any more than it has to.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/21/2014 08:29 pm
An interesting  tweet (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/502513269656289280)
not sure if it is a "slip of an embargo" or not

Quote
CCtCap: Boeing CST-100 called 'simpler' - but a "powerpoint tiger?:" SpaceX way ahead on design and test of real hardware for Dragon V2.

Owww.... harsh!

But true... Boeing's ratio of "paper"/"powerpoint" milestones to hardware milestones ratio for CCiCap is much higher than SNC or SpaceX. Besides the pressure vessel and abort engine (from another project), precious little CST-100 hardware has seen the light. Boeing does not want to spend any more than it has to.

Absolutely. And given the different between active flight test components and heritage flight components, it might make one cautious for selection, even given the enormous talent, competence, and experience.

Yes, big companies fool themselves into travelling "cheap". All along they've been miffed at the stingy budget for commercial crew out of Congress. More so than the other two. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 08/21/2014 11:38 pm
An interesting  tweet (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/502513269656289280)
not sure if it is a "slip of an embargo" or not

Quote
CCtCap: Boeing CST-100 called 'simpler' - but a "powerpoint tiger?:" SpaceX way ahead on design and test of real hardware for Dragon V2.

Owww.... harsh!

But true... Boeing's ratio of "paper"/"powerpoint" milestones to hardware milestones ratio for CCiCap is much higher than SNC or SpaceX. Besides the pressure vessel and abort engine (from another project), precious little CST-100 hardware has seen the light. Boeing does not want to spend any more than it has to.

Absolutely. And given the different between active flight test components and heritage flight components, it might make one cautious for selection, even given the enormous talent, competence, and experience.

Yes, big companies fool themselves into travelling "cheap". All along they've been miffed at the stingy budget for commercial crew out of Congress. More so than the other two.

Boeing is accustomed to decades and billions.  Fast-paced and cost-competitive are hard.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 08/22/2014 12:01 am
The tweet is certainly true. Most of us have been saying that for quite some time.

It always bothered me that NASA new what milestones they were paying for through the CCiCAP phase. They knew after 400+ Million where Boeing was going to net out. If it took that much for them to get to this point, they must have known that for CCtCAp, they'd need substantially more. I suppose they had to let this play out as there were uncertainties with how DC would progress. But thank the stars Mark and his team really pushed through the last 18 months or so.

I commend the Boeing team but I suspect corporate kept the CST team on a very short financial leash.

Well, NASA should just get this over with now. We all know how it's going to play out.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 08/22/2014 01:40 am
Well, CCtCAp hasn't been awarded yet, so any celebration and/or gnashing of teeth is premature.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: king1999 on 08/22/2014 04:51 pm
The tweet is certainly true. Most of us have been saying that for quite some time.

It always bothered me that NASA new what milestones they were paying for through the CCiCAP phase. They knew after 400+ Million where Boeing was going to net out. If it took that much for them to get to this point, they must have known that for CCtCAp, they'd need substantially more. I suppose they had to let this play out as there were uncertainties with how DC would progress. But thank the stars Mark and his team really pushed through the last 18 months or so.

I commend the Boeing team but I suspect corporate kept the CST team on a very short financial leash.

Well, NASA should just get this over with now. We all know how it's going to play out.

I can't agree more. It has always bothered me that Boeing got the most fund in CCiCAP but had done the least in terms of hardware verification. There are a lot of news articles lately saying only Boeing has met the milestones for CCiCAP and SpaceX and SNC got delayed. But they didn't point out that Boeing mostly had power-point review milestones and SpaceX has two real abort tests coming.

I have no doubt that SpaceX is one of the selections solely due to the uncertainty of Altas V's future. Hopefully the other would be DC for its low-G return of crew and payload. CST would be a money hole if selected.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 08/22/2014 04:53 pm
DST would be a money hole if selected.

Based on what information?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 08/22/2014 04:55 pm


Boeing is accustomed to decades and billions.  Fast-paced and cost-competitive are hard.

that is a broad brush statement not base on any relevant information.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: PahTo on 08/22/2014 05:01 pm
All along they've been miffed at the stingy budget for commercial crew out of Congress. 

...so have we all, so have we all...
(where's the shaking head emoticon?)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/22/2014 05:33 pm
It always bothered me that NASA new what milestones they were paying for through the CCiCAP phase. They knew after 400+ Million where Boeing was going to net out.

Well, I think in all fairness the situation was that NASA knew where things should have ended up when the CCiCap milestones were complete.  And they certainly thought that Dream Chaser had more risk to retire than CST-100 or Dragon.

When CCiCap was announced two years ago there were far more unknowns for all three vehicles, and NASA all along has been trying to make sure that they were going to end up with at least one vehicle by 2017.  And at that time the CST-100 looked like a strong contender and a pretty safe bet.  And it still is, but now NASA has a new set of criteria two years later to evaluate the contenders on.

Another factor is the internal funding angle, which NASA said in the CCiCap Selection Statement for Boeing:

"No new strengths were identified.  All weaknesses were fully addressed except as follows: proposed corporate investment during the CCiCap period does not provide significant industry financial investment and there is increased risk of having insufficient funding in the base period."

So essentially Boeing, who received the most funding from NASA, may have had lower overall funding (NASA + Boeing) available for making progress than other contenders - certainly SpaceX it appears.  That was a strategy decision that Boeing made, and we'll see how well that turns out.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: king1999 on 08/22/2014 06:07 pm
So essentially Boeing, who received the most funding from NASA, may have had lower overall funding (NASA + Boeing) available for making progress than other contenders - certainly SpaceX it appears.  That was a strategy decision that Boeing made, and we'll see how well that turns out.
They thought they were a sure bet. But now it sure gets more interesting to see. They have people in Congress to fight for them, maybe that's causing the delay of NASA's announcement?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/25/2014 01:23 pm
I'd have been a lot happier if SpaceX had gone ahead with a crewed Dragon v.1. This second model strikes me as a time- and money-eater.

I'll probably get flames for this but one part of me wonders if Musk has already been warned he won't get commercial crew funding, so he's offering a high-spec final model to interest other potential customers that he'll work towards on SpaceX's own dime and schedule rather than a simpler and quicker-to-deploy model to fit into NASA's budget and schedule.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Garrett on 08/25/2014 01:38 pm
I'd have been a lot happier if SpaceX had gone ahead with a crewed Dragon v.1. This second model strikes me as a time- and money-eater.

I'll probably get flames for this but one part of me wonders if Musk has already been warned he won't get commercial crew funding, so he's offering a high-spec final model to interest other potential customers that he'll work towards on SpaceX's own dime and schedule rather than a simpler and quicker-to-deploy model to fit into NASA's budget and schedule.
The v.1 didn't have a LAS (required by NASA, and sensible folks alike)
Installing a life support system to a cargo ship is not analogous to the assembly of LEGO elements, i.e. a lot of redesign was likely necessary.

I can understand an argument that v2 may be overkill, but a crewed v1 makes no sense to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/25/2014 01:50 pm
Well, I suppose it would have really been 'v.1.5' as it would have had the LAS motor pods and an ECLSS added as originally intended. My speculation is that the list of things to do to get v.1 crew-ready was getting longer and, combined with negative rumbles about getting the CCrew contract, Elon decided it would be more cost-efficient to build an optimised crew variant rather than a modified cargo version used for crew.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 08/25/2014 02:12 pm
I think you're confusing your imagination with reality.  What "rumbles"?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: su27k on 08/25/2014 02:51 pm
I'd have been a lot happier if SpaceX had gone ahead with a crewed Dragon v.1. This second model strikes me as a time- and money-eater.

Yeah the COTS-D Dragon would probably be quicker to build, if they go down that route they could be ready to fly humans by now. It would be interesting to know why they changed direction.

Quote
I'll probably get flames for this but one part of me wonders if Musk has already been warned he won't get commercial crew funding, so he's offering a high-spec final model to interest other potential customers that he'll work towards on SpaceX's own dime and schedule rather than a simpler and quicker-to-deploy model to fit into NASA's budget and schedule.

This makes no sense, if EM knew years in advance that they won't get the contract  (which is impossible), they would make the model simpler and cheaper so that it can be finished with CCiCAP funding alone.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Garrett on 08/25/2014 03:00 pm
...combined with negative rumbles about getting the CCrew contract,<snip>
I too am curious. What "rumbles". If anything, there was a feeling that SpaceX were hot favourites.

There are many good reasons for redesigning Dragon, not least because adding a pusher LAS meant adding SuperDracos, which with a bit of extra effort can be used for propulsive landing.
Also Elon was quoted saying something along the lines of SpaceX not really knowing what they were doing when designing Dragon V1. One can only presume they were all very eager to have a second, more experienced, go at designing a spacecraft.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: butters on 08/25/2014 03:16 pm
Who says that V1 is "simpler" than V2? As Elon has stated, V1 was their first stab at a spacecraft, and minimizing risk was more important than the simplicity and manufacturability of the design. V1 is a battleship. The V2 design is a substantial refinement incorporating numerous lessons learned. A more refined design may be more advanced yet also simpler, with lower part counts and easier assembly processes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/25/2014 03:18 pm
...combined with negative rumbles about getting the CCrew contract,<snip>

I too am curious. What "rumbles". If anything, there was a feeling that SpaceX were hot favourites.

If you check back on my original post on this discussion, you will see that I was speculating that one possible motive for v.2 was SpaceX not getting commercial crew, thus removing a major time constraint on developing crewed Dragon.

Who says that V1 is "simpler" than V2? As Elon has stated, V1 was their first stab at a spacecraft, and minimizing risk was more important than the simplicity and manufacturability of the design. V1 is a battleship. The V2 design is a substantial refinement incorporating numerous lessons learned. A more refined design may be more advanced yet also simpler, with lower part counts and easier assembly processes.

But will it be quicker to reach flying status? I've a feeling that schedule will be a hard constraint on commercial crew.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rpapo on 08/25/2014 03:33 pm
But will it be quicker to reach flying status? I've a feeling that schedule will be a hard constraint on commercial crew.
And you think CST-100, DreamChaser or Blue Origin will get there quicker?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dglow on 08/25/2014 03:51 pm
Do we think Dragon v2's first flight will be 'full-up' with propulsive landing?
Or will the SuperDracos be only for abort at first, with landing integrated later as Dragonfly testing progresses?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 08/25/2014 03:54 pm
D-V2 can't be viewed in isolation but as part of a larger, more integrated and well thought out plan.

SpaceX has a primary goal of driving down costs through re-use. If that is a primary business driver that ultimately becomes a design driver, then I'm not sure what else anyone expected them to do with regards to D-V2.

Why wold anyone be surprised in the least by how far they advanced their Dragon design? Look at what they did from Falcon 9 to Falcon 9R. It's the same scale of changes from Dragon V1 to Dragon V2 (yes, perhaps more). All because of 2 primary drivers:

1. Cost efficiencies through re-use.
2. Lessons learned.
 
Put those 2 together and you get F9R and Dragon V2.

And the beauty of that plan, is then they move to one core Dragon V2 line that separates at the points of crew and cargo producing even more efficiencies and capabilities, especially with regards to CRS-2.

These guys are on a tear. Step back and think about this.

From 2010 to 2016, they will have gone from F9 to F9R, Dragon V1 (Cargo) to Dragon v2 (Crew), 2 pads to 4 pads (including the worlds first private launch site & the historic crew launch facilities of Pad 39A) and an operational Falcon Heavy. They may even be very close to D-V2 Cargo by EOY 2016 as well. You don't get this far, this fast without taking some design risks. Dragon V2 may fall into the risk category but I'd say it's worked damn well so far. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 08/25/2014 03:56 pm
Do we think Dragon v2's first flight will be 'full-up' with propulsive landing?
Or will the SuperDracos be only for abort at first, with landing integrated later as Dragonfly testing progresses?

We can only guess. My guess would be the first flights will be water landing or maybe land landing under parachutes, assisted by a burn on the last few meters to soften impact. Parachute landing would be survivable without engine burn, if that fails.

Land landing under SuperDraco thrust will come only after the extensive Firefly tests are completed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: king1999 on 08/25/2014 03:59 pm
...combined with negative rumbles about getting the CCrew contract,<snip>

I too am curious. What "rumbles". If anything, there was a feeling that SpaceX were hot favourites.

If you check back on my original post on this discussion, you will see that I was speculating that one possible motive for v.2 was SpaceX not getting commercial crew, thus removing a major time constraint on developing crewed Dragon.


That's nonsense speculation. They would not have known that so early in advance to change their direction.

And they are further in the game in preparing abort tests than other teams. The man-rated Atlas V is still a way to go.

And under current situations with Russia, I would think the USG can't afford to create a new dependency on Russia by skipping SpaceX. SpaceX has them cornered, for good or bad.

Edit: typos.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 08/25/2014 04:01 pm
I'd have been a lot happier if SpaceX had gone ahead with a crewed Dragon v.1. This second model strikes me as a time- and money-eater.

I'll probably get flames for this but one part of me wonders if Musk has already been warned he won't get commercial crew funding, so he's offering a high-spec final model to interest other potential customers that he'll work towards on SpaceX's own dime and schedule rather than a simpler and quicker-to-deploy model to fit into NASA's budget and schedule.

People seem to exaggerate the difference between Dragon v1 and v2. In reality there isn't a whole lot of difference. Take off SD engine pods, and change the docking adapter to a CBM berthing ring. What do you have? An evolved Dragon v1.

Any change to Dragon v1 to make it human rated would quickly turn it into something close to v2.

Is your main issue that LAS? Would you have preferred that SpaceX use a solid LAS, and to do that develop expertise in a field where they had none? (and no interest?) Do you really think that would have taken much less time?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/25/2014 04:07 pm
Solid LAS is WAY more complicated than it seems.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 08/25/2014 04:12 pm
Do we think Dragon v2's first flight will be 'full-up' with propulsive landing?
Or will the SuperDracos be only for abort at first, with landing integrated later as Dragonfly testing progresses?
We can look at a few timelines to tweak out the possibilities.

-DragonFly testing program for propulsive landing will possibly go through to 2016. Four testing profiles and over 30 actual tests within that time.

-Pad abort in Nov, In-flight Abort in Jan 2015.

-Orbital un-crewed test flight late 2015 (Possibly early 2016)

-By the end of 2015, they should have a huge amount of data on both the Hardware (SDs) and software, both abort and propulsive landing. Elon mentioned another 1 to 2 years before propulsive landing will be operationally ready.
That lines up with all their development and testing schedules.

Depending on how the development and testing goes over the next 1.5 to 2 years, I think they will begin their crewed campaign with land propulsive landings. Possibly with a parachute assist for the first few missions. Regardless, I think operationally, water landing from the beginning is reserved for aborts only. Land landing will be standard operations from the outset. Whether full propulsive or parachute assist from the beginning? I'm not sure we can know that yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 08/25/2014 04:29 pm
Well, I suppose it would have really been 'v.1.5' as it would have had the LAS motor pods and an ECLSS added as originally intended. My speculation is that the list of things to do to get v.1 crew-ready was getting longer and, combined with negative rumbles about getting the CCrew contract, Elon decided it would be more cost-efficient to build an optimised crew variant rather than a modified cargo version used for crew.

How do you know that the v2 isn't "really" a v1.5?

It has Super Dracos with fancy fairings (which are not part of the pressure vessel), life support, seating, flight controls, new hatch, docking adapter...

But all of these are on the minimal-change list from 1.0 to "1.5" anyway.

What pushes it over the edge to becoming "totally new"?

The only thing I can see that makes it a v2 is that they've decided to present it as such.

There was a long argument 1-2 years ago about what the crewed Dragon would look like, and this is pretty much along the mid-range of the opinions.  It does not have wings, it still has a drop-off trunk...

It's all a matter of perception.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 08/25/2014 04:32 pm

-DragonFly testing program for propulsive landing will possibly go through to 2016. Four testing profiles and over 30 actual tests within that time.



I think that's 30 test flights per year... for two years.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34800.msg1245372#msg1245372

Edit: added quote
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MP99 on 08/25/2014 04:42 pm
I'd have been a lot happier if SpaceX had gone ahead with a crewed Dragon v.1. This second model strikes me as a time- and money-eater.

I'll probably get flames for this but one part of me wonders if Musk has already been warned he won't get commercial crew funding, so he's offering a high-spec final model to interest other potential customers that he'll work towards on SpaceX's own dime and schedule rather than a simpler and quicker-to-deploy model to fit into NASA's budget and schedule.

Musk said that they didn't know what they were doing when they designed v1. (V2 unveiling?)

Sometimes you put together the task list to get to where you need to end up, and a reboot is the best way forward. I see this as a real strength of their proposal, though it exposes them to greatest risk on their greatest weakness - delivering to a schedule.

NASA will have technical insight into the design as part of their CCtCap proposal. Maybe there were some things that they wouldn't have been too keen on?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 08/25/2014 04:48 pm
I think that's 30 test flights per year... for two years.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34800.msg1245372#msg1245372
Thanks for that, it's always good to refer back to a published data point.

I worded it the way I did for a few reasons.

-It's not an official testing schedule from SpaceX but rather a range of dates and tests for permit approvals.
-They word it as "up to". We don't know how big of a swing that is.Therefore it could be 30, or 45 or 60 tests, over 12 months, 18 months or 24 months.
-They list 2014 - 2015. But 2014 is more then half over and whether that means this will spill over to 2016 or not, we don't know.

Again though, thanks for the re-groundning.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 08/25/2014 05:03 pm
Well, I suppose it would have really been 'v.1.5' as it would have had the LAS motor pods and an ECLSS added as originally intended. My speculation is that the list of things to do to get v.1 crew-ready was getting longer and, combined with negative rumbles about getting the CCrew contract, Elon decided it would be more cost-efficient to build an optimised crew variant rather than a modified cargo version used for crew.

How do you know that the v2 isn't "really" a v1.5?

It has Super Dracos with fancy fairings (which are not part of the pressure vessel), life support, seating, flight controls, new hatch, docking adapter...

But all of these are on the minimal-change list from 1.0 to "1.5" anyway.

What pushes it over the edge to becoming "totally new"?

The only thing I can see that makes it a v2 is that they've decided to present it as such.

There was a long argument 1-2 years ago about what the crewed Dragon would look like, and this is pretty much along the mid-range of the opinions.  It does not have wings, it still has a drop-off trunk...

It's all a matter of perception.
My only caution would be a few data points:

1. Garett said a few weeks ago that they hit a few snags along the way.
2. IIRC, they are still working towards their Primary Structures Qualification.

I'm only thinking that perhaps attaching the SDs to the primary structure and all the added stresses that implies, necessitated enough core design changes that the very underlying structures have been modified to a greater extent then we are aware of. Not counting how they redesigned the entire parachute system and placement, modified plumbing, wiring/electric, outer mold-lines , fuel storage, TPS/ landing legs and trunk.

Start adding all that up and it's like going from Gemini to  Apollo. (or not)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 08/25/2014 05:14 pm
Well, I suppose it would have really been 'v.1.5' as it would have had the LAS motor pods and an ECLSS added as originally intended. My speculation is that the list of things to do to get v.1 crew-ready was getting longer and, combined with negative rumbles about getting the CCrew contract, Elon decided it would be more cost-efficient to build an optimised crew variant rather than a modified cargo version used for crew.

How do you know that the v2 isn't "really" a v1.5?

It has Super Dracos with fancy fairings (which are not part of the pressure vessel), life support, seating, flight controls, new hatch, docking adapter...

But all of these are on the minimal-change list from 1.0 to "1.5" anyway.

What pushes it over the edge to becoming "totally new"?

The only thing I can see that makes it a v2 is that they've decided to present it as such.

There was a long argument 1-2 years ago about what the crewed Dragon would look like, and this is pretty much along the mid-range of the opinions.  It does not have wings, it still has a drop-off trunk...

It's all a matter of perception.
My only caution would be a few data points:

1. Garett said a few weeks ago that they hit a few snags along the way.
2. IIRC, they are still working towards their Primary Structures Qualification.

I'm only thinking that perhaps attaching the SDs to the primary structure and all the added stresses that implies, necessitated enough core design changes that the very underlying structures have been modified to a greater extent then we are aware of. Not counting how they redesigned the entire parachute system and placement, modified plumbing, wiring/electric, outer mold-lines , fuel storage, TPS/ landing legs and trunk.

Start adding all that up and it's like going from Gemini to  Apollo. (or not)

I agree 100%.  It's just that all of this work would have had to go into any notional v1.5 anyway.

The only "optional" part of v2.0 is propulsive landing, (and the windows) but since the LAS modifications already come built-in, and since you can fly without propulsive landing, it doesn't look like the giant detour that it is portrayed as.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 08/25/2014 05:22 pm
Well, I suppose it would have really been 'v.1.5' as it would have had the LAS motor pods and an ECLSS added as originally intended. My speculation is that the list of things to do to get v.1 crew-ready was getting longer and, combined with negative rumbles about getting the CCrew contract, Elon decided it would be more cost-efficient to build an optimised crew variant rather than a modified cargo version used for crew.

Musk has been quoted as stating that Dragon V1 was their first spacecraft and they realized a lot of things they were doing sub-optimally the first time around.  Do you have any facts to point to that not being the case?  Do you have any facts to support "negative rumbles about getting the CCrew contract"?  This seems like a lot of speculation without any data to me, which makes it highly suspect, unless you can substantiate any of this.

[EDIT] Should have caught up with the thread before replying, but the point still stands that this is a whole lot of stuff made up out of whole cloth.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 08/25/2014 05:24 pm
They could have gone the way of Boeing, putting the LAS propulsion into the trunk, that would become a kind of service module. Would that really be that much easier? I doubt it. And they would lose all the flexibility an empty trunk gives them for additional services plus the LAS gets lost before landing.

BTW, what is really easier and simpler in CST-100 compared to Dragon V2?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/25/2014 07:49 pm
Remember: This decision will be at least partly made based on politics and perception. Boeing is nearly-guaranteed selection because they're Boeing; problems with CST-100 will be considered second, if at all, out of fear of Shelby et al defunding the program. Because perception is the key, the implication that v.2 is a near-fully-new design will work against it, in my view.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 08/25/2014 11:26 pm
Remember: This decision will be at least partly made based on politics and perception. Boeing is nearly-guaranteed selection because they're Boeing; problems with CST-100 will be considered second, if at all, out of fear of Shelby et al defunding the program. Because perception is the key, the implication that v.2 is a near-fully-new design will work against it, in my view.
While I don't completely disagree that "politics" may take its' seat at the table, it will not be the overriding decision influencer.

There is no scenario where SpaceX is not selected. I think they are the most assured of a full award.
1. They'll be certified sooner and cost the least to get there.
2. They'll  provide the most cost effective service

NASA will not sacrifice DC by giving a second full award to Boeing, so...

...For the fun of it, let's just say NASA blinks and/or becomes Machiavellian.  They may decide they already know SpaceX can get to certification soonest and their services will be the cheapest. They don't want a Congressional headache by leaving Boeing out but they really prefer SNC. So they decide to give SNC & Boeing a half award each and see who decides to go all in and make it to certification. They would do this thinking a few things. SNC will go all the way regardless but will be certified a bit later then SpaceX. Until then, SpaceX will handle things. And Boeing won't make it to certification as they will not self-invest to the level needed without full NASA funding. Now, that eventuality may turn out a couple ways. Boeing's Congressional allies will fight for additional funding to keep Boeing going and do a supplemental funding round. Or, Boeing goes as far as they can on NASA funding alone, focussing on core structures, call it a day and use what they have to go after CRS-2 contracts. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 08/25/2014 11:36 pm
While your scenario has its appeal, I believe someone from NASA was quoted saying they are not planning on handing out half awards for CCtCAP.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 08/25/2014 11:55 pm
While your scenario has its appeal, I believe someone from NASA was quoted saying they are not planning on handing out half awards for CCtCAP.
I sure as heck hope they don't and I don't think they will.

Dragon & DC all the way!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Mariusuiram on 08/26/2014 03:31 am
This whole discussion of V2 reminds me of almost every SpaceX development program.

Every product is developed relatively quickly & cheaply with big promises and big margins. There are inevitably problems because of the pace & target (or maybe inexperience) causing delays. The end product under performs on their initial promises, however they quickly turn around and announce the "latest & greatest" which will surpass the past promises and fix all the problems. And so far they have proved capable in this last part which is what takes them that step beyond a typical vaporware business.

Falcon 1 to Falcon 9 (and even 9 v1.0 to 1.1/R)
Merlin engines up to 1D (which is kind of synonymous with the v1.0 to v1.1)
Now Dragon v1 to Dragon v2
Next would be going from FH & F9 to true FH-R & 9-R. My guess is their initial recoveries will require more refurbishment & time than desired, but then they'll announce a  v1.2 or something else that solves it.

There is a valid complaint from certain people regarding their initial over promising and delays. It is definitely a negative from the perspective of delivering what is promised in your contractual obligations. However, in terms of achieving growth and longer term corporate goals, this strategy seems to be working wonderfully (as long as they can get away with it). This is also likely why so many established firms are/were dismissive of SpaceX: they weren't thinking about all the issues, they didn't optimize this or that, they wont achieve what they promised to.

Although SpaceX's competitors are generally right, they did not fully understand the scale of R&D cost savings achieved which allow a much more iterative approach. By iterating everything, they are already operational, helping to fund the next stage of R&D, while also getting the benefits of the extensive data generated from having operational equipment. And because they are cheaper and striving for more cost savings, many customers are somewhat more forgiving of the delays or big promises since they want to go along for the ride.

So, Over promise, under deliver, then promise more, and deliver it. That seems like the secret in a nutshell. In Dragon V2 case, they are delivering a potentially overqualified vehicle at the lowest cost (assuming the pattern follows from previous rounds). End result is a somewhat future-proofed operational product capable of uses beyond ISS and potentially fully reusable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/26/2014 04:44 am
This whole discussion of V2 reminds me of almost every SpaceX development program.

...snip...

So, Over promise, under deliver, then promise more, and deliver it. That seems like the secret in a nutshell.

The problem with your assertion is that you don't know what SpaceX customers were promised.  And they are the only ones that matter.  It doesn't matter what we think SpaceX has "promised" or not.

And from what I can remember, SpaceX has not under-delivered on performance, just been later than their public goals.

Quote
In Dragon V2 case, they are delivering a potentially overqualified vehicle at the lowest cost (assuming the pattern follows from previous rounds).

Keep in mind that all three current contenders have overqualified vehicles, since NASA's requirement was to transport 4 crew, not 7.

Quote
End result is a somewhat future-proofed operational product capable of uses beyond ISS and potentially fully reusable.

I don't know about "future-proofed".  For all we know just as the Dragon V1 was a pathfinder for the Dragon V2, the V2 is probably a pathfinder for the V3.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: beancounter on 08/26/2014 08:05 am
I don't know about "future-proofed".  For all we know just as the Dragon V1 was a pathfinder for the Dragon V2, the V2 is probably a pathfinder for the V3.

Yes agreed.  After all, we haven't seen anything that resembles a fully optioned SM for Dragon V2.   No creature comforts either.  Who knows what Elon and his team are dreaming up.
I await with considerable interest Dragon V3, MarsDragon, BEO Dragon, etc, etc.  or just perhaps MCT is their next interation.

Cheers.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/26/2014 09:30 am
This whole discussion of V2 reminds me of almost every SpaceX development program.

...snip...

So, Over promise, under deliver, then promise more, and deliver it. That seems like the secret in a nutshell.

The problem with your assertion is that you don't know what SpaceX customers were promised.  And they are the only ones that matter.  It doesn't matter what we think SpaceX has "promised" or not.

To be fair, he didn't say they promised it to customers.

They have promised things on their web site.  Falcon 9 had promised performance that wasn't actually met until v1.1, so "Over promise, under deliver, then promise more, and deliver it" sounds accurate to me.

And from what I can remember, SpaceX has not under-delivered on performance, just been later than their public goals.

I don't think you two are disagreeing, just phrasing it differently.  The "then promise more, and deliver it" part implies that SpaceX eventually did deliver on their original promise.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 08/26/2014 12:20 pm
What exactly was over-promised and under-delivered with Dragon that will be addressed with Dragon V2?  Dragon seems to have delivered on NASA's requirements just fine.  Dragon V2 isn't fixing anything from the original, it is adding new capabilities for a different purpose.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jet Black on 08/26/2014 12:28 pm
Every product is developed relatively quickly & cheaply with big promises and big margins. There are inevitably problems because of the pace & target (or maybe inexperience) causing delays.

Hasn't this happened with many if not most other projects, like Orion, without the excuse of pace & target (or inexperience)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: LouScheffer on 08/26/2014 12:35 pm
This whole discussion of V2 reminds me of almost every SpaceX development program.

[...]

So, Over promise, under deliver, then promise more, and deliver it.
This is life as usual in the software and consumer world, even for the most reputable companies.  And it works very well - compare the pace of development between consumer and aerospace.

What drives this process is faith - faith that the engineers can fix the problems, faith that the management will not only allow but demand they do so, faith that the company will not leave its customers in the lurch, even should that prove to be the most profitable option.

The reward for faith is speed.  If you can design in a part not when it's proven, but when it's clear it can be made to work, you can save years of development.  This is the story of consumer electronics, where designers routinely specify parts that cannot even be made with current technology.  It's also a huge component of the famous technical projects that did a lot in a short time - the Manhatten project, radar, Apollo, skunk works, etc. But it requires trust, lots of trust, since you are risking your project, and your job, on someone else's future actions.  You must trust that when the time comes, they can fix any problems that arise.

It may seem weird to speak of faith and trust, and not technology, in spaceflight.  But in this case the technologies are not in doubt, and the intangibles will determine who will succeed and who will fail.

In Boeing, I have trust but not faith.  They can surely make it work, but their will to do so is shaky.  In DC I have faith but not trust.  They will try to their dying breath to make it work, but the problems might overwhelm their organization.  In SpaceX I have faith that they will try, and trust they will succeed.   

Of course these are my own opinions.  But if I was giving out the contracts, these would be my main points, since the combination of faith and trust is exactly what was present during the rapid start of the field, and exactly what is missing now.  So I'd pick SpaceX first, and then I'd pick DC, since it's easier to gain trust than inspire faith.   
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MTom on 08/26/2014 03:54 pm
This whole discussion of V2 reminds me of almost every SpaceX development program.

[...]

So, Over promise, under deliver, then promise more, and deliver it.

This is the main difference of the iterative approach: the most variability is pushed into the content, and less in time and cost. What at the beginning to see is only a concept which will be changing with the time.

The content blocks are always prioritized, so the customer gets in every iteration what he wants sooner so he can begin to use it. The remaining content pushed back + after the first experiences it could be modified (and it will be done).
After more iterations the customer gets what he exactly wants - often others as thought at the beginning of the project (what you mentioned as "over-promising")
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Mariusuiram on 08/27/2014 06:14 am


To be fair, he didn't say they promised it to customers.

.....

I don't think you two are disagreeing, just phrasing it differently.  The "then promise more, and deliver it" part implies that SpaceX eventually did deliver on their original promise.

This exactly. I realize my original note sounded somewhat negative or vague. But it was really intended to be a mainly positive message. They are delivering their promises eventually. A more practical company might set their design targets more modestly to ensure they achieve it. Whereas SpaceX is purposely pushing the envelope on every new design (probably inspired by the Software industry)

And yes its also fair that they are probably not promising all these things to customers or NASA or at least they see more data & documents, less renderings & twitter statements. But the videos and public statements create expectations (that are not automatically "promises").
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ClayJar on 08/27/2014 11:59 pm
I was listening to today's Future In-Space Operations (FISO) (http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm) Working Group Presentation, "Commercial Spaceflight (http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/%7Efiso/telecon/Reisman_8-27-14/)" by Garrett Reisman of SpaceX.   During the presentation and again during the Q&A period he mentioned part of the landing sequence that I didn't recall being expressly laid out before.

Quote
We land on land under parachutes and then use the SuperDraco launch abort system to provide cushioning for the final touchdown. And then we have landing legs that are designed to take up any residual load and allow us to land on a variety of different surface hardnesses.
26:13 in the MP3, while talking about slide 16

Quote
However, if you exceed a three-sigma wind case and drift onto shore, the good news is that the landing, the whole landing system is designed so that it's survivable if there's no propulsive assist at all.  So if you come down chutes only with the landing legs, we anticipate no crew injury.  But it will be, you know, basically, it'll be kind of like landing in the Soyuz.  It'll be... You'll know that you've reached the earth.
27:41 in the MP3, referring to, shall we say, off-nominal aborts

Quote
Yeah, and it's really, the propulsive assist is really just in the final descent and landing really within the last few seconds otherwise it's parachute all the way down.
44:17 in the MP3, responding to a request for clarification

I suppose that pretty much settles the questions about how exactly they intend Dragon V2 to land, at least early on.  Dry land, under parachutes, with propulsive assist to cushion it, and a bit Soyuz-like if you land on land without the propulsive assist at the end.  (So, DragonFly is to open up future options, but Dragon V2 will start off closer to what's already been seen elsewhere.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 08/28/2014 12:33 am
Dr Riesman did not elaborate on why they will land with parachutes. Elon has been pretty adamant about full propulsive landings. Either it does not work, or NASA said no thanks to something that radical.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 08/28/2014 12:50 am
Dr Riesman did not elaborate on why they will land with parachutes. Elon has been pretty adamant about full propulsive landings. Either it does not work, or NASA said no thanks to something that radical.

It's just the incremental process. Would ya prefer they wait until propulsive landings are mature before flying anyone?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: 411rocket on 08/28/2014 01:13 am
Dr Riesman did not elaborate on why they will land with parachutes. Elon has been pretty adamant about full propulsive landings. Either it does not work, or NASA said no thanks to something that radical.

It's just the incremental process. Would ya prefer they wait until propulsive landings are mature before flying anyone?

Also, they have an estimated 2 years, of DragonRider testing to do first. With us having no idea, of when that will start.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 08/28/2014 01:25 am
A few other interesting points mentionned by Reisman during the presentation:
-Milestones 13B of CCiCap (Ground Systems and Mission Operations Critical Design Review (CDR)) has just been completed by SpaceX.
-The NASA version of Dragon V2 will not have 7 seats. NASA is not interested in that many seats, they prefer to have cargo instead. 
-Dragon V2 heatshield can return from lunar missions or cislunar orbit (slide 16).
-Dragon V2 will not be reused for NASA flights because it would complicate the certification process. But Dragon is intended to be reused for at least 10 flights. (at the 22 minute mark of the audio)
-SpaceX is building its own docking system which will respect NASA requirements. NDS would not have been a good fit for Dragon V2 (slide 16).
-Raptor is doing component testing (e.g., injector) at Stennis.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/28/2014 06:29 am
I wonder how accurate the parachute landings with propulsive assist will be? Presumably a bigger landing area is needed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/28/2014 09:28 am
Thanks ClayJar and Yves! OK, I think I'll write this up today and then the battle of the HLVs for Friday/weekend.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/28/2014 10:22 am
Thanks ClayJay for the link to Garrett's presentation.

It's a pity people wasted his time repeatedly asking FH questions that he was not in a position to answer, instead of questions on his area of expertise ie commercial crew.

Some questions I would have liked answered.
1)  How much cheaper would ISS missions be if 10 x reuse of Dragon was allowed.
2) What will they do with the used Dragon's.
3) I assuming the CST100 is not being reused for ISS missions, which would explain their expendable propulsion system. But what about the Dream Chaser. I doubt Garrett could answer these questions, but an answer in regards DC would be interesting.
4) How soon before an unmanned flight?.

Strange that NASA is happy to fly their reusable vehicle multiply times, but don't trust a private company's reusable vehicle. NB Orion is also planned to be reused a few times.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Nomadd on 08/28/2014 11:25 am
Thanks ClayJay for the link to Garrett's presentation.

It's a pity people wasted his time repeatedly asking FH questions that he was not in a position to answer, instead of questions on his area of expertise ie commercial crew.

Some questions I would have liked answered.
1)  How much cheaper would ISS missions be if 10 x reuse of Dragon was allowed.
2) What will they do with the used Dragon's.
3) I assuming the CST100 is not being reused for ISS missions, which would explain their expendable propulsion system. But what about the Dream Chaser. I doubt Garrett could answer these questions, but an answer in regards DC would be interesting.
4) How soon before an unmanned flight?.

Strange that NASA is happy to fly their reusable vehicle multiply times, but don't trust a private company's reusable vehicle. NB Orion is also planned to be reused a few times.
Why would it be any cheaper? The provider bids what they think will win the contract. If costs to them were zero, they wouldn't have any incentive to lower the price if there was no competition.
 And, as said about a hundred times, NASA didn't have a problem with reusing capsules. They just required the bids for CRS be based on new ones so they wouldn't be based on future technology that may or may not pan out. (Do Brits use that term?)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/28/2014 02:50 pm
Ok, first article covering chutes and aborts:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Garrett on 08/28/2014 02:54 pm
Strange that NASA is happy to fly their reusable vehicle multiply times, but don't trust a private company's reusable vehicle. NB Orion is also planned to be reused a few times.
Garrett (Reisman, not me; I always find it weird talking about namesakes) said it would complicate the certification process. So the decision not to offer reused Dragons was made by SpaceX, not NASA. Now, whether NASA's certification process deserves criticism is another story ...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: newpylong on 08/28/2014 03:00 pm
Thanks ClayJay for the link to Garrett's presentation.

It's a pity people wasted his time repeatedly asking FH questions that he was not in a position to answer, instead of questions on his area of expertise ie commercial crew.

Some questions I would have liked answered.
1)  How much cheaper would ISS missions be if 10 x reuse of Dragon was allowed.
2) What will they do with the used Dragon's.
3) I assuming the CST100 is not being reused for ISS missions, which would explain their expendable propulsion system. But what about the Dream Chaser. I doubt Garrett could answer these questions, but an answer in regards DC would be interesting.
4) How soon before an unmanned flight?.

Strange that NASA is happy to fly their reusable vehicle multiply times, but don't trust a private company's reusable vehicle. NB Orion is also planned to be reused a few times.

I don't think it has anything to do with trusting a re-used spacecraft, but rather the certification of the actual refurbishment process. They aren't going to settle with a previously used spacecraft showing up at the pad and no documentation or formal review as to how it got back there.

Could happen later on but for now they have stated, as they have with cargo Dragon no thanks, we will take a new one.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/28/2014 03:14 pm
Kind of sucks, hopefully this process changes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 08/28/2014 03:21 pm
Strange that NASA is happy to fly their reusable vehicle multiply times, but don't trust a private company's reusable vehicle. NB Orion is also planned to be reused a few times.
Garrett (Reisman, not me; I always find it weird talking about namesakes) said it would complicate the certification process. So the decision not to offer reused Dragons was made by SpaceX, not NASA. Now, whether NASA's certification process deserves criticism is another story ...

Just to be clear, Reisman made it seem like it was SpaceX's decision not to certify reused capsules. SpaceX didn't want to take on more than they can chew. In other words, he made it seem like it may have been possible to certify reused capsules but that it would have been overly complicated to do so. His answer is at the 22 minute mark. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dglow on 08/28/2014 03:55 pm
Ok, first article covering chutes and aborts:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/

Perfect article, Chris – it summarized his comments well. Glad you included the pad abort arc image from his deck as it's nicely illustrative.

And, "his name remains a secret"? ... heheh, well-done.  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/28/2014 05:14 pm
Ok, first article covering chutes and aborts:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/

Perfect article, Chris – it summarized his comments well. Glad you included the pad abort arc image from his deck as it's nicely illustrative.

And, "his name remains a secret"? ... heheh, well-done.  ;D


Thanks very much. Glad someone noticed that line ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: OSE on 08/28/2014 05:18 pm
Ok, first article covering chutes and aborts:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/

Perfect article, Chris – it summarized his comments well. Glad you included the pad abort arc image from his deck as it's nicely illustrative.

And, "his name remains a secret"? ... heheh, well-done.  ;D


Thanks very much. Glad someone noticed that line ;D

I read that line and spent about 5 minutes thinking about who would be crazy enough to intentionally ride on an abort...then I saw that it's going to be a crash test dummy.  :-[
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: woods170 on 08/28/2014 06:52 pm
Ok, first article covering chutes and aborts:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/)

Fine article Chris (as always)  :)

spell-check:

Quote from: Chris Bergin
“We’ll have a very flight-like propulsion system per what goes into the abort, including the avionics, which will be identical to the avionics were are planning for the flight vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kerlc on 08/28/2014 07:05 pm
Sure, asking for reuse would most certainly bring several heaps of new paperwork from NASA, but I doubt it's the primary reason behind no reuse.

Personally, I believe the lack of reuse is mostly so that SpaceX gets some data on Dragon V2 after re-entry.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AS-503 on 08/28/2014 07:05 pm
Ok, first article covering chutes and aborts:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/

Perfect article, Chris – it summarized his comments well. Glad you included the pad abort arc image from his deck as it's nicely illustrative.

And, "his name remains a secret"? ... heheh, well-done.  ;D


Thanks very much. Glad someone noticed that line ;D

I think we all know who it *might* be..........
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: R.Simko on 08/28/2014 07:10 pm
Ok, first article covering chutes and aborts:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/

Hi Chris, in your article, you say that Dragon "V2 is a major leap forward from her cargo lofting cousin."  I certainly agree with you there.  But could you or some other knowledgeable person here on NSF outline some of the major improvements that Dragon V2 has over cargo Dragon?

Thanks,
Bob
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: nadreck on 08/28/2014 07:12 pm
While I think the idea of reusing both the Dragon capsule and the first stage in manned flights is going to revolutionize manned spaceflight in the period 2017 - 2025, I would expect that all flights on behalf of NASA in that time frame will use 4 seat, first use Dragons and that will produce a 'stable' of 8 to 15 craft that will be used by others at a fraction of the cost. In fact I am convinced that the economics of that will create a much expanded orbital tourism industry as well as a reason to create a real commercial orbital station dedicated to supporting several different businesses.  In the conference call the contract specified was for 2 flights a year. If two contracts are awarded it would be 1 flight a year I imagine.

However, while ISS is the only destination currently in orbit. A reused F9 first stage with a reused Dragon V2 capsule should  cost in the order of $40M - $50M to put up to 7 people in orbit. Less than $10M a seat, add a cargo flight that also uses a reused F9 first stage that lofts a Bigalow style station and you could put easily put up a combined commercial and tourism excursion for $15M a person.  And do it by 2018. If you charged $20M per seat for the first group, and presuming that you are keeping at least one person on the station permanently you can afford to do what they do with the ISS and keep the last craft to have docked there as a 'lifeboat'.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kevinof on 08/28/2014 07:26 pm
I think this would be great and would expand space immensely ... but it needs a heck of a lot of things to go right between now and 2017/25. There's great potential in what SpaceX and others are doing but there are no "givens" yet. We will keep our fingers crossed.

While I think the idea of reusing both the Dragon capsule and the first stage in manned flights is going to revolutionize manned spaceflight in the period 2017 - 2025, I would expect that all flights on behalf of NASA in that time frame will use 4 seat, first use Dragons and that will produce a 'stable' of 8 to 15 craft that will be used by others at a fraction of the cost. In fact I am convinced that the economics of that will create a much expanded orbital tourism industry as well as a reason to create a real commercial orbital station dedicated to supporting several different businesses.  In the conference call the contract specified was for 2 flights a year. If two contracts are awarded it would be 1 flight a year I imagine.

However, while ISS is the only destination currently in orbit. A reused F9 first stage with a reused Dragon V2 capsule should  cost in the order of $40M - $50M to put up to 7 people in orbit. Less than $10M a seat, add a cargo flight that also uses a reused F9 first stage that lofts a Bigalow style station and you could put easily put up a combined commercial and tourism excursion for $15M a person.  And do it by 2018. If you charged $20M per seat for the first group, and presuming that you are keeping at least one person on the station permanently you can afford to do what they do with the ISS and keep the last craft to have docked there as a 'lifeboat'.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MP99 on 08/28/2014 07:27 pm


While I think the idea of reusing both the Dragon capsule and the first stage in manned flights is going to revolutionize manned spaceflight in the period 2017 - 2025, I would expect that all flights on behalf of NASA in that time frame will use 4 seat, first use Dragons and that will produce a 'stable' of 8 to 15 craft that will be used by others at a fraction of the cost.

CCtCap includes 2 to 6 flights to help recover development costs.

I wonder if the "no reuse" only applies to that initial 2-6 flights? They'll have more info once they've had a couple of capsules back and given them the once-over.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 08/28/2014 07:38 pm
Isn't single use a boon for SpaceX? They get NASA funding for a bunch of vehicles that they can then re-use as they see fit. They will also have all the time they want to figure out what it will take to re-certify. NASA/CCtCap is 'helping' this nascent industry with the single use request.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 08/28/2014 07:59 pm
If SpaceX isn't going to use a reused spacecraft for NASA commercial crew flight. I wonder if that is also true of a Falcon 9 first stage. I suspect that certification of a reused first stage might also be more complicated than it is worth.   
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 08/28/2014 08:10 pm


While I think the idea of reusing both the Dragon capsule and the first stage in manned flights is going to revolutionize manned spaceflight in the period 2017 - 2025, I would expect that all flights on behalf of NASA in that time frame will use 4 seat, first use Dragons and that will produce a 'stable' of 8 to 15 craft that will be used by others at a fraction of the cost.

CCtCap includes 2 to 6 flights to help recover development costs.

I wonder if the "no reuse" only applies to that initial 2-6 flights? They'll have more info once they've had a couple of capsules back and given them the once-over.

Cheers, Martin

That is a good point. CCtCap is a different contract from the crew transportation system (CTS) contract. The decision could change for the next contract.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 08/28/2014 08:29 pm
The decision could change for the next contract.

I don't believe it depends on the contract. SpaceX just does not want to make certification for reuse part of CCtCap. They can work on it at any time during any contract and then refly Dragons as soon as Dragon is certified. That is my understanding, I may be wrong.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/28/2014 08:37 pm
Great article Chris, nice meaty updates! :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/28/2014 09:27 pm
Ok, first article covering chutes and aborts:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/

Hi Chris, in your article, you say that Dragon "V2 is a major leap forward from her cargo lofting cousin."  I certainly agree with you there.  But could you or some other knowledgeable person here on NSF outline some of the major improvements that Dragon V2 has over cargo Dragon?

Thanks,
Bob

This is my third Dragon V2 specific article, and as such it's easy to trip over one's toes, so I tend to do a quick intro and go into the specific update. In the intro, the other two articles are linked, which may help with the overview:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/05/spacex-lifts-the-lid-dragon-v2-crew-spacecraft/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/06/spacexs-reisman-next-giant-leap-dragon-v2/
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Ronpur50 on 08/29/2014 04:14 am
This article really lifted my hopes for Dragon V2!  I was afraid that waiting for propulsive landing would really delay crewed flight, but this should keep things on track for 2016 or so, I hope.  A fantastic article! 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jet Black on 08/29/2014 08:14 am
Dr Riesman did not elaborate on why they will land with parachutes. Elon has been pretty adamant about full propulsive landings. Either it does not work, or NASA said no thanks to something that radical.

I would guess that parachutes are known to work and it's best to have people using something that works rather than not using it. Later on, people can use something that works better. Fully propulsive touchdown seems to be a bit of an unnescessary luxury to me if the vehicle can still be used anyway even after a parachute and propulsive assist.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: douglas100 on 08/29/2014 08:32 am
Note that although the parachutes are always there as a back up for a propulsive landing, the reverse is also true. In the (unlikely) event of parachute trouble, the SD's could still effect a safe landing. It's a robust system.

An all propulsive landing would be more accurate,  unaffected by parachute wind drift.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jet Black on 08/29/2014 09:19 am
Note that although the parachutes are always there as a back up for a propulsive landing, the reverse is also true. In the (unlikely) event of parachute trouble, the SD's could still effect a safe landing. It's a robust system.

An all propulsive landing would be more accurate,  unaffected by parachute wind drift.

+/- a mile doesn't seem too bad to me, given that I doubt any authorities are going to allow things to hurtle from space into populated areas any time soon (besides the rocket is going to have to go back to where it took off from anyway). Propulsive landing for the rocket makes more sense in an odd way, because parachutes probably won't work as easily on something so big and even if they did, rockets are harder to move round than a capsule. I can't really see any particularly compelling reason to have a pinpoint landing of a capsule, other than as you say, two landing systems being more robust.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 08/29/2014 09:31 am

+/- a mile doesn't seem too bad to me, given that I doubt any authorities are going to allow things to hurtle from space into populated areas any time soon (besides the rocket is going to have to go back to where it took off from anyway). Propulsive landing for the rocket makes more sense in an odd way, because parachutes probably won't work as easily on something so big and even if they did, rockets are harder to move round than a capsule. I can't really see any particularly compelling reason to have a pinpoint landing of a capsule, other than as you say, two landing systems being more robust.

Landing on a concrete pad with a paved access road is still by far superior to landing on open terrain with parachutes. Access is much faster for vehicles that way even with the same distance and transport of sensitive goods or injured people is much easier. And even when landing on uneven terrain is within the design specs for reusability, landing on a concrete pad will put less stress on the vehicle.

They will switch to powered landing sooner rather than later. After the firefly test series is completed.

Edit: Maybe even for the first or second commercial flight already. They just don' commit to it yet.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Oli on 08/29/2014 10:58 am

I wonder if the (tiny) legs can prevent the capsule from toppling over when the it moves laterally during landing. I think Soyuz ends up on the side quite often (?).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 08/29/2014 11:10 am
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-dragon-2-unveil-qa-2014-05-29

Quote
Behind the dragon here is where the main chute is, and then the drogues are at the top and you can see those lines basically go from where the drogues are to the mains. Where it's held, where the parachute lines attach, is just above where the hatch is, and so it actually comes in at an angle. It'll be coming in through the wind with lateral velocity, and you want the load to be taken up by the legs. You don't want it to land on one leg, because then one leg is going to take too much load. By having two legs closer together actually helps that too. It sort of takes the initial impact on those two rear legs and then onto the front.

Tiny legs?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Oli on 08/29/2014 12:17 pm
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-dragon-2-unveil-qa-2014-05-29

Quote
Behind the dragon here is where the main chute is, and then the drogues are at the top and you can see those lines basically go from where the drogues are to the mains. Where it's held, where the parachute lines attach, is just above where the hatch is, and so it actually comes in at an angle. It'll be coming in through the wind with lateral velocity, and you want the load to be taken up by the legs. You don't want it to land on one leg, because then one leg is going to take too much load. By having two legs closer together actually helps that too. It sort of takes the initial impact on those two rear legs and then onto the front.

I see, but how guarantee that the capsule is correctly oriented such that the front leg faces in the direction of the wind?

Tiny legs?

Well look at the PTK NP which is supposed to land in similar fashion.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 08/29/2014 02:27 pm
I see, but how guarantee that the capsule is correctly oriented such that the front leg faces in the direction of the wind?

That's what the parachutes do.  There's already been a parachute drop test of the Dragon v2 that demonstrates this works properly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 08/29/2014 02:56 pm
Reuse is doubtfull for DV2 with parachute only landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 08/29/2014 03:35 pm
Reuse is doubtfull for DV2 with parachute only landing.

Nobody is talking about parachute only landing. It is parachute with engines for a soft landing. Parachutes is survivable but not done except when there are major problems with the propulsion system.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 08/29/2014 04:51 pm
Agreed, I'm getting threads confused. There are some who are questioning why have the SD's at all.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: FuseUpHereAlone on 08/29/2014 05:11 pm
For a propulsive crew landing (and partial propulsive), what kind of hazardous operations need to be performed after the craft touches down?  I mean NTO/Hydrazine is pretty nasty stuff, and the residue must be everywhere on the landing pad.  I ask because I heard a story once of a Shuttle OMS thruster firing inside the OPF...the entire facility needed to be evacuated and decontaminated.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/29/2014 05:44 pm
This article really lifted my hopes for Dragon V2!  I was afraid that waiting for propulsive landing would really delay crewed flight, but this should keep things on track for 2016 or so, I hope.  A fantastic article! 

Thanks Ron! :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sheltonjr on 08/29/2014 06:05 pm
Strange that NASA is happy to fly their reusable vehicle multiply times, but don't trust a private company's reusable vehicle. NB Orion is also planned to be reused a few times.
Garrett (Reisman, not me; I always find it weird talking about namesakes) said it would complicate the certification process. So the decision not to offer reused Dragons was made by SpaceX, not NASA. Now, whether NASA's certification process deserves criticism is another story ...

Just to be clear, Reisman made it seem like it was SpaceX's decision not to certify reused capsules. SpaceX didn't want to take on more than they can chew. In other words, he made it seem like it may have been possible to certify reused capsules but that it would have been overly complicated to do so. His answer is at the 22 minute mark. 

Emphasis Mine

I think it would be a mistake for SpaceX to go down the road and try to re-certify a used Dragon. I believe that they should be taking the path of certifying the Dragon V2 for 10-20 missions just like all other flight vehicles, though they are usually by the hour.

Through structural testing and flight load instrumentation SpaceX should be able to certify the Dragon V2 space craft for a specified number of missions, Therefore only one certification is required for each Dragon.

Just like other aircraft, that does not mean that vehicle will last all of those missions without maintenance and inspections. After each mission the vehicle have defined post flight inspections and pre-flight tests. Telemetry and/or recorded data from the mission will be analyzed to make sure no exceedences happened during the flight that may require further inspections.

I know this is different than the space industry has done, but this is standard for reusable vehicles.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Geron on 08/29/2014 06:05 pm
For a propulsive crew landing (and partial propulsive), what kind of hazardous operations need to be performed after the craft touches down?  I mean NTO/Hydrazine is pretty nasty stuff, and the residue must be everywhere on the landing pad.  I ask because I heard a story once of a Shuttle OMS thruster firing inside the OPF...the entire facility needed to be evacuated and decontaminated.

My understanding is that while the reagents are toxic, the resulting reactants are benign. If this is true, then no special precautions would be necessary.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 08/29/2014 06:13 pm
Strange that NASA is happy to fly their reusable vehicle multiply times, but don't trust a private company's reusable vehicle. NB Orion is also planned to be reused a few times.
Garrett (Reisman, not me; I always find it weird talking about namesakes) said it would complicate the certification process. So the decision not to offer reused Dragons was made by SpaceX, not NASA. Now, whether NASA's certification process deserves criticism is another story ...

Just to be clear, Reisman made it seem like it was SpaceX's decision not to certify reused capsules. SpaceX didn't want to take on more than they can chew. In other words, he made it seem like it may have been possible to certify reused capsules but that it would have been overly complicated to do so. His answer is at the 22 minute mark. 

Emphasis Mine

I think it would be a mistake for SpaceX to go down the road and try to re-certify a used Dragon. I believe that they should be taking the path of certifying the Dragon V2 for 10-20 missions just like all other flight vehicles, though they are usually by the hour.

Through structural testing and flight load instrumentation SpaceX should be able to certify the Dragon V2 space craft for a specified number of missions, Therefore only one certification is required for each Dragon.

Just like other aircraft, that does not mean that vehicle will last all of those missions without maintenance and inspections. After each mission the vehicle have defined post flight inspections and pre-flight tests. Telemetry and/or recorded data from the mission will be analyzed to make sure no exceedences happened during the flight that may require further inspections.

I know this is different than the space industry has done, but this is standard for reusable vehicles.

I was paraphrasing. I doubt that those were his exact words. I would have to listen to it again but I think that he meant that certifying Dragon for reuse would be overly complex.  It's at the 22 minute mark of the video.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: FuseUpHereAlone on 08/29/2014 06:31 pm
For a propulsive crew landing (and partial propulsive), what kind of hazardous operations need to be performed after the craft touches down?  I mean NTO/Hydrazine is pretty nasty stuff, and the residue must be everywhere on the landing pad.  I ask because I heard a story once of a Shuttle OMS thruster firing inside the OPF...the entire facility needed to be evacuated and decontaminated.

My understanding is that while the reagents are toxic, the resulting reactants are benign. If this is true, then no special precautions would be necessary.

True, the reactants are benign.  However, no reaction is perfect, and there will always be leftover fuel or oxidizer in and around the thrusters.  Both of which are very toxic.

Actually there should be some lesson to be learned from history.  During the CM reentry at the conclusion of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, NTO fumes were allowed to vent into the cabin (due to user error).  All three astronauts needed to be hospitalized afterward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinitrogen_tetroxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinitrogen_tetroxide)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sheltonjr on 08/29/2014 07:28 pm
Quote
I was paraphrasing. I doubt that those were his exact words. I would have to listen to it again but I think that he meant that certifying Dragon for reuse would be overly complex.  It's at the 22 minute mark of the video.

Yes, I agree. Those words just got me thinking that some/many on this site would assume that would be the process and I wanted to point out the alternative that I think SpaceX will follow.

Build->Certify->Fly->Land->Refurbish->Certify->Fly->etc....

versus:

Build->Certify->Fly->Land->Post Flight Checks/Maintenance->Fly->etc.....
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rabar10 on 08/29/2014 07:42 pm
Found another pic of the inside of the Dragon V2 capsule, as it was shown at the unveiling event -- posted on the TeslaMotorsClub forum here (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/30578-SpaceX-Dragon-V2-Unveil-May-29-2014/page9?p=744161&viewfull=1#post744161).

The wide fish-eye lens/angle might show some new details...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: douglas100 on 08/29/2014 08:00 pm

....True, the reactants are benign.  However, no reaction is perfect, and there will always be leftover fuel or oxidizer in and around the thrusters.  Both of which are very toxic.

Actually there should be some lesson to be learned from history.  During the CM reentry at the conclusion of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, NTO fumes were allowed to vent into the cabin (due to user error).  All three astronauts needed to be hospitalized afterward...

Agree that they are potentially dangerous (as well as toxicity there is also a fire hazard), but remember they've already dealt with splashed down cargo Dragons which use the same propellants. I don't remember seeing a picture of anyone wearing protection gear when the Dragon was on the boat. And I understand that the prop is not offloaded until it is on shore.

That suggests that, assuming no serious leaks and that reasonable precautions are taken, a powered landing shouldn't be too big a deal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dglow on 08/29/2014 10:41 pm
And bonus: the capsule won't flood.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 08/30/2014 01:20 am
On the capsule reuse, here is an exact transcript of what Reismann said:

Quote from: Reisman
[Question] How reusable do you plan the Dragon capsule to be? Can you give an estimate?

[Reisman's Answer] Our design goal is for Dragon to be reusable for 10 flights. But our certification goal is no reusability at all. So we are trying to not bite off too much of a certification burden by certifying for reusability. We are willing to make new ones every time for NASA but we intend to reuse the Dragons and our ultimate goal is for a minimum of 10 flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/02/2014 06:12 pm
Ok, not so much a question about Dragon V2 or even V1, but,

#1) if the TPS and outer coverings for the capsule fuel, maneuvering thrusters and LSP was placed, could a standup pilot cupola be used to replace the main hatch, (on the capsule's side) so a pilot could stand up and watch a landing that he is making assuming verticle landing.

#2) Could additional LSP and maneuver fuel be attached to the existing rack frame increasing both the capsule's maneuverability and Life Support.

#3) Could either a Apollo style landing stage, or a wrap around landing stage, be integrated with the capsule, providing both radiation protection and reusable lunar landing capibility?

Mind you, I'm thinking along the lines of a ballistic moon hopper, allowing better and faster acces to various parts of the moon that may be a substantial distance away from the main base.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 09/02/2014 06:22 pm
I thought it was really interesting that SpaceX is designing and building their own docking port. I hadn't heard that before? I had always assumed they were using the new NASA design from Boeing. This is great news as it illustrates again how open NASA continues to be with their commercial partners as they offer up new ideas / solutions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 09/02/2014 06:38 pm
I thought it was really interesting that SpaceX is designing and building their own docking port. I hadn't heard that before? I had always assumed they were using the new NASA design from Boeing. This is great news as it illustrates again how open NASA continues to be with their commercial partners as they offer up new ideas / solutions.

I think you misunderstand - I would expect that they are building their own, but are doing it to NASA/Boeing specification. (to be able to dock with ISS) This is what they do with their CBM berthing rings as well, as far as I know.

The alternative would be to purchase adapters from Boeing. (or through NASA)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 09/02/2014 06:52 pm
I thought it was really interesting that SpaceX is designing and building their own docking port. I hadn't heard that before? I had always assumed they were using the new NASA design from Boeing. This is great news as it illustrates again how open NASA continues to be with their commercial partners as they offer up new ideas / solutions.

I think you misunderstand - I would expect that they are building their own, but are doing it to NASA/Boeing specification. (to be able to dock with ISS) This is what they do with their CBM berthing rings as well, as far as I know.

The alternative would be to purchase adapters from Boeing. (or through NASA)
The way Garrett spoke of it in the FISO teleconference, was that they designed their own as the one NASA/Boeing was offering was too heavy, too complex. Certainly it's based off some requirements / documentation but he positioned it as their own design and build not just build.

See 25:25 of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUtoVTFTGSI#t=1534
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 09/02/2014 07:06 pm
The software/hardware interface is to Boeing/NASA specification - the rest doesn't have to be.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 09/02/2014 07:12 pm
The software/hardware interface is to Boeing/NASA specification - the rest doesn't have to be.
Ok, I'm not sure how to judge that, as he mentioned a good many ways in which the hardware was altered, i.e., dampers, springs, no closed loop, lower power consumption. less weight.  I'm at a slight disadvantage in not being intimate with the Boeing design and resultant SpaceX design to determine to what extent it deviates to such a degree where it essentially just becomes a new SpaceX design. Which is not the important point anyways. It's that they continue to alter designs to make them more efficient for their business model and NASA continues to see the value.

Edit: Ok, but I think I know what you mean by specifying the interface.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 09/02/2014 07:16 pm
Yes, we are probably just talking past each other in violent agreement. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 09/02/2014 07:27 pm
Yes, we are probably just talking past each other in violent agreement. :)
Yeh, which is good. It's much more interesting to learn and be right someday then never learn and be wrong everyday. (I just made that up...)

Anyways, how do they close that item out? Is there the equivalent of an ISS docking port they can test their design on? I'm assuming Boeing has one they let SpaceX test with
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 09/02/2014 07:30 pm
Anyways, how do they close that item out? Is there the equivalent of an ISS docking port they can test their design on? I'm assuming Boeing has one they let SpaceX test with

I think you can see such a test stand here, first image of the post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28976.msg1075669#msg1075669
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 09/02/2014 08:49 pm
The software/hardware interface is to Boeing/NASA specification - the rest doesn't have to be.

From this article:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/nasa-outlines-plans-commercial-crew-certification/

Quote
Each commercial crew provider must determine their approach to enable docking their spacecraft with the ISS, with the draft RFP documentation indicating that one option is for the government to provide NASA Docking System (NDS) units to commercial crew providers as Government Furnished Property (GFP). [...]

Another option is for government to provide NDS Engineering Data for the commercial crew provider to build the NDS. The preliminary data (build-to-print) would be available in November, 2014 and the final data would be available by June 2016.

Another potential option would be for the commercial crew provider to design and build its own unique docking system that is compatible with NASA requirements (under the SSP 50808 Document). If this option is chosen by a commercial crew provider, the Government would not furnish any hardware, data, or services for the docking system of the company.

SpaceX choose the third option (in bold).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 09/03/2014 12:04 am
In doing this, could they design a universal mounting interface for the Dragon side and attach a custom CBM or docking adapter as required?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/03/2014 07:25 am
In doing this, could they design a universal mounting interface for the Dragon side and attach a custom CBM or docking adapter as required?
According to Garrett Reisman from SpaceX during a recent FISO presentation and Q&A session, they are building a lighter docking system than the NDS. Guess SpaceX wants something lighter and possibly more compact than the government furnished equipment. There might be some kind of adapter to the xDock (SpaceX docking system ;D) to a CBM later.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 09/03/2014 07:33 am

In doing this, could they design a universal mounting interface for the Dragon side and attach a custom CBM or docking adapter as required?

In theory, yes, but that would cost mass, and doesn't appear to be what they are doing with Dragon v2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 09/03/2014 03:00 pm
In doing this, could they design a universal mounting interface for the Dragon side and attach a custom CBM or docking adapter as required?

In theory, yes, but that would cost mass, and doesn't appear to be what they are doing with Dragon v2.

A "mounting interface" doesn't have to be another docking adapter.  It could be something like a circular opening with a seal on which you would bolt a CBM or an NDS.

Assuming that they will eventually use Dragon v2 for both crew and cargo, there will have to be some common structural point at which the pressure vessel connects to either one system or the other.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 09/03/2014 03:50 pm
In doing this, could they design a universal mounting interface for the Dragon side and attach a custom CBM or docking adapter as required?

In theory, yes, but that would cost mass, and doesn't appear to be what they are doing with Dragon v2.

A "mounting interface" doesn't have to be another docking adapter.  It could be something like a circular opening with a seal on which you would bolt a CBM or an NDS.

Assuming that they will eventually use Dragon v2 for both crew and cargo, there will have to be some common structural point at which the pressure vessel connects to either one system or the other.

Yes, down at the pressure vessel welding level, sure.

But there are some differences in the top of the pressure hull from Dragon v1 to v2 - see the picture. (Cargo Dragon v1 in the near line, and a Dragon v2 test article in the background. Compare the tops.

Another key difference is that the Dragon v2 has moved the Drogues to the top around the docking tunnel, which leaves no room for a CBM ring. (as far as I can tell)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: arachnitect on 09/03/2014 04:21 pm
In doing this, could they design a universal mounting interface for the Dragon side and attach a custom CBM or docking adapter as required?

In theory, yes, but that would cost mass, and doesn't appear to be what they are doing with Dragon v2.

A "mounting interface" doesn't have to be another docking adapter.  It could be something like a circular opening with a seal on which you would bolt a CBM or an NDS.

Assuming that they will eventually use Dragon v2 for both crew and cargo, there will have to be some common structural point at which the pressure vessel connects to either one system or the other.

Does V2 have a place for a grapple fixture?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 09/03/2014 04:25 pm
Does V2 have a place for a grapple fixture?

Not as far as I can tell. The parachute has been moved from the back to the front (underneath the main hatch), which is where the grapple fixture and star trackers were located behind a door. The star trackers and navigation sensors have been moved up top underneath the nose cone.

Could a grapple fixture be put elsewhere? Sure, but I don't see an obvious place for it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: solartear on 09/03/2014 06:15 pm
Could a grapple fixture be put elsewhere? Sure, but I don't see an obvious place for it.

How about inside the nose cone?

There should be lots of space between the CBM and the nose cone without an NDS in there. Have the grapple point slide out (or hinge) opposite the nose cone side so there is lots of clearance for Candarm2 angles.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 09/03/2014 08:39 pm
Yes, down at the pressure vessel welding level, sure.

But there are some differences in the top of the pressure hull from Dragon v1 to v2 - see the picture. (Cargo Dragon v1 in the near line, and a Dragon v2 test article in the background. Compare the tops.

Another key difference is that the Dragon v2 has moved the Drogues to the top around the docking tunnel, which leaves no room for a CBM ring. (as far as I can tell)

How do the differences between v1 and v2 have anything to do with the differences between v2 crew and v2 cargo?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 09/03/2014 08:42 pm
There is no v2 cargo Dragon. (unless you mean flying a v2 unmanned to deliver cargo through a docking hatch)

And it may not be possible to put a CBM hatch on it due to it taking up too much space where the drogues are located.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 09/03/2014 09:02 pm
There is no v2 cargo Dragon. (unless you mean flying a v2 unmanned to deliver cargo through a docking hatch)

And it may not be possible to put a CBM hatch on it due to it taking up too much space where the drogues are located.

But there is a statement, I believe from Garrett Reisman, that after introduction of the manned Dragon V2 they will eventually switch over cargo too. It remains to be seen if it will use a CBM. There is also the option of cargo Dragon using the same docking adapter as the manned version and a secondary pressure vessel in the trunk delivers bulky goods through a CBM.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 09/03/2014 09:14 pm
Yes, Elon and/or Gwynne stated this as well that within the next few years, they'll cycle out Dragon Cargo V1 and move to a common V2 for both crew and cargo. (with obvious exclusions for cargo). So it would seem to be very SpaceX to have some sort of efficient way to swap out CBM for DS as they transition over. I'd suspect they'd have Dragon V2 Cargo with extended trunk ready for initial CRS-2 missions. Or soon thereafter.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 09/04/2014 12:04 am
There is no v2 cargo Dragon. (unless you mean flying a v2 unmanned to deliver cargo through a docking hatch)

I explicitly wrote "Assuming that they will eventually use Dragon v2 for both crew and cargo". ::)  This assumption is supported by statements made by SpaceX, as noted above.

As rocoppola wrote, it would seem to be very SpaceX to have an easy way to swap between NDS and CBM.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 09/04/2014 01:41 am
There is no v2 cargo Dragon. (unless you mean flying a v2 unmanned to deliver cargo through a docking hatch)

I explicitly wrote "Assuming that they will eventually use Dragon v2 for both crew and cargo". ::)  This assumption is supported by statements made by SpaceX, as noted above.

As rocoppola wrote, it would seem to be very SpaceX to have an easy way to swap between NDS and CBM.

Your assumption that cargo versions of Dragon v2 would use CBM is just that - an assumption you have made. As much as it would be neat to have be able to swap NDS and CBM, I don't think they can with the Dragon v2 (as it has been shown).

I've posted on this many times, but the CBM ring is pretty *huge*, there isn't much space around it. (see image #1). And in Dragon v2, the drogue parachute canisters have been moved on top of the pressurized hull. (see image #2) Where would they fit? Also, with the CBM there there isn't much space for the star trackers and other navigational sensors, and the cone opening/closing mechanism - plus the grapple fixture that would be needed. (see image #3)

So you can assume all you want, but I suspect that a Dragon v2 with CBM would need significant modifications, in which case it wouldn't be that close to a v2 anymore. It would require more changes than an "easy swap".
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bubbagret on 09/04/2014 01:54 am
The question no one seems to ask is; what is the percentage of cargo that REQUIRES a CBM. ATV, Soyuz and Progress have done fine with a smaller port for the Russian side and Cygnus and HTV are still available for CBM sized up-mass cargo. Would it really be necessary to maintain CBM capability on Dragon? What cargo is set to be recovered that can only be brought back by a CBM equipped Dragon?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: inventodoc on 09/04/2014 02:02 am
I would add that a cargo dragon v2 may not require the redundancy of parachute reentry. Perhaps it could rely on propulsive landings exclusively since there are no people on board?  That would make a larger docking port possible if chutes were not nearby.  That said, I still speculate that they will stick with the smaller docking system for cargo v2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 09/04/2014 02:13 am
Why would you even bother installing the SuperDracos on a "cargo v2"?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dglow on 09/04/2014 02:17 am
Why would you even bother installing the SuperDracos on a "cargo v2"?

Aid reusability by keeping it out of saltwater?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 09/04/2014 02:25 am
Why would you even bother installing the SuperDracos on a "cargo v2"?

Aid reusability by keeping it out of saltwater?

v2 is being designed to be able to land on ground without SuperDracos - i.e., parachutes and shock absorbing legs only in an "emergency" landing. Seems like that's the more optimized opportunity for cargo - you don't need abort engines, so it's a harder sell for propulsive landing.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dglow on 09/04/2014 02:29 am
Why would you even bother installing the SuperDracos on a "cargo v2"?

Aid reusability by keeping it out of saltwater?

v2 is being designed to be able to land on ground without SuperDracos - i.e., parachutes and shock absorbing legs only in an "emergency" landing. Seems like that's the more optimized opportunity for cargo - you don't need abort engines, so it's a harder sell for propulsive landing.

Perhaps, but I suspect you're interpreting Reisman's recent comments differently than I. Regardless, if SpaceX and NASA value pinpoint returns of cargo then we're looking at SuperDracos on every v2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 09/04/2014 03:53 am
They are going to keep producing DV1's in tandem with the V2's for awhile, plus they have a whole bunch of slightly used Dragon V1's with CBM's on them. By the time they're all used up ISS may not be there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 09/04/2014 04:14 am
Why would you even bother installing the SuperDracos on a "cargo v2"?

Aid reusability by keeping it out of saltwater?

v2 is being designed to be able to land on ground without SuperDracos - i.e., parachutes and shock absorbing legs only in an "emergency" landing. Seems like that's the more optimized opportunity for cargo - you don't need abort engines, so it's a harder sell for propulsive landing.

Perhaps, but I suspect you're interpreting Reisman's recent comments differently than I. Regardless, if SpaceX and NASA value pinpoint returns of cargo then we're looking at SuperDracos on every v2.

I agree. He made it clear that it would be a rough landing without the SuperDracos.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 09/04/2014 04:31 am
I agree. He made it clear that it would be a rough landing without the SuperDracos.

For people.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/04/2014 04:35 am
I agree. He made it clear that it would be a rough landing without the SuperDracos.

For people.
He also made it sound like the capsule would be a loss, so doesn't sound exactly like the picnic for the cargo, either. Also, perhaps it'd help develop a baseline of reuse so that reuse can be introduced to crew, if NASA is okay with reuse for cargo.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 09/04/2014 05:16 am
I agree. He made it clear that it would be a rough landing without the SuperDracos.

For people.


Cargo obeys the same laws of physics, so it would be rough for it as well. Presumably you are returning it from the space station because you want it back in one piece, with as little damage as possible.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dglow on 09/04/2014 05:21 am
I don't think NASA would mind having abort for a cargo ship either. Expendable goods are just that, but experiments and other specialized gear? Might be nice to save. OTOH, the most expensive gear on Dragon will probably ride in the trunk... alas.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/04/2014 05:24 am
I don't think NASA would mind having abort for a cargo ship either. Expendable goods are just that, but experiments and other specialized gear? Might be nice to save. OTOH, the most expensive gear on Dragon will probably ride in the trunk... alas.
The most expensive item will be the Dragon capsule.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 09/04/2014 05:42 am
Cargo obeys the same laws of physics, so it would be rough for it as well. Presumably you are returning it from the space station because you want it back in one piece, with as little damage as possible.

The cargo survives a parachute landing in the ocean now. What makes you think landing on land with "impact attenuating landing legs" would be any worse?

Quote from: Garrett Reisman
However, if you exceed a three sigma case and drift onto shore, the good news is that the whole landing system is designed so that it's survivable if there's no propulsive assist at all. So, if you come down chutes only, with the landing legs, we anticipate no crew injury, but it will be basically like landing in a Soyuz. You'll know that you've reached the Earth. source (http://spaceref.biz/company/spacex/future-in-space-operations-teleconference-with-spacex-garrett-reisman.html)

Seems to me they'll have a choice between landing under chutes only, with the landing legs, or flying mostly useless (and very expensive) SuperDracos.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 09/04/2014 05:54 am
Cargo obeys the same laws of physics, so it would be rough for it as well. Presumably you are returning it from the space station because you want it back in one piece, with as little damage as possible.

The cargo survives a parachute landing in the ocean now. What makes you think landing on land with "impact attenuating landing legs" would be any worse?

Common sense. The way that SpaceX only talks about parachute-only landing as a last resort. If that wasn't the case, SpaceX would just go ahead and move directly to land landings without any propulsive help.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 09/04/2014 06:04 am
Common sense. The way that SpaceX only talks about parachute-only landing as a last resort. If that wasn't the case, SpaceX would just go ahead and move directly to land landings without any propulsive help.

I quoted exactly what Reisman said for you. There's nothing in there to suggest it would be any worse than an ocean landing. People come back under these landing conditions now on Soyuz. If it's good enough for people, it's good enough for cargo. CST-100 landings would probably be similar (chutes + airbags). Dreamchaser and Dragon really seem to be talking up soft landing capabilities that NASA doesn't need.


Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: IslandPlaya on 09/04/2014 06:34 am
Common sense. The way that SpaceX only talks about parachute-only landing as a last resort. If that wasn't the case, SpaceX would just go ahead and move directly to land landings without any propulsive help.

I quoted exactly what Reisman said for you. There's nothing in there to suggest it would be any worse than an ocean landing. People come back under these landing conditions now on Soyuz. If it's good enough for people, it's good enough for cargo. CST-100 landings would probably be similar (chutes + airbags). Dreamchaser and Dragon really seem to be talking up soft landing capabilities that NASA doesn't need.
You are correct. However giving NASA something that they don't need, but is *better* can only be a good thing.
I'm sure you would agree on this.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars_J on 09/04/2014 06:46 am
Common sense. The way that SpaceX only talks about parachute-only landing as a last resort. If that wasn't the case, SpaceX would just go ahead and move directly to land landings without any propulsive help.

I quoted exactly what Reisman said for you. There's nothing in there to suggest it would be any worse than an ocean landing. People come back under these landing conditions now on Soyuz. If it's good enough for people, it's good enough for cargo. CST-100 landings would probably be similar (chutes + airbags). Dreamchaser and Dragon really seem to be talking up soft landing capabilities that NASA doesn't need.

It's amazing how two people can read something so different from one quote. I could be wrong, but I didn't see Reisman make a qualitative comparison between a water Dragon landing and a land Soyuz landing. And then we have the "basically like Soyuz". It leaves a lot open to interpretation, and I suppose I'm reading it very different than you are.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dglow on 09/04/2014 07:37 am
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reisman_8-27-14/Reisman.mp3

26:08

REISMAN: Dragon has landing legs, and that’s what we use to take up the final... we land on land, under parachutes, and use the SuperDraco launch abort system to provide cushioning for the final touchdown. And then we have landing legs that are designed to take up any residual load and allow us to land on a variety of different surface hardnesses. And then the heat shield is sized for those ten missions and actually it’s capable of three times the heat flux on a nominal LEO entry, so actually in its current state it's capable of a cislunar type return mission from the moon.

QUESTIONER: Question on the use of the SuperDracos for the final touchdown: if you have aborted does that mean the engines are no longer available and so you can only abort in the water? Or what happens if you do land on land after an abort?

REISMAN: That’s correct, we, well, two things: the plan for a nominal abort – we say that all the time and it always makes me kind of wonder what that means – but a nominal abort is in the water. So even a pad abort is designed to get you to the water. And certainly anything that happens along the trajectory is designed to get you to the water. We do meet the DAEZ requirements so we won’t put you in the North Atlantic. We’ll either drop you off by Halifax or get you over to Shannon. But all those are water landings so any time you have to light the SuperDracos for an abort you end up splashing down. However, if you exceed a 3-sigma wind case and drift onto shore the good news is that the landing system is designed so that it’s survivable if there’s no propulsive assist at all. So if you come down ‘chutes-only with the landing legs we anticipate no crew injury. But it will be, you know, basically it’ll be kinda like landing in a Soyuz. <chuckles> It’ll be... you’ll know that you’ve reached the Earth.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RanulfC on 09/04/2014 01:33 pm
Why would you even bother installing the SuperDracos on a "cargo v2"?

Because they looked pretty integral to the vehicle and removing them for a "cargo-only" version would seem to be something that will interfere with the "mass-production" nature of the Dragon V2. :)

Randy
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: simonbp on 09/04/2014 01:50 pm
To be clearer, he said that initially a nominal landing would be parachutes + rockets + legs on land. A "nominal abort" would parachutes into water. An "off nominal abort" would be parachutes + legs on land; the landing shock is apparently comparable to a Soyuz landing because of the legs. So even without the rockets, a Dragon landing on land is perfectly survivable, but the rockets do help.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 09/04/2014 01:51 pm
Why would you even bother installing the SuperDracos on a "cargo v2"?

Because they looked pretty integral to the vehicle and removing them for a "cargo-only" version would seem to be something that will interfere with the "mass-production" nature of the Dragon V2. :)

Randy

That would not be a reason. They can keep the outer mouldline and place mass simulators if need be. However they will really want land landing and need Super Draco for soft touch down. When reused it will be cheaper than recovery from the sea by ship, even if it is a small one. Especially when they go for full propulsive landing on a heli pad. If Dragon V2 goes into service early they may do their first propulsive landings with cargo rather than crew.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 09/04/2014 01:58 pm
To be clearer, he said that initially a nominal landing would be parachutes + rockets + legs on land. A "nominal abort" would parachutes into water. An "off nominal abort" would be parachutes + legs on land; the landing shock is apparently comparable to a Soyuz landing because of the legs. So even without the rockets, a Dragon landing on land is perfectly survivable, but the rockets do help.

For land landing without propulsive assist by the SuperDraco. I wish someone had asked if he is comparing to a nominal Soyus landing with the thruster pods or the really harsh Soyus landing if those fail. The latter are survivable but usually cause injuries.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Garrett on 09/04/2014 02:05 pm
I always thought the reason for SuperDracos on a "cargo V2" would be for the same reason as on the crewed V2 - pinpoint landings. SuperDracos were developped with deep throttling for that purpose. I don't think LAS only engines require throttling.

I think Elon has a vision of crew and cargo spaceships in the 21st century being capable of such pinpoint landings. Also, I presume that if both versions (cargo, crew) have SuperDracos then there is the added advantage of sharing a common flight history.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: simonbp on 09/04/2014 02:12 pm
I would guess the former, because of the legs. Reisman emphasized that they can absorb a huge amount of shock, and Soyuz has nothing comparable. So, an off nominal abort in Dragon is like a totally nominal landing in Soyuz.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/04/2014 02:46 pm
To be clearer, he said that initially a nominal landing would be parachutes + rockets + legs on land. A "nominal abort" would parachutes into water. An "off nominal abort" would be parachutes + legs on land; the landing shock is apparently comparable to a Soyuz landing because of the legs. So even without the rockets, a Dragon landing on land is perfectly survivable, but the rockets do help.

For land landing without propulsive assist by the SuperDraco. I wish someone had asked if he is comparing to a nominal Soyus landing with the thruster pods or the really harsh Soyus landing if those fail. The latter are survivable but usually cause injuries.
He said the Superdracoless landings would not cause injury.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 09/04/2014 02:49 pm
I don't remember where the reference is but I DO remember that both the crew and cargo versions of Dragon v2 WILL eventually have propulsive-only landing as the nominal landing mode. That is, of course, after all testing and certifications are completed. It is anticipated that the parachutes will be rarely, if ever, used. It was either Elon or Gwynne that said that, but I am leaning toward Gwynne. I remember it so well because I rewound the video to listen to it again - twice. Nominal landing for both crew and cargo operational spacecraft will be via propulsive landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dglow on 09/04/2014 04:03 pm
So even without the rockets, a Dragon landing on land is perfectly survivable, but the rockets do help.

Bit of an understatement. They've designed the system to use parachutes and thrusters, together, to touch down on land. Period. Anything else is the result of a very bad situation.

For land landing without propulsive assist by the SuperDraco. I wish someone had asked if he is comparing to a nominal Soyus landing with the thruster pods or the really harsh Soyus landing if those fail. The latter are survivable but usually cause injuries.

Where "really harsh" = something went horribly wrong; the kinds of injuries that knock teeth out of your skull.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: arachnitect on 09/04/2014 06:25 pm
The question no one seems to ask is; what is the percentage of cargo that REQUIRES a CBM. ATV, Soyuz and Progress have done fine with a smaller port for the Russian side and Cygnus and HTV are still available for CBM sized up-mass cargo. Would it really be necessary to maintain CBM capability on Dragon? What cargo is set to be recovered that can only be brought back by a CBM equipped Dragon?

First thing that comes to mind is EMU torso, can that fit through NDS?

Docking to the NDS probably causes problems accessing external cargo with the arm.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 09/04/2014 06:41 pm
I don't remember where the reference is but I DO remember that both the crew and cargo versions of Dragon v2 WILL eventually have propulsive-only landing as the nominal landing mode. That is, of course, after all testing and certifications are completed. It is anticipated that the parachutes will be rarely, if ever, used. It was either Elon or Gwynne that said that, but I am leaning toward Gwynne. I remember it so well because I rewound the video to listen to it again - twice. Nominal landing for both crew and cargo operational spacecraft will be via propulsive landing.

I think that is still the plan and that is why most of the Dragonfly test flights will be without parachutes. But Reisman made it seem like full-propulsive landing was a "down the road" kind of improvement. I am guessing that means that SpaceX will not try to get full-propulsive landing certified for crew (at least not at first). 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 09/04/2014 07:29 pm
I don't remember where the reference is but I DO remember that both the crew and cargo versions of Dragon v2 WILL eventually have propulsive-only landing as the nominal landing mode. That is, of course, after all testing and certifications are completed. It is anticipated that the parachutes will be rarely, if ever, used. It was either Elon or Gwynne that said that, but I am leaning toward Gwynne. I remember it so well because I rewound the video to listen to it again - twice. Nominal landing for both crew and cargo operational spacecraft will be via propulsive landing.

I think that is still the plan and that is why most of the Dragonfly test flights will be without parachutes. But Reisman made it seem like full-propulsive landing was a "down the road" kind of improvement. I am guessing that means that SpaceX will not try to get full-propulsive landing certified for crew (at least not at first). 

Every video they have produced and shown on the Dragon returning shows full propulsive landing - no chutes. I am fairly certain they will go for that as soon as firefly verifies the dependability of that mode.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kirghizstan on 09/04/2014 07:57 pm
I don't remember where the reference is but I DO remember that both the crew and cargo versions of Dragon v2 WILL eventually have propulsive-only landing as the nominal landing mode. That is, of course, after all testing and certifications are completed. It is anticipated that the parachutes will be rarely, if ever, used. It was either Elon or Gwynne that said that, but I am leaning toward Gwynne. I remember it so well because I rewound the video to listen to it again - twice. Nominal landing for both crew and cargo operational spacecraft will be via propulsive landing.

I think that is still the plan and that is why most of the Dragonfly test flights will be without parachutes. But Reisman made it seem like full-propulsive landing was a "down the road" kind of improvement. I am guessing that means that SpaceX will not try to get full-propulsive landing certified for crew (at least not at first). 

Every video they have produced and shown on the Dragon returning shows full propulsive landing - no chutes. I am fairly certain they will go for that as soon as firefly verifies the dependability of that mode.

*dragonfly
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 09/04/2014 09:23 pm
I don't remember where the reference is but I DO remember that both the crew and cargo versions of Dragon v2 WILL eventually have propulsive-only landing as the nominal landing mode. That is, of course, after all testing and certifications are completed. It is anticipated that the parachutes will be rarely, if ever, used. It was either Elon or Gwynne that said that, but I am leaning toward Gwynne. I remember it so well because I rewound the video to listen to it again - twice. Nominal landing for both crew and cargo operational spacecraft will be via propulsive landing.

I think that is still the plan and that is why most of the Dragonfly test flights will be without parachutes. But Reisman made it seem like full-propulsive landing was a "down the road" kind of improvement. I am guessing that means that SpaceX will not try to get full-propulsive landing certified for crew (at least not at first). 

Every video they have produced and shown on the Dragon returning shows full propulsive landing - no chutes. I am fairly certain they will go for that as soon as firefly verifies the dependability of that mode.

*dragonfly

Oops.  :-[
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 10/17/2014 07:56 pm
I would like to raise a point that I have not yet seen discussed.

The shape of Dragon 2 is quite different from other capsules. Seeing it I think of biconic or even rudimentary wings. Elon please forgive me. I know what you think of wings. ;) Could it give Dragon better lift and maneuverability than other capsules?

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RanulfC on 10/17/2014 08:18 pm
I don't remember where the reference is but I DO remember that both the crew and cargo versions of Dragon v2 WILL eventually have propulsive-only landing as the nominal landing mode. That is, of course, after all testing and certifications are completed. It is anticipated that the parachutes will be rarely, if ever, used. It was either Elon or Gwynne that said that, but I am leaning toward Gwynne. I remember it so well because I rewound the video to listen to it again - twice. Nominal landing for both crew and cargo operational spacecraft will be via propulsive landing.

I think that is still the plan and that is why most of the Dragonfly test flights will be without parachutes. But Reisman made it seem like full-propulsive landing was a "down the road" kind of improvement. I am guessing that means that SpaceX will not try to get full-propulsive landing certified for crew (at least not at first). 

Every video they have produced and shown on the Dragon returning shows full propulsive landing - no chutes. I am fairly certain they will go for that as soon as firefly verifies the dependability of that mode.

*dragonfly

Oops.  :-[

Honest mistake, happens to Browncoats all the time ;)

Randy
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RanulfC on 10/17/2014 08:39 pm
I would like to raise a point that I have not yet seen discussed.

The shape of Dragon 2 is quite different from other capsules. Seeing it I think of biconic or even rudimentary wings. Elon please forgive me. I know what you think of wings. ;) Could it give Dragon better lift and maneuverability than other capsules?

Elon may forgive you but VTVL fans everwhere never will :)

Actually didn't someone point out that the outermold line without the SuperDraco's is pretty much exactly like the Dragon V1? In answer to your question though, yes going "biconic" or adding wings and flying "nose-first" instead of tail first would provide more lift and maneuverability, but the main question is how much is really needed? Without a significant redesign you're not going to reach a point where you have any "go-around" or significant loiter time available and frankly the flight profile doesn't seem to need it so I don't see what the point would be. Capsules as a general rule have at least some lift and the more you try and enhance it the less you keep the general simplicty and robustness of the shape itself.

Of course, (since you so nicely provided the opening for me :) ) I will point out there's a really simple way to gain the best of BOTH worlds!
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craft/apocular.htm
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980228014.pdf
http://www.astronautix.com/fam/lenicles.htm

And this one which was based on using the Falcon-V LV! :)
https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/8373

Just as an FYI btw, the General Electric R3 Apollo design was a highly re-worked version of the original Kehlet design which was "supposed" to address non-specified "issues" that GE found with the general design. Everthing reported in tests showed the GE design actually CAUSED more "issues" than it could have possibly solved and that the general original design was in fact a very robust and capable vehicle. Up to and including not even needing landing gear for a safe landing! Well on LAND at any rate. That could be tolerated but a water landing without parachutes was taking your life into your hands. (The youtube video's are quite impressive, my favorite being the double-backflip on first contact with a wave followed by immiating a submarine on second "impact"... Ya, you REALLY want to stay away from a water "ditching" in this case!)

Randy
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: archipeppe68 on 10/21/2014 07:57 am
Here it is my contribution about the matter.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 10/21/2014 09:01 am
Didn't someone report that the video depiction was incorrect and that the solar cells would cover the trunk?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 10/21/2014 12:45 pm
Didn't someone report that the video depiction was incorrect and that the solar cells would cover the trunk?

That was me, based on what I was told by a technician at the Dragon PR event.  But I've seen enough contradictory evidence from other sources to wonder if the technician may have been incorrect.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jcc on 10/22/2014 12:01 am
I guess solar cells are not so cheap as to use them unnecessarily. The sun only can shine on one side at a time, so just turn the ship towards it. Besides, I would guess that just illuminating a portion of the cells will give the Dragon enough power.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 10/22/2014 12:21 am
My biggest question about the trunk-hugging solar panels is how they will survive the ascent. They must wither be covered by a hard transparent shell, or have covering panels that are designed to fall off once the atmosphere is cleared.

It does make sense to have the panels on only one side, and radiator on the other side. The way the windows are facing (most on the radiator side) will also make that attitude/orientation much more pleasant for the crew.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jcc on 10/22/2014 12:37 am
One plus is there is no deployment needed, so one less thing to go wrong.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: vt_hokie on 10/22/2014 02:27 am
When I look at those landing legs I can't help but think of the DC-X landing incident.  Will their deployment be critical enough to warrant a backup deployment mechanism (as with the shuttle landing gear)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/22/2014 02:36 am
When I look at those landing legs I can't help but think of the DC-X landing incident.  Will their deployment be critical enough to warrant a backup deployment mechanism (as with the shuttle landing gear)?
...much shorter to the ground. Also, the PICA-X could probably absorb some of the shock.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: manboy on 10/22/2014 04:11 am
I don't remember where the reference is but I DO remember that both the crew and cargo versions of Dragon v2 WILL eventually have propulsive-only landing as the nominal landing mode. That is, of course, after all testing and certifications are completed. It is anticipated that the parachutes will be rarely, if ever, used. It was either Elon or Gwynne that said that, but I am leaning toward Gwynne. I remember it so well because I rewound the video to listen to it again - twice. Nominal landing for both crew and cargo operational spacecraft will be via propulsive landing.

I think that is still the plan and that is why most of the Dragonfly test flights will be without parachutes. But Reisman made it seem like full-propulsive landing was a "down the road" kind of improvement. I am guessing that means that SpaceX will not try to get full-propulsive landing certified for crew (at least not at first). 

Every video they have produced and shown on the Dragon returning shows full propulsive landing - no chutes.
That's incorrect. Here's a video showing propulsion landing with parachutes (https://youtu.be/6q3hHvdEqYE?t=34m) in July 2012.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Razvan on 10/22/2014 10:24 pm
Having in mind recent experience with the Dragon unable to land due to rough seas condition, and future possible emergencies that'd require asap landing of a Dragon, I believe having Dragon V2 designated for cargo as well will save NASA and SpaceX off such delays.

I am wondering, what would take Dragon V2 to be submersible and travel at high speed under the sea.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 10/22/2014 10:33 pm
I am wondering, what would take Dragon V2 to be submersible and travel at high speed under the sea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RLOo6bchU

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Razvan on 10/22/2014 10:51 pm
I am wondering, what would take Dragon V2 to be submersible and travel at high speed under the sea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RLOo6bchU
No sarcasm ever intended. I think merely of its versatility and other explorable worlds
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RanulfC on 10/23/2014 08:53 pm
I am wondering, what would take Dragon V2 to be submersible and travel at high speed under the sea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RLOo6bchU
No sarcasm ever intended. I think merely of its versatility and other explorable worlds

You guys are going to drive me crazy you know.... As if I didn't have enough trouble arguing that spacecraft are not airplanes, now I've got to include they are not submarines as well! Yeesh :)

Randy
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sghill on 10/27/2014 02:13 pm
So in light of Elon's MIT discussion about the landing legs on the F9 core, I got to thinking about the Dragon 2.

Does it make sense for it to also have fold out-style landing legs instead of the "stubbies" underneath in order to take advantage of the lower terminal velocity petal legs offer? 

Petal legs would raise the BPL significantly if the terminal velocity is cut in half- a boon to the crew and for the amount of propellant needed.  Plus, the larger "wheelbase" would offer greater landing stability when propulsively landing on Earth, the moon, or Mars.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/27/2014 02:36 pm

Does it make sense for it to also have fold out-style landing legs instead of the "stubbies" underneath in order to take advantage of the lower terminal velocity petal legs offer? 


The first stage doesn't have the entry environment that Dragon 2 will see.  The stage legs don't see the same heating.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RonM on 10/27/2014 02:44 pm
So in light of Elon's MIT discussion about the landing legs on the F9 core, I got to thinking about the Dragon 2.

Does it make sense for it to also have fold out-style landing legs instead of the "stubbies" underneath in order to take advantage of the lower terminal velocity petal legs offer? 

Petal legs would raise the BPL significantly if the terminal velocity is cut in half- a boon to the crew and for the amount of propellant needed.  Plus, the larger "wheelbase" would offer greater landing stability when propulsively landing on Earth, the moon, or Mars.

No, not really. They would add mass, reducing payload. I doubt that would be offset by reducing the amount of propellant.

If the small landing gear fails, Dragon will still make a survivable landing. If the petal legs gear fail, they will not reduce speed and the crew will really miss that extra propellant. If the petal gear is deployed at high altitude to give a chance to decide if the chutes need to be deployed, then it must be built to survive high speed and high drag. The petal gear would have to be far stronger and heavier, reducing payload even more.

Jim beat me to it while I was typing. The petal gear would also have to survive higher heating. The Dragon 2 landing gear is safe behind the heat shield.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cambrianera on 10/27/2014 04:39 pm
So in light of Elon's MIT discussion about the landing legs on the F9 core, I got to thinking about the Dragon 2.

Does it make sense for it to also have fold out-style landing legs instead of the "stubbies" underneath in order to take advantage of the lower terminal velocity petal legs offer? 

Petal legs would raise the BPL significantly if the terminal velocity is cut in half- a boon to the crew and for the amount of propellant needed.  Plus, the larger "wheelbase" would offer greater landing stability when propulsively landing on Earth, the moon, or Mars.

Dragon V2 will go uphill always with full load of hypergolic propellant to be ready for abort, therefore no mass reduction.
No advantage in lower terminal velocity, and longer legs would be likely heavier.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Dave G on 10/27/2014 05:11 pm
Dragon V2 will go uphill always with full load of hypergolic propellant to be ready for abort, therefore no mass reduction.

Bingo.  That's the key advantage of an integrated launch abort system.  For a normal flight, you have the LAS propellant to land propulsively.  In the case of an abort, they use backup parachutes to land.

And there's probably a similar benefit with the first stage.  If one or two engines fail during ascent, they'll need extra propellant to achieve the proper orbit.  For a normal flight (without any engine failures) they can use that extra propellant to land the first stage propulsively.  Assuming engine failures are rare, it may be OK to lose the stage on an engine failure.  Alternatively, instead of boosting back to the launch site, they may be able land the stage down range on an engine failure, perhaps on that barge they're building.

Second stage is a different story.  No extra propellant for LAS or engine out capability.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RanulfC on 10/27/2014 10:19 pm
Dragon V2 will go uphill always with full load of hypergolic propellant to be ready for abort, therefore no mass reduction.

Bingo.  That's the key advantage of an integrated launch abort system.  For a normal flight, you have the LAS propellant to land propulsively.  In the case of an abort, they use backup parachutes to land.

And there's probably a similar benefit with the first stage.  If one or two engines fail during ascent, they'll need extra propellant to achieve the proper orbit.  For a normal flight (without any engine failures) they can use that extra propellant to land the first stage propulsively.  Assuming engine failures are rare, it may be OK to lose the stage on an engine failure.  Alternatively, instead of boosting back to the launch site, they may be able land the stage down range on an engine failure, perhaps on that barge they're building.

Actually that last part makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Having the OPTION to land down-range gives you a lot of margin to play with if you have to make a choice. It actually enhances the "engine-out" capability.

Randy
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Norm38 on 10/29/2014 07:44 pm
There's been a lot of discussion on whether Dragon V2 would replace cargo Dragon or if the two models would continue flying along side each other.  I think yesterday's Orbital launch failure would argue for phasing out Dragon V1 as soon as possible, and flying only V2 in cargo and crewed configurations.

First, they are going to want unmanned test flights of V2 before flying crew.  Might as well get a cargo delivery out of that.

Second, a lot of discussion after yesterday's failure centered around the cost of Cygnus and the cost to replace all the cargo - spares and science experiments that were all flight ready hardware.

Having the LAS for cargo for a T+0 abort means a lot less lost hardware that insurance/SpaceX has to cover.  Obviously whatever is in the trunk will still be lost, but not anything else.  I don't see SpaceX flying Dragon V1 for any longer than they have to once V2 production spins up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 10/29/2014 08:08 pm
V2 Dragon 2
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RanulfC on 10/29/2014 08:22 pm
There's been a lot of discussion on whether Dragon V2 would replace cargo Dragon or if the two models would continue flying along side each other.  I think yesterday's Orbital launch failure would argue for phasing out Dragon V1 as soon as possible, and flying only V2 in cargo and crewed configurations.

First, they are going to want unmanned test flights of V2 before flying crew.  Might as well get a cargo delivery out of that.

Second, a lot of discussion after yesterday's failure centered around the cost of Cygnus and the cost to replace all the cargo - spares and science experiments that were all flight ready hardware.

Having the LAS for cargo for a T+0 abort means a lot less lost hardware that insurance/SpaceX has to cover.  Obviously whatever is in the trunk will still be lost, but not anything else.  I don't see SpaceX flying Dragon V1 for any longer than they have to once V2 production spins up.

All well and good but don't forget that it won't address the whole problem which is that the cargo/crew missions is a very SMALL part of the Falcon-9 family mission and this won't address any other payloads.

Randy
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/29/2014 08:48 pm
1.  I think yesterday's Orbital launch failure would argue for phasing out Dragon V1 as soon as possible, and flying only V2 in cargo and crewed configurations.
2.  Second, a lot of discussion after yesterday's failure centered around the cost of Cygnus and the cost to replace all the cargo - spares and science experiments that were all flight ready hardware.

3. Having the LAS for cargo for a T+0 abort means a lot less lost hardware that insurance/SpaceX has to cover.  Obviously whatever is in the trunk will still be lost, but not anything else.  I don't see SpaceX flying Dragon V1 for any longer than they have to once V2 production spins up.


1.  quite wrong.  It provide no impetus for that.

2.  It is nothing but Tang, T-shirts and toilet paper.  That is why NASA can accept the higher risk the CRS missions and its contracting style.

3.  The logic fails.  The more expensive items would be in the trunk.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: gongora on 10/29/2014 08:51 pm
Wonder if SpaceX will offer a Dragon 2 with berthing instead of docking?  NASA can't pick two cargo suppliers that use docking unless they add more docking ports to ISS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 10/29/2014 09:43 pm

2.  It is nothing but Tang, T-shirts and toilet paper.  That is why NASA can accept the higher risk the CRS missions and its contracting style.


Tell that to the mice.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Comga on 10/29/2014 10:26 pm
Wonder if SpaceX will offer a Dragon 2 with berthing instead of docking?  NASA can't pick two cargo suppliers that use docking unless they add more docking ports to ISS.

A Dragon with a berthing port wold not be a Dragon 2.  If it has the Super Dracos it would be some sort of cross-breed.  Berthing requires systems that won't be on Dragon 2 or won't be in the needed locations.

Part of the response to your statement is that NASA is rearranging the ports on the ISS. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/29/2014 10:27 pm

2.  It is nothing but Tang, T-shirts and toilet paper.  That is why NASA can accept the higher risk the CRS missions and its contracting style.


Tell that to the mice.

So what.  They were going to get the axe upon return to earth.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 10/30/2014 12:13 am

2.  It is nothing but Tang, T-shirts and toilet paper.  That is why NASA can accept the higher risk the CRS missions and its contracting style.


Tell that to the mice.

So what.  They were going to get the axe upon return to earth.

Not the point.  The point is that Dragon can and does carry critical and significant cargo and experiments.  Not just the trivialities you'd like to limit it to.

"It's nothing but...." type statements are inherently inaccurate and misleading, and unworthy of a knowledgeable observer.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/30/2014 01:31 am
Not the point.  The point is that Dragon can and does carry critical and significant cargo and experiments.  Not just the trivialities you'd like to limit it to.

"It's nothing but...." type statements are inherently inaccurate and misleading, and unworthy of a knowledgeable observer.


It is the point.  Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it is inaccurate and misleading,
NASA does treat these missions as Tang, T-shirts and toilet paper.  It accepts a different risk posture for the CRS missions.  They are class D missions.  If this were a science mission, NASA's insight into the launch vehicle would be much different.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 10/30/2014 01:36 am
Jim,

At what point to number of missions start to ease the "NASA into the launch vehicle"?  20 flights?  30 flights?

Examples would include Atlas V and Soyuz.  NASA did accept the safety record of Soyuz and I do not recall in-depth analysis of the launch vehicle like is being done with SpaceX and OSC.

I only ask because this discussion came up with a colleague and I had no definitive answer for her.  Obviously there is heritage that makes NASA accept risk with these two vehicles.  However, there has to be something more.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 10/30/2014 01:50 am
Not the point.  The point is that Dragon can and does carry critical and significant cargo and experiments.  Not just the trivialities you'd like to limit it to.

"It's nothing but...." type statements are inherently inaccurate and misleading, and unworthy of a knowledgeable observer.


It is the point.  Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it is inaccurate and misleading,
NASA does treat these missions as Tang, T-shirts and toilet paper.  It accepts a different risk posture for the CRS missions.  They are class D missions.  If this were a science mission, NASA's insight into the launch vehicle would be much different.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.  Replacement space suits for one that almost killed an astronaut is not on the level of Tang.  Your statement is the same level of accuracy as those who claim the internet is "nothing but porn."  It may be a pithy remark, but being pithy only turns it into hyperbole, not accuracy or honesty.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/30/2014 02:05 am
Except the basic point that the cargo isn't super expensive stands. NASA doesn't see it as highly critical and/or irreplaceable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/30/2014 02:10 am

Repeating it doesn't make it true. 
Replacement space suits for one that almost killed an astronaut is not on the level of Tang. 

Yes, it is true and it has nothing to do with repeating it.
If a piece of hardware doesn't make it to the ISS on one flight, they can fly another piece on the next flight.  That is NASA's risk posture for CRS.

Don't care what you think, it  My point still holds true and is not hyperbole but reality.  ISS cargo is Class D.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/30/2014 02:14 am
Jim,

At what point to number of missions start to ease the "NASA into the launch vehicle"?  20 flights?  30 flights?

Examples would include Atlas V and Soyuz.  NASA did accept the safety record of Soyuz and I do not recall in-depth analysis of the launch vehicle like is being done with SpaceX and OSC.

I only ask because this discussion came up with a colleague and I had no definitive answer for her.  Obviously there is heritage that makes NASA accept risk with these two vehicles.  However, there has to be something more.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser

14 was the magic number for certification.  That what NASA used for Delta II.     Atlas V did not have it as easy.  MRO flew on the 7th Atlas V so it went through the same cert process as Falcon 9 is.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Norm38 on 10/30/2014 02:28 am
Yes, it is true and it has nothing to do with repeating it.
If a piece of hardware doesn't make it to the ISS on one flight, they can fly another piece on the next flight.  That is NASA's risk posture for CRS.
Don't care what you think, it  My point still holds true and is not hyperbole but reality.  ISS cargo is Class D.

That logic holds for everything though. All the money in a space probe is in the design and engineering. Extra copies are cheap. So for any unmanned launch they can always just fly another one. So why even bother with different classes of cargo and different launcher ratings?  Just put all that money into building spare copies when needed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 10/30/2014 03:11 am
Jim,

At what point to number of missions start to ease the "NASA into the launch vehicle"?  20 flights?  30 flights?

Examples would include Atlas V and Soyuz.  NASA did accept the safety record of Soyuz and I do not recall in-depth analysis of the launch vehicle like is being done with SpaceX and OSC.

I only ask because this discussion came up with a colleague and I had no definitive answer for her.  Obviously there is heritage that makes NASA accept risk with these two vehicles.  However, there has to be something more.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser

14 was the magic number for certification.  That what NASA used for Delta II.     Atlas V did not have it as easy.  MRO flew on the 7th Atlas V so it went through the same cert process as Falcon 9 is.
Jim,

Follow up question.  Would I be correct in saying that Falcon 9 continuously resets depending on what version is flying?  Right now we are at F9 v1.1 but SpaceX is in a continuous revision cycle.  Merlin 1C to Merlin 1D, new avionics, landing legs, ect et al.

SpaceX really hasn't flown the same version of Falcon 9v1.1 more than twice?

If this is the case, to me, it seems as though the scrutiny will continue.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JBF on 10/30/2014 11:26 am
Yes, it is true and it has nothing to do with repeating it.
If a piece of hardware doesn't make it to the ISS on one flight, they can fly another piece on the next flight.  That is NASA's risk posture for CRS.
Don't care what you think, it  My point still holds true and is not hyperbole but reality.  ISS cargo is Class D.

That logic holds for everything though. All the money in a space probe is in the design and engineering. Extra copies are cheap. So for any unmanned launch they can always just fly another one. So why even bother with different classes of cargo and different launcher ratings?  Just put all that money into building spare copies when needed.

That is inaccurate as well.  A lot of science instruments are one-of-a-kind built just for the mission. There is no cookie cutter assembly line churning them out.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/30/2014 03:59 pm
Jim,

At what point to number of missions start to ease the "NASA into the launch vehicle"?  20 flights?  30 flights?

Examples would include Atlas V and Soyuz.  NASA did accept the safety record of Soyuz and I do not recall in-depth analysis of the launch vehicle like is being done with SpaceX and OSC.

I only ask because this discussion came up with a colleague and I had no definitive answer for her.  Obviously there is heritage that makes NASA accept risk with these two vehicles.  However, there has to be something more.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser

14 was the magic number for certification.  That what NASA used for Delta II.     Atlas V did not have it as easy.  MRO flew on the 7th Atlas V so it went through the same cert process as Falcon 9 is.
Jim,

Follow up question.  Would I be correct in saying that Falcon 9 continuously resets depending on what version is flying?  Right now we are at F9 v1.1 but SpaceX is in a continuous revision cycle.  Merlin 1C to Merlin 1D, new avionics, landing legs, ect et al.

SpaceX really hasn't flown the same version of Falcon 9v1.1 more than twice?

If this is the case, to me, it seems as though the scrutiny will continue.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
all launch vehicles have variations. Delta II had several, flying with different kinds and numbers of solid rocket motors and different numbers of stages. I don't believe NASA split up Delta II launches like that.

The legs don't really affect v1.1 at all. Even the first v1.1 had structure capable of taking the legs if desired. So certainly v1.1 wouldn't be "reset", but no doubt there's a big difference between v1.0 and v1.1. If there is a "reset" at all, it'd be between v1.0 and v1.1.

Compare any sequence of 7 or 8 Delta IIs or Atlas Vs or Delta IVs, and only 3 or 4 or so will have the same configuration. The v1.1s have all basically been the same. But the step from v1.0 to v1.1 was quite different. V1.1 uses different engines and much different structure and has nearly double v1.0's performance.

But if anything, so far SpaceX's v1.1s have been much more consistent in configuration than Delta II or the EELVs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Norm38 on 10/30/2014 04:06 pm
^^^ Are the notes burned and memories purged as soon as those instruments are built?  No.  90% of the time effort and money into building those one of a kind instruments is in the scientific research and engineering to know precisely how to build them.  Once they've built one, the second is built just by following the same procedure.  It's not free, but it is "just hardware".

But Jim's point is valid that the most expensive to replace hardware would be in the trunk, so maybe losing everything else isn't much of a factor.

I still don't see why SpaceX would want to fly two Dragon models at the same time.  Why can't they put a CBM port and grapple fixture on V2, so they can practice propulsive landing with the cargo version and gain confidence with the system?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/30/2014 04:08 pm
Follow up question.  Would I be correct in saying that Falcon 9 continuously resets depending on what version is flying?  Right now we are at F9 v1.1 but SpaceX is in a continuous revision cycle.  Merlin 1C to Merlin 1D, new avionics, landing legs, ect et al.

SpaceX really hasn't flown the same version of Falcon 9v1.1 more than twice?

If this is the case, to me, it seems as though the scrutiny will continue.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
all launch vehicles have variations. Delta II had several, flying with different kinds and numbers of solid rocket motors and different numbers of stages. I don't believe NASA split up Delta II launches like that.

The legs don't really affect v1.1 at all. Even the first v1.1 had structure capable of taking the legs if desired. So certainly v1.1 wouldn't be "reset", but no doubt there's a big difference between v1.0 and v1.1. If there is a "reset" at all, it'd be between v1.0 and v1.1.

And as of today Falcon 9 v1.1 has flown eight times, all with the same engines, same 1st stage and same 2nd stage.  The only difference being whether legs were attached or not (and the payloads too of course).

From a manufacturing point of view (my background) those eight flights would have been the same vehicles.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/30/2014 04:16 pm
all launch vehicles have variations. Delta II had several, flying with different kinds and numbers of solid rocket motors and different numbers of stages. I don't believe NASA split up Delta II launches like that.


The core didn't vary, that is the important takeaway.
Indeed, I was just comparing.

V1.0 to v1.1 was a change of the core. Structure is much more efficient in v1.1.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/30/2014 04:23 pm
all launch vehicles have variations. Delta II had several, flying with different kinds and numbers of solid rocket motors and different numbers of stages. I don't believe NASA split up Delta II launches like that.

snip

Compare any sequence of 7 or 8 Delta IIs or Atlas Vs or Delta IVs, and only 3 or 4 or so will have the same configuration. The v1.1s have all basically been the same. But the step from v1.0 to v1.1 was quite different. V1.1 uses different engines and much different structure and has nearly double v1.0's performance.

But if anything, so far SpaceX's v1.1s have been much more consistent in configuration than Delta II or the EELVs.

The cores (for Delta II, Atlas II and Atlas V) didn't vary, that is the important takeaway.  Solids, third stage or fairing doesn't matter when it comes to certification.

Delta II flew 16 7925's in a row.


Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/30/2014 04:24 pm
I still don't see why SpaceX would want to fly two Dragon models at the same time.  Why can't they put a CBM port and grapple fixture on V2, so they can practice propulsive landing with the cargo version and gain confidence with the system?

Not sure where I was seeing it on NSF, but the pictures of the Dragon V2 I saw showed a narrow passageway from the crew compartment to the docking ring, meaning it wouldn't matter if you put a CBM port on it or not since you wouldn't be able to pass large cargo through the small passageway.  The discussion about why it was designed that way was that SpaceX engineers had to rearrange items that were external to the pressure vessel when they added the SuperDraco's and associated hardware, and they needed room at the top of the vehicle to relocated some of that stuff (like parachutes maybe).

From a business and manufacturing standpoint the current Dragon is certified and in production, so continuing to use it for the CRS contract is the easiest thing to do.  And SpaceX has a lot on their plate as it is, what with getting Dragon V2 ready for test, getting Falcon Heavy ready for launch, and continuing their dual track effort to perfect reusability (i.e. Grasshopper and 1st stage landings).  Oh, and they have to keep doing what brings in the money, which is safely launching customer payloads.  There is no reason to make a major change to the cargo version of Dragon at this time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 10/30/2014 05:38 pm

Repeating it doesn't make it true. 
Replacement space suits for one that almost killed an astronaut is not on the level of Tang. 

Yes, it is true and it has nothing to do with repeating it.
If a piece of hardware doesn't make it to the ISS on one flight, they can fly another piece on the next flight.  That is NASA's risk posture for CRS.

Don't care what you think, it  My point still holds true and is not hyperbole but reality.  ISS cargo is Class D.

And I don't care what class it is, the phrase "Nothing but Tang, t-shirts and toilet paper" is literally untrue, and insulting by design.  It's designed to denigrate and minimize the work of those who are trying to make this program cost-effective, and implying that only your sacred Atlas can do the "difficult" jobs.  You can justify your class A->D designations, I have no objection to that, but you can do it honestly and without pejoratives if you want to make a real point.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: simonbp on 10/30/2014 05:53 pm
The cores (for Delta II, Atlas II and Atlas V) didn't vary, that is the important takeaway.  Solids, third stage or fairing doesn't matter when it comes to certification.

Delta IV before and after RS-68A might be a better comparison (core structures didn't change, but engines did).

The Shuttle upgrades for ISS (SLWT and Block I,IA,IIA,II) also spring to mind (both the engines and the largest structural element changed), though that was an incremental upgrade process.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 10/30/2014 06:08 pm
Thank you for the inputs.  So we essentially need six more F9 v1.1 per Jim's standard. 

We will get that next year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/30/2014 07:34 pm

And I don't care what class it is, the phrase "Nothing but Tang, t-shirts and toilet paper" is literally untrue, and insulting by design.  It's designed to denigrate and minimize the work of those who are trying to make this program cost-effective, and implying that only your sacred Atlas can do the "difficult" jobs.  You can justify your class A->D designations, I have no objection to that, but you can do it honestly and without pejoratives if you want to make a real point.


That is idiotic and really shows how biased you are.  It has nothing to with a comparison to Atlas.  That was the furthest thing from my mind. 

Fact:  COTS and CRS project management, contracts and risk posture are predicated on that ISS logistics on a whole are important but individual flights are not.  Station logistics is class D

I am doing it honestly.  Nothing but Tang, t-shirts and toilet paper is 100% true and is not insulting.   It is a common term used.   It is from first hand experience.  I literally packed all the logistics items that flew in the Spacehab module for 10 missions to the MIR and ISS.  I was doing station logistics before there was a Spacex.  If something didn't make it on one mission, it could fly on the next or a Progress.

Losing a flight is not a big deal as I said because it is "nothing but Tang, t-shirts and toilet paper "
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 10/30/2014 07:45 pm
I am doing it honestly.  Nothing but Tang, t-shirts and toilet paper is 100% true and is not insulting.

SpaceX flew up a spacesuit.  That is not tang, a t-shirt, or toilet paper.  They flew up mice.  Also not tang, a t-shirt, or toilet paper.  There are many other things (experiment freezers, food, etc) that are not tang, a t-shirt, or toilet paper, that have flown on Dragon (and Cygnus).

You must have a different definition of "100% true".  In fact, what you mean it is an accurate characterization of the type of cargo carried.  I still think that's not true (a space suit is a lot more expensive than the three aforementioned items) but it is at least closer to the truth.  And sorry, but it is insulting, whether that is the way you meant it or not.

If you simply said "it's class D which is NASA's least important cargo" I don't think anyone could argue that point.  It's very relevant that the risk category that NASA places Dragon and Cygnus deliveries in is the lowest category and a far cry from class A which is used for the most important launches.  It's worth noting that it is not that important because the ISS program has three other options (Dragon, Progress, HTV) of getting cargo to the space station.

Losing a flight is something NASA plans for and as you say it isn't "a big deal" at least relative to other things that would be much bigger deals, such as any of the myriad satellites and space probes.  No argument there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/30/2014 07:52 pm

You must have a different definition of "100% true".

It means it is logistics and the individuals items are not as important as the whole.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: arachnitect on 10/30/2014 07:52 pm
I am doing it honestly.  Nothing but Tang, t-shirts and toilet paper is 100% true and is not insulting.

SpaceX flew up a spacesuit.  That is not tang, a t-shirt, or toilet paper.  They flew up mice.  Also not tang, a t-shirt, or toilet paper.  There are many other things (experiment freezers, food, etc) that are not tang, a t-shirt, or toilet paper, that have flown on Dragon (and Cygnus).

You must have a different definition of "100% true".  And sorry, but it is insulting, whether that is the way you meant it or not.

If you simply said "it's class D which is NASA's least important cargo" I don't think anyone could argue that point.  It's very relevant that the risk category that NASA places Dragon and Cygnus deliveries in is the lowest category and a far cry from class A which is used for the most important launches.

Losing a flight is something NASA plans for and as you say it isn't "a big deal" at least relative to other things that would be much bigger deals, such as any of the myriad satellites and space probes.  No argument there.

Point is none of these things is worth saving with a LAS.

They'd rather have the extra capacity on the flights that do make it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/30/2014 07:52 pm

  There are many other things (experiment freezers, food, etc) that are not tang, a t-shirt, or toilet paper, that have flown on Dragon (and Cygnus).


Tang is food
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: arachnitect on 10/30/2014 07:53 pm

  There are many other things (experiment freezers, food, etc) that are not tang, a t-shirt, or toilet paper, that have flown on Dragon (and Cygnus).


Tang is food

barely
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 10/30/2014 08:02 pm
Point is none of these things is worth saving with a LAS.

They'd rather have the extra capacity on the flights that do make it.

That's not much of a point, nothing is worth saving with an LAS except humans.  I say that because nobody has ever implemented a LAS except for human-carrying rockets, that I know of.

Is JWST going to go up on the A5 with an LAS?  I'm not sure there has ever been something as expensive launched on a single rocket before...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 10/30/2014 08:03 pm
It means it is logistics and the individuals items are not as important as the whole.

To which I can wholeheartedly agree.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: baldusi on 10/30/2014 08:33 pm
Jim,

At what point to number of missions start to ease the "NASA into the launch vehicle"?  20 flights?  30 flights?

Examples would include Atlas V and Soyuz.  NASA did accept the safety record of Soyuz and I do not recall in-depth analysis of the launch vehicle like is being done with SpaceX and OSC.

I only ask because this discussion came up with a colleague and I had no definitive answer for her.  Obviously there is heritage that makes NASA accept risk with these two vehicles.  However, there has to be something more.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
At least the NLS considers that you can fly Class D (Category 1 certificate) with minimum certification effort with 1 successful flight, C and some B  (Category 2 certificate) with 6 straight successful flights, and some B and A (Category 3 Certification) with 14 straight successful flights. The actual numbers were 89% demonstrated reliability for Category 2 and 95% for Category 3. Given Soyuz-U/U2/FG demonstrated reliability above 97.5% (with 902 flights under their belt), it's no wonder that they had minimum insight. Also, the capsule has flown 113 straight successful missions, with the last fatality being 43 years ago, and the last failure that actually required LAS use being 31 years ago, its no wonder that it was "grandfathered".
That safety record is literally the one defining best of industry. Hopefully Boeing or SpaceX (or both) will show even better stats.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Razvan on 10/30/2014 08:48 pm

And I don't care what class it is, the phrase "Nothing but Tang, t-shirts and toilet paper" is literally untrue, and insulting by design.  It's designed to denigrate and minimize the work of those who are trying to make this program cost-effective, and implying that only your sacred Atlas can do the "difficult" jobs.  You can justify your class A->D designations, I have no objection to that, but you can do it honestly and without pejoratives if you want to make a real point.


That is idiotic and really shows how biased you are.  It has nothing to with a comparison to Atlas.  That was the furthest thing from my mind. 

Fact:  COTS and CRS project management, contracts and risk posture are predicated on that ISS logistics on a whole are important but individual flights are not.  Station logistics is class D

I am doing it honestly.  Nothing but Tang, t-shirts and toilet paper is 100% true and is not insulting.   It is a common term used.   It is from first hand experience.  I literally packed all the logistics items that flew in the Spacehab module for 10 missions to the MIR and ISS.  I was doing station logistics before there was a Spacex.  If something didn't make it on one mission, it could fly on the next or a Progress.

Losing a flight is not a big deal as I said because it is "nothing but Tang, t-shirts and toilet paper "
I see that this is based on remembering of the past time you were packing such items. Personally, I'd be honored to do that, too. But those items making mostly the up cargo apply for the time construction was still the main activity aboard ISS not this time when science, research and other high value activities are performed up there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 10/30/2014 10:11 pm
Jim, Please define for us the types of cargo that are classed A, B, C and D. That might help the conversation some.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: arachnitect on 10/30/2014 10:21 pm
Jim, Please define for us the types of cargo that are classed A, B, C and D. That might help the conversation some.

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/npg_img/N_PR_8705_0004_/N_PR_8705_0004_.pdf
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rpapo on 10/30/2014 10:51 pm
When you compare ISS supplies with something like the MER or the HST, then the meaning of Class A versus Class D becomes very clear.  The contents of the Dragon or Cygnus are important, but not life or death.  They are expensive, but not more valuable than gold by weight.  There is a new launch window every day, and they have a multiple month supply of the stuff up there already.

As much as I may think Jim is rather harsh and terse in his statements, there is something to be said for (1) Food (Tang), (2) Clothing (T-shirts) and (3) non-food consumables (Toilet Paper).  Those three item names represent categories of things, not just those specific items.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Joffan on 10/30/2014 11:31 pm
Which category would the external attached experiments that have been sent up in Dragon's trunk fall into? RapidScat, for example.

How about anything in the down-mass?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/31/2014 12:23 am
But those items making mostly the up cargo apply for the time construction was still the main activity aboard ISS not this time when science, research and other high value activities are performed up there.

No, 7 of the missions were to MIR.  I was sending up experiments for MIR, many of the same are still flying to the ISS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/31/2014 12:25 am
Jim, Please define for us the types of cargo that are classed A, B, C and D. That might help the conversation some.

Most ISS cargo is D or less.
Which category would the external attached experiments that have been sent up in Dragon's trunk fall into? RapidScat, for example.


Attached payloads is B
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 10/31/2014 01:34 am
When you compare ISS supplies with something like the MER or the HST, then the meaning of Class A versus Class D becomes very clear.  The contents of the Dragon or Cygnus are important, but not life or death.  They are expensive, but not more valuable than gold by weight.  There is a new launch window every day, and they have a multiple month supply of the stuff up there already.

As much as I may think Jim is rather harsh and terse in his statements, there is something to be said for (1) Food (Tang), (2) Clothing (T-shirts) and (3) non-food consumables (Toilet Paper).  Those three item names represent categories of things, not just those specific items.

They MIGHT be representative if not prefaced by the exclusionary "nothing but".  This is what makes it dismissive and demeaning.

"SPARTAN, GAS Can, Technology demonstrators, simple ISS, express middeck and subrack payloads, and SMEX" are NOT "Tang, t-shirts, and toilet paper".

Nor does the replacement space suit appear to fall into that category.  Nor do the several biology experiments that Dragon has both launched AND returned.

My "bias", if you want to call it that, is in favor of making real progress in both the technology and the practice of succeeding in space, whether manned exploration or robotic.  I don't dismiss or trivialize new capabilities just because they might happen to threaten a status quo that somebody has a pre-existing stake in.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: woods170 on 10/31/2014 07:55 am
Jim, Please define for us the types of cargo that are classed A, B, C and D. That might help the conversation some.

Most ISS cargo is D or less.
Which category would the external attached experiments that have been sent up in Dragon's trunk fall into? RapidScat, for example.


Attached payloads is B
Not exactly tang and T-shirts then.... Yet they were sent up on Dragon. Not HTV, but Dragon. And that flies directly in the face of your previous post:

NASA does treat these missions as Tang, T-shirts and toilet paper.  It accepts a different risk posture for the CRS missions.  They are class D missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Garrett on 10/31/2014 09:43 am
Which category would the external attached experiments that have been sent up in Dragon's trunk fall into? RapidScat, for example.
Attached payloads is B
Class B also includes ISS facilities, so presumably truss structures, modules, solar arrays?
If that is the case, then RapidScat would hardly be in 'B'. I would place it in 'D', as a "technology
demonstrator".

Edit: ok, after reading the RapidScat website, maybe 'D' is harsh, so more a 'C'. Still would have trouble placing it in 'B'. It was, according to the website, built "for a fraction of the cost and time it would take to build and launch a new satellite", so presumably it could be reflown in a relatively short timescale if ever its Dragon mission had been lost.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jet Black on 10/31/2014 10:06 am
Jim, Please define for us the types of cargo that are classed A, B, C and D. That might help the conversation some.

Most ISS cargo is D or less.
Which category would the external attached experiments that have been sent up in Dragon's trunk fall into? RapidScat, for example.


Attached payloads is B
Not exactly tang and T-shirts then.... Yet they were sent up on Dragon. Not HTV, but Dragon. And that flies directly in the face of your previous post:

NASA does treat these missions as Tang, T-shirts and toilet paper.  It accepts a different risk posture for the CRS missions.  They are class D missions.

At least the NLS considers that you can fly Class D (Category 1 certificate) with minimum certification effort with 1 successful flight, C and some B  (Category 2 certificate) with 6 straight successful flights, and some B and A (Category 3 Certification) with 14 straight successful flights......

They had 12 straight successful launches before this. Even if you dock points for the CRS-1 losing its secondary payload, they had 8 in a row.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ugordan on 10/31/2014 10:53 am
Edit: ok, after reading the RapidScat website, maybe 'D' is harsh, so more a 'C'. Still would have trouble placing it in 'B'. It was, according to the website, built "for a fraction of the cost and time it would take to build and launch a new satellite", so presumably it could be reflown in a relatively short timescale if ever its Dragon mission had been lost.

RapidScat uses hardware that was already built 15 years ago for the QuickScat satellite and was mothballed since (the reason it was done "for a fraction of the cost and time it would take to build and launch a new satellite") so the assumption it could simply be reflown is not a good one. RapidScat payload alone on CRS-4 apparently cost $26 million.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/31/2014 12:01 pm
I don't dismiss or trivialize new capabilities just because they might happen to threaten a status quo that somebody has a pre-existing stake in.

What do you mean "trivialize new capabilities  or "threaten a status quo" or "pre-existing stake". 
It is you that taking offense to it because you think it denigrates your chosen one.
Threatening the status quo is not applicable to me.  My work is launch vehicle agnostic.  It doesn't matter what the spacecraft flies on for my work.  In fact, my next mission is on a Falcon 9, but I am also support missions on Delta IV Heavy, Dpner, Atlas V, Ariane V and SLS. 
My job doesn't allow me to have a "pre-existing stake".  I have had to rid myself of any financial ties with any launch service providers.

 "Tang, t-shirts, and toilet paper" has been used as a description for station logistics during the Shuttle-Mir program,  SH ISS missions, Shuttle MPLM, Progress and even for the AAS studies.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 10/31/2014 12:02 pm

They had 12 straight successful launches before this. Even if you dock points for the CRS-1 losing its secondary payload, they had 8 in a row.


Falcon 9 V1 does not count for V1.1 missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jet Black on 10/31/2014 12:14 pm

They had 12 straight successful launches before this. Even if you dock points for the CRS-1 losing its secondary payload, they had 8 in a row.


Falcon 9 V1 does not count for V1.1 missions.

7 then :) The margin is thinning, but still ok for some B missions?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: woods170 on 10/31/2014 01:52 pm

They had 12 straight successful launches before this. Even if you dock points for the CRS-1 losing its secondary payload, they had 8 in a row.


Falcon 9 V1 does not count for V1.1 missions.

7 then :) The margin is thinning, but still ok for some B missions?
Clearly. Otherwise RapidScat would not have been launched on Dragon per Jim's assessment of how NASA classes CRS missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 10/31/2014 02:20 pm
Elon has said Dragon 1 will be produced in parallel with D2 for awhile.
 If they get another contract for Cargo resupply D1 will likely be gone leaving only D2.
 Regardless of the category of the cargo onboard, getting the D2 back if the launch vehicle fails would be better than not getting it back.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 11/01/2014 04:08 pm
I feel the umbrage at the "tang, t-shirts, and toilet paper" is missing the mark.  The phrase is used internally to NASA to convince themselves that higher risk is acceptable and not every payload needs to be a unique special snowflake.  This internal attitude is what allowed the COTS and CRS contracts.  Since I think we all agree here that COTS and CRS were a good thing, we should be cheering attitudes within NASA which allow new risky rockets to gain a foothold.

Think of the phrase and its implicit exaggeration as an opportunity.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: inventodoc on 11/01/2014 05:03 pm
I feel the umbrage at the "tang, t-shirts, and toilet paper" is missing the mark.  The phrase is used internally to NASA to convince themselves that higher risk is acceptable and not every payload needs to be a unique special snowflake.  This internal attitude is what allowed the COTS and CRS contracts.  Since I think we all agree here that COTS and CRS were a good thing, we should be cheering attitudes within NASA which allow new risky rockets to gain a foothold.

Think of the phrase and its implicit exaggeration as an opportunity.

I'd have to agree.   When you are in space, we currently depend on everything coming up from Earth.    When you think about it, toilet paper is REALLY IMPORTANT!     Try going without resupply in your own house for a few months and you might understand the point of view of an ISS cosmonaut.   

So, I see nothing denigrating about the term at all and don't think any offense was intended by the original poster.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DecoLV on 11/01/2014 06:18 pm
Meanwhile, over at the Pad Abort Test thread, it seems it is all but official that the test will slip into 2015. I believe that would be at least the second slip overall. I'm starting to wonder if V2 is really real. Yes, we have seen a prototype, and yes we have seen superdraco tests. But I don't think anyone has seen a Dragonfly test, have they? If SpaceX is so committed to propulsive landings (or at least LAS), then at some point the Dragon has to fly somewhere on the superdracos, for an abort test or anything else. When? When, when when? 2020?  :o
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: gongora on 11/01/2014 06:48 pm
Meanwhile, over at the Pad Abort Test thread, it seems it is all but official that the test will slip into 2015. I believe that would be at least the second slip overall. I'm starting to wonder if V2 is really real. Yes, we have seen a prototype, and yes we have seen superdraco tests. But I don't think anyone has seen a Dragonfly test, have they? If SpaceX is so committed to propulsive landings (or at least LAS), then at some point the Dragon has to fly somewhere on the superdracos, for an abort test or anything else. When? When, when when? 2020?  :o

Programs like this tend to have schedule slips.  It's nothing new.  A Boeing presentation from a couple years ago showed two test flights of CST-100 this year.  SpaceX will get it working soon.

Also it's likely that they will be testing Dragonfly by 2017, but Garrett Reisman said in a presentation a couple months ago that Dragon 2 will start out landing with parachutes. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 11/01/2014 06:50 pm
Meanwhile, over at the Pad Abort Test thread, it seems it is all but official that the test will slip into 2015. I believe that would be at least the second slip overall. I'm starting to wonder if V2 is really real. Yes, we have seen a prototype, and yes we have seen superdraco tests. But I don't think anyone has seen a Dragonfly test, have they? If SpaceX is so committed to propulsive landings (or at least LAS), then at some point the Dragon has to fly somewhere on the superdracos, for an abort test or anything else. When? When, when when? 2020?  :o

Why are you SO anxious for them to do it now? They will do it when the vehicle is ready. It's not ready yet.
No, nobody has seen a Dragonfly test yet. It's not supposed to start till 2016. Be patient.
And YES - Dragon is very real.

Just what are you implying?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DecoLV on 11/01/2014 08:45 pm
I was implying PR fakery...but I admit I have no evidence of that. I don't wan't to go there. I actually like SpaceX, and I want the vehicle to be real and the slips to be normal. But I just don't understand this timeline to 2017.  On the one hand, it feels late. SpaceX has acted in the past as though things should be ready by this year or next year, and it isn't. On the other hand, if the vehicle is not ready, why schedule the tests for 2014 or 2015 at all? Why the big unveil of Dragon V2?  I'm impatient only because we are getting more years away from Shuttle, and years toward the practical end-of-life of ISS, at a time when Soyuz seats are...well, let's say increasingly not desirable. So I honestly wonder why SpaceX's own development timeline keeps slipping to the right. I think it is a fair question.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/01/2014 08:49 pm
The engines are real and have been tested. The initial flights will not do fully propulsive landing but will be assisted by parachutes. The pad abort will happen. The unveiling showed real test articles, not mockups. Dragon 2 is far more real than, say, CST-100.

Also, slips to "No earlier than" dates are just a fact of life in this industry.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/01/2014 09:22 pm
I was implying PR fakery...but I admit I have no evidence of that. I don't wan't to go there.

Then why did you even say it?

Quote
I actually like SpaceX, and I want the vehicle to be real and the slips to be normal.

Having been the person that had to define and communicate schedule slips to upper management and customers, define "normal"?

Quote
But I just don't understand this timeline to 2017.

That's because you don't have enough information to understand it.  No one outside of SpaceX and NASA do.

Which is why you should retract your statement accusing SpaceX of PR fakery, since it's clear you made that statement out of ignorance.

Quote
On the one hand, it feels late.

It's only late if they miss NASA's 2017 need date.  And we're only in 2014.

Quote
SpaceX has acted in the past as though things should be ready by this year or next year, and it isn't.

Having been in the business of having to provide and explain various types of commitment dates, what I can surmise is that you have probably been conflating various statements and not understanding when various SpaceX representatives have been talking about "goals" versus "commitments".  There is a difference.

Quote
So I honestly wonder why SpaceX's own development timeline keeps slipping to the right. I think it is a fair question.

The only public information we have about SpaceX commitments to their customer (i.e. NASA) is the CCDev2 schedule info.  Other than that no one outside of SpaceX or NASA knows for sure what the various dates are for the CCtCap tasks that have to be performed in order to become certified for carrying humans to the ISS in 2017.

Just realize it's OK to not understand what's going on, and that it's not some sort of evil plan hatched by SpaceX - it's business as usual.  If you don't believe me, just try and find the same type of info regarding the CST-100.  Believe it or not, SpaceX has no need to keep you informed of what they do.  None at all.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: inventodoc on 11/01/2014 11:22 pm
Are we getting a but lawyerly and contentious?    SpaceX has a colorful history of predictions they cannot meet on time. They have made impressive achievements and they have been a bit more responsible with statements lately, but someone who is skeptical of SpaceX statements and PR is not only allowed to make an opinion, but may claim some good justification.

I saw the v2 article in person. It was a significant advance from the cargo dragon. Some elements, like the interior and some other items were more theatrical than prototypical. Questioning how much is real engineering stuff (a lot) is pretty fair game in my opinion.

Please don't retract statements, folks. I like reading opinions; even ones I disagree with.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: darkenfast on 11/02/2014 09:45 am
I don't think they will fly Dragonfly before the abort tests, but at some point there should be an all-up test in Texas of the Superdracos installed on a Dragon in a test stand of some sort.  That's what we need to look for.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: saliva_sweet on 11/23/2014 11:12 am
An interesting picture popped up on reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2n5s6d/identify_a_photo/
Poster says he took it a couple of months ago. I wonder if it could be the primary structure qualification test article.


Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JBF on 11/23/2014 12:34 pm
An interesting picture popped up on reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2n5s6d/identify_a_photo/
Poster says he took it a couple of months ago. I wonder if it could be the primary structure qualification test article.

Sure looks like it. You can see the mounting points for the super dracos, and of course the docking port.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cambrianera on 11/23/2014 01:59 pm
An interesting picture popped up on reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2n5s6d/identify_a_photo/
Poster says he took it a couple of months ago. I wonder if it could be the primary structure qualification test article.

Sure looks like it. You can see the mounting points for the super dracos, and of course the docking port.
Thanks, now I have the confirmation of something that was already clear (at least for me) from a structural point of view.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35364.msg1273556#msg1273556
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 11/23/2014 03:34 pm
It does seem like a logical place to mount them -- even though it looks like a pusher system, with the force attachment on the upper ring it would behave more like a tractor system.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 11/23/2014 03:48 pm
Probably also meant for Pad and/or in-flight abort once they finish Structural Qual. (If they haven't already)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: saliva_sweet on 11/23/2014 05:53 pm
It's by no means a given that this is the structure qual article. Could be either of the abort articles or stripped down reveal Dragon being repurposed as such.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JBF on 11/23/2014 08:25 pm
It does seem like a logical place to mount them -- even though it looks like a pusher system, with the force attachment on the upper ring it would behave more like a tractor system.
I think you are both looking at the wrong spot.  Here is where I'm talking about.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jimmy_C on 11/23/2014 09:14 pm
It does seem like a logical place to mount them -- even though it looks like a pusher system, with the force attachment on the upper ring it would behave more like a tractor system.
I think you are both looking at the wrong spot.  Here is where I'm talking about.

Silly question, sorry if it's been asked before... I just wondered how much noise those SuperDraco engines make? They seem rather close to the crew compartment. Do the Astronauts inside need earplugs?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Raj2014 on 11/23/2014 09:33 pm
Does anyone know what the length of Dragon V2 is? without the trunk attached. I have looked on websites', they say it is 6.1/2 metres', is this with the trunk or without?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 11/23/2014 10:31 pm
It does seem like a logical place to mount them -- even though it looks like a pusher system, with the force attachment on the upper ring it would behave more like a tractor system.
I think you are both looking at the wrong spot.  Here is where I'm talking about.

OK, that might be correct.  I was looking at the top:
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jcc on 11/23/2014 11:59 pm
It does seem like a logical place to mount them -- even though it looks like a pusher system, with the force attachment on the upper ring it would behave more like a tractor system.
I think you are both looking at the wrong spot.  Here is where I'm talking about.

Silly question, sorry if it's been asked before... I just wondered how much noise those SuperDraco engines make? They seem rather close to the crew compartment. Do the Astronauts inside need earplugs?

9 Merlins make quite a bit of noise also. I think they have noise-cancelling headphones and microphone to communicate, as would be the case in other noisy environments.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dorkmo on 11/24/2014 12:12 am
looks like there is a small bolt attachment point on teh wall of it aswell.

also i dont see anything on the superdraco housing that would indicate it, but those mounting points on the roof line up with the tabs on teh walls

also, judging from the sign on the door, and the cleaned weld paths. it looks like it was having its welds xrayed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/24/2014 03:08 pm
Have they pushed the Pad Abort and Launch abort back to January and February yet?  If so, what dates?

Last I heard, this was likely due to shuffling of launch schedule.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mossy2100 on 12/16/2014 11:57 am
Hi guys

I'm working on some calculations for spacecraft designs that incorporate the new Dragon spacecraft. However, I'm having some difficulty finding masses for individual elements of the spacecraft. If anyone could help, that would be greatly appreciated.

I have a dry mass for the spacecraft of 4200kg. My questions are:

- How much of this is trunk? Apparently the v1 trunk weighed 681kg, but then the v1 dry mass was only 3180kg.

- How much do the SuperDraco thrusters add? I ask because one spacecraft (a MAV) doesn't need the SuperDracos (it uses a dedicated ascent stage instead) and the capsule would be modified by having the SuperDracos and heat shield removed. I am trying to estimate how that would alter the mass (I've estimated the mass of the PICA-X heat shield at 200kg).

- How much NTO/MMH propellant can the Dragon v2 carry? Perhaps a more pertinent question is, how much would it need to land on Mars? (I assume the maximum amount possible.)

Thanks so much
Mossy
 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 12/16/2014 12:52 pm
DragonFly is the Dragon 2 propulsive landing test vehicle. According to the FAA EIS papers it's 13 feet wide (3.962m), 17 feet (5.181m) high and masses ~14,000 lbs (6,350.3 kg) empty. 

They also give a propellant volume of 400 gallons, guesstimating  about 1,550-1,600 kg.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mossy2100 on 12/16/2014 01:59 pm
Thanks for that. I will look up DragonFly.

I found in "RED DRAGON-MSL HYBRID LANDING ARCHITECTURE FOR 2018" (Grover et al 2012) they calculated 1900kg of propellant required for soft landing on Mars.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 12/16/2014 02:25 pm
Pardon the interruption, but what is the current timeline for the first crewed test flight of V2? 2016?

And, while I'm asking, has SpaceX made any statements about V2 on a Falcon Heavy (in case the BFR is delayed)?

Just checking. Thanks. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 12/16/2014 02:33 pm
has SpaceX made any statements about V2 on a Falcon Heavy (in case the BFR is delayed)?

In a recent presentation Garrett Reisman, responsible for Dragon 2, has stated that they presently are not planning to manrate Falcon Heavy.

It should be possible though if required.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 12/16/2014 03:03 pm
Pardon the interruption, but what is the current timeline for the first crewed test flight of V2? 2016?

And, while I'm asking, has SpaceX made any statements about V2 on a Falcon Heavy (in case the BFR is delayed)?

Just checking. Thanks.

Dragon 2 (V2) has no connection with BFR.  It will fly on existing F9 v1.1.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/16/2014 03:07 pm
And, while I'm asking, has SpaceX made any statements about V2 on a Falcon Heavy (in case the BFR is delayed)?

Just to clarify, Dragon 2.0 is exclusively an Earth-to-LEO crew/cargo shuttle. It does not have a BLEO explorer mission and would probably need a partial or even total redesign to do so.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 12/16/2014 03:14 pm
Thanks for that. I will look up DragonFly.

I found in "RED DRAGON-MSL HYBRID LANDING ARCHITECTURE FOR 2018" (Grover et al 2012) they calculated 1900kg of propellant required for soft landing on Mars.

DragonFly Final FAA EA....(pdf) (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/DragonFly_Final_EA_sm.pdf)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/16/2014 03:35 pm
Have they pushed the Pad Abort and Launch abort back to January and February yet?  If so, what dates?

Last I heard, this was likely due to shuffling of launch schedule.

The lack of news on the 2 abort tests is the most troubling aspect to SpaceX at this point. 

Hopefully we here something soon and get some dates.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Tomness on 12/16/2014 06:25 pm
Have they pushed the Pad Abort and Launch abort back to January and February yet?  If so, what dates?

Last I heard, this was likely due to shuffling of launch schedule.

The lack of news on the 2 abort tests is the most troubling aspect to SpaceX at this point. 

Hopefully we here something soon and get some dates.

Well they have till till March to get them finished, but they have won a reward for CCtcap, which they said they where already binding metal for - At least they should have been able to do Pad Abort but won't know if Oribital's mishap made them stand down & be ready launch dragon on call past mid November which they said it was fine to be on schedule with minimal cargo shuffling- In-flight should be Jan- with with the SLC-4 pad mods finished- but who really knows, heck it may have been nasa call to have them wait so they can get paid for awards later
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/19/2014 04:56 pm
I'll write this up and give us another Crewed Dragon thread. My goal is to have enough threads to have a standalone section closer to her test flight.


December 19, 2014
SpaceX Completes First Milestone for Commercial Crew Transportation System

Commercial Crew Transportation. The Mission is in Sight.

Commercial Crew Transportation. The Mission is in Sight.

Image Credit: NASA
NASA has approved the completion of SpaceX’s first milestone in the company’s path toward launching crews to the International Space Station (ISS) from U.S. soil under a Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract with the agency.

During the Certification Baseline Review, SpaceX described its current design baseline including how the company plans to manufacture its Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v.1.1 rocket, then launch, fly, land and recover the crew. The company also outlined how it will achieve NASA certification of its system to enable transport of crews to and from the space station.

“This milestone sets the pace for the rigorous work ahead as SpaceX meets the certification requirements outlined in our contract,” said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. “It is very exciting to see SpaceX's proposed path to certification, including a flight test phase and completion of the system development.”

On Sept. 16, the agency unveiled its selection of SpaceX and Boeing to transport U.S. crews to and from the space station using their Crew Dragon and CST-100 spacecraft, respectively. These contracts will end the nation’s sole reliance on Russia and allow the station’s current crew of six to increase, enabling more research aboard the unique microgravity laboratory.

Under the CCtCap contracts, the companies will complete NASA certification of their human space transportation systems, including a crewed flight test with at least one NASA astronaut aboard, to verify the fully integrated rocket and spacecraft system can launch from the United States, maneuver in orbit, and dock to the space station, and validate its systems perform as expected.

Throughout the next few years, SpaceX will test its systems, materials and concept of operations to the limits to prove they are safe to transport astronauts to the station. Once certified, the Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket will be processed and integrated inside a new hangar before being rolled out for launch. This will all take place at the historic Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The Crew Dragon is expected to be able to dock to the station for up to 210 days and serve as a 24-hour safe haven during an emergency in space.

“SpaceX designed the Dragon spacecraft with the ultimate goal of transporting people to space,” said Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer. “Successful completion of the Certification Baseline Review represents a critical step in that effort—we applaud our team’s hard work to date and look forward to helping NASA return the transport of U.S. astronauts to American soil.”

By expanding the station crew size and enabling private companies to handle launches to low-Earth orbit -- a region NASA has been visiting since 1962 -- the nation's space agency can focus on getting the most research and experience out of America's investment in ISS. NASA also can expand its focus to develop the Space Launch System and Orion capsule for missions in the proving ground of deep space beyond the moon to advance the skills and techniques that will enable humans to explore Mars.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Earendil on 01/29/2015 03:03 pm
It might have been discussed somewhere, but my search did not come up with anything..

Why is now V2 aiming for water landing / splash? We all know from the beginning that chute landing will come before the propulsive landing, but I always thought an a-la soyuz landing is what they were after at first.

Suddenly all these talks, about their landing being far superior to the "a-la crash-landing " of the, cts look .. empty..

Surely the SDs are more than capable to cushion the landing?!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Owlon on 01/29/2015 03:20 pm
It might have been discussed somewhere, but my search did not come up with anything..

Why is now V2 aiming for water landing / splash? We all know from the beginning that chute landing will come before the propulsive landing, but I always thought an a-la soyuz landing is what they were after at first.

Suddenly all these talks, about their landing being far superior to the "a-la crash-landing " of the, cts look .. empty..

Surely the SDs are more than capable to cushion the landing?!

Most likely it is related to certification. It will be easier to get certified to land in the same way as current cargo dragons than a method never used on Dragon (Soyuz-type land landing) or a method never used on a manned spacecraft (fully propulsive landing). I'm sure the Superdracos are capable of a fully propulsive landing, but they'll probably do a few years of testing under the Dragonfly program before they start trying to do it with manned flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: NovaSilisko on 01/29/2015 03:47 pm
My assumption is also regulatory - have to make sure that the thing can land precisely and not over/undershoot. You don't want a capsule full of hypergolics crashing down in Titusville or something. Or anywhere else.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 01/29/2015 04:00 pm
Yeah, the bottom line is that water landing is easier to get approved so that flights can start, and has nothing to do with the inherent capabilities of the craft or the long-term operations plan.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: BobHk on 01/29/2015 04:25 pm
It does seem like a logical place to mount them -- even though it looks like a pusher system, with the force attachment on the upper ring it would behave more like a tractor system.
I think you are both looking at the wrong spot.  Here is where I'm talking about.

Silly question, sorry if it's been asked before... I just wondered how much noise those SuperDraco engines make? They seem rather close to the crew compartment. Do the Astronauts inside need earplugs?

This report, on page 91 and after, has most of the info I have been able to find...

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/DragonFly_Final_EA_sm.pdf

Page 94 has a nice pic  of the McGregor facilities (grasshopper pad, dragonrider site, et cetera) in relation to surrounding properties and McGregor itself.

P96 has a nice baseline noise parameter study map of the falcon 9 test stand

Page 97 of the article lists the acoustic efficiency of the superdraco test article at ".3% based on total mechanical power of the engine".

Page 99 a list of the proposed dragonfly ops

page 101 and 102 have the superdraco db levels and contour maps for the test area that you are looking for; approx 65db IN McGregor proper






Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 01/29/2015 04:52 pm
Page 3-20 - did we know about the location of these facilities already?   The place marked as "Dragon Fly Test Area" - isn't there some tall structure there already, and has been for a while?

Also note the Dragon Decontamination Area.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: malenfant on 01/29/2015 04:53 pm
I expect them to push propulsive landing into their CRS2 bid.

I imagine they will splash down under chutes  until they have not only completed Dragonfly testing but flown a number of propulsive cargo landings with a cargo adaptation of Dragon2.  Probably proceeded by a propulsive demonstration flight in support of Crs2.

The trouble with the chutes+rockets dustdown mode is that it's a whole other landing mode to certify but it doesn't necessarily contribute much data for fully propulsive.  Not over and above what you might learn from dragonfly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: moralec on 01/29/2015 05:58 pm
Page 3-20 - did we know about the location of these facilities already?   The place marked as "Dragon Fly Test Area" - isn't there some tall structure there already, and has been for a while?

Also note the Dragon Decontamination Area.

This is the Dragon Rider Test Area as appears in google maps. The image appears to be from this year. Wasn't this the Falcon9R launchpad?

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 01/29/2015 05:59 pm
Page 3-20 - did we know about the location of these facilities already?   The place marked as "Dragon Fly Test Area" - isn't there some tall structure there already, and has been for a while?

Also note the Dragon Decontamination Area.

This is the Dragon Rider Test Area as appears in google maps. The image appears to be from this year. Wasn't this the Falcon9R launchpad?

No, that is the Super Draco test stand area. The F9R/Grasshopper pad is below it, see this picture:
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 01/29/2015 06:09 pm
Page 3-20 - did we know about the location of these facilities already?   The place marked as "Dragon Fly Test Area" - isn't there some tall structure there already, and has been for a while?

Also note the Dragon Decontamination Area.

This is the Dragon Rider Test Area as appears in google maps. The image appears to be from this year. Wasn't this the Falcon9R launchpad?

No, that is the Super Draco test stand area. The F9R/Grasshopper pad is below it, see this picture:

So if we're talking about static tests, meaning strap the DR down to a gantry and fire the engines, then it makes sense to co-locate it with the thruster test stand.  You have the infrastructure, and since you're not flying, no problem.

If we're talking about DragonRider test flights, then it's a different matter, and I always assumed it'd be flown from the same pad as F9R was, though on second thought a dedicated pad area is better.   But a dedicated pad area can't be co-located with a static test stand.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 01/29/2015 06:30 pm
I went back to look at *JimNtexas* great pictures from his latest overflight - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35426.msg1321109#msg1321109 - And there is one new area that is under construction just north of the SD test stand. Could it be where DragonFly will do its hops? Either there or at the F9R pad, I would expect.

(Image based on a JimNtexas photo)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 01/29/2015 06:59 pm
I went back to look at *JimNtexas* great pictures from his latest overflight - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35426.msg1321109#msg1321109 - And there is one new area that is under construction just north of the SD test stand. Could it be where DragonFly will do its hops? Either there or at the F9R pad, I would expect.

(Image based on a JimNtexas photo)
Yup.  That would be a nice sight.  I've been waiting for that ever since propulsive Dragon was announced, I thought it makes sense to do hop and hover tests before trying an abort.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: freds on 01/30/2015 01:02 am
Yup.  That would be a nice sight.  I've been waiting for that ever since propulsive Dragon was announced, I thought it makes sense to do hop and hover tests before trying an abort.

Hop and hover involves fine control; abort is more like light the fire and hang on! Much simpler to do!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 01/30/2015 07:08 am
Yup.  That would be a nice sight.  I've been waiting for that ever since propulsive Dragon was announced, I thought it makes sense to do hop and hover tests before trying an abort.

Hop and hover involves fine control; abort is more like light the fire and hang on! Much simpler to do!

I agree. I think that is why we don't see any hops yet. They want to do the abort first and then tackle the more difficult task that has a risk of losing the vehicle.

Not that I am qualified to make an authoritative statement.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/30/2015 08:24 am
I expect them to push propulsive landing into their CRS2 bid.

I imagine they will splash down under chutes  until they have not only completed Dragonfly testing but flown a number of propulsive cargo landings with a cargo adaptation of Dragon2.  Probably proceeded by a propulsive demonstration flight in support of Crs2.

The trouble with the chutes+rockets dustdown mode is that it's a whole other landing mode to certify but it doesn't necessarily contribute much data for fully propulsive.  Not over and above what you might learn from dragonfly.

No, they've said Dragon 1 will continue to fly cargo for several years after Dragon 2 starts flying crew.  CRS2 starts too early for that to be the case if they bid Dragon 2 for CRS2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: gongora on 01/30/2015 06:43 pm
No, they've said Dragon 1 will continue to fly cargo for several years after Dragon 2 starts flying crew.  CRS2 starts too early for that to be the case if they bid Dragon 2 for CRS2.

Given the lengths of these contracts it would be prudent for them to offer both versions of Dragon for CRS2 with different landing options, they could offer multiple mission configurations in the bid.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: malenfant on 01/30/2015 08:14 pm
I just don't see them being allowed to try the brown pants maneuver with humans until they've used it on several unmanned  returns.  They are going to want somebody to pay for those flights and crs is all I can think of.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 01/30/2015 08:59 pm
I just don't see them being allowed to try the brown pants maneuver with humans until they've used it on several unmanned  returns.  They are going to want somebody to pay for those flights and crs is all I can think of.
I think this is a good idea.  But Dragon V2 is designed to mate with the NASA Docking System (which is compatible with the International Docking System Standard.)  While the NDS is intended to support berthing and docking via as well as be used for crew and cargo, it is significantly smaller than the CBM used by the current Dragon.

So for SpaceX to use the V2 for cargo, they would be restricted by missions that did not have cargo requiring the larger port.  Or they would have to build a cargo version that could mate to the CBM.  Both of these may be possible, but they are definitely "hurdles" in using the V2 for cargo missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: CJ on 01/30/2015 11:50 pm
I just don't see them being allowed to try the brown pants maneuver with humans until they've used it on several unmanned  returns.  They are going to want somebody to pay for those flights and crs is all I can think of.
I think this is a good idea.  But Dragon V2 is designed to mate with the NASA Docking System (which is compatible with the International Docking System Standard.)  While the NDS is intended to support berthing and docking via as well as be used for crew and cargo, it is significantly smaller than the CBM used by the current Dragon.

So for SpaceX to use the V2 for cargo, they would be restricted by missions that did not have cargo requiring the larger port.  Or they would have to build a cargo version that could mate to the CBM.  Both of these may be possible, but they are definitely "hurdles" in using the V2 for cargo missions.

There are indications that SpaceX plans to use the IDA for docking Dragon 1 (Cargo Dragon) to ISS, so they may well get experience docking before Dragon 2 flies.   

A quote that leads me to that conclusion, taken from Chris's excellent new article on Boeing's CST-100;
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/01/cst-100-part-intertwined-forward-path/

Quote
“The International Docking Adaptor (IDA) was turned over (to NASA) last week,” Mr. Elbon added. “It will fly on Gwynne’s spaceship (referring to SpaceX President Ms. Shotwell and the CRS Dragon) later this year.

Hrmmm, I wonder... if IDA can be used on a cargo Dragon, why can't CBM be placed on a cargo version of Dragon 2?

Edit; I misinterpreted the quote. It meant a Dragon would be taking the adapter to ISS, not using it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: okan170 on 01/30/2015 11:57 pm
Hrmmm, I wonder... if IDA can be used on a cargo Dragon, why can't CBM be placed on a cargo version of Dragon 2?

I'd imagine the Dragon 2 has a much more complex articulated assembly up front, which might complicate things?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 01/30/2015 11:59 pm
>
There are indications that SpaceX plans to use the IDA for docking Dragon 1 (Cargo Dragon) to ISS, so they may well get experience docking before Dragon 2 flies.   

A quote that leads me to that conclusion, taken from Chris's excellent new article on Boeing's CST-100;

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/01/cst-100-part-intertwined-forward-path/

Quote
“The International Docking Adaptor (IDA) was turned over (to NASA) last week,” Mr. Elbon added. “It will fly on Gwynne’s spaceship (referring to SpaceX President Ms. Shotwell and the CRS Dragon) later this year.

Hrmmm, I wonder... if IDA can be used on a cargo Dragon, why can't CBM be placed on a cargo version of Dragon 2?

He meant that the ISS-side crew docking  adapter goes up in Dragon's trunk.later this year. CRS-8 I believe.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rpapo on 01/31/2015 12:02 am

He meant that the ISS-side crew docking  adapter goes up in Dragon's trunk.later this year. CRS-8 I believe.
Earlier than that.  CRS-8 is taking up the BEAM.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/31/2015 12:02 am
Hrmmm, I wonder... if IDA can be used on a cargo Dragon, why can't CBM be placed on a cargo version of Dragon 2?

I'd imagine the Dragon 2 has a much more complex articulated assembly up front, which might complicate things?

Agreed. The easiest way to do something like that would be to delete the articulating nose cone and replace it with an expendable nose cap/fairing, much like the current Dragon does it. That would also involve a change to the outer mold line and will change entry aerodynamics at least somewhat, perhaps not enough to matter.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 01/31/2015 12:03 am

He meant that the ISS-side crew docking  adapter goes up in Dragon's trunk.later this year. CRS-8 I believe.
Earlier than that.  CRS-8 is taking up the BEAM.
Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: CJ on 01/31/2015 12:22 am
>
There are indications that SpaceX plans to use the IDA for docking Dragon 1 (Cargo Dragon) to ISS, so they may well get experience docking before Dragon 2 flies.   

A quote that leads me to that conclusion, taken from Chris's excellent new article on Boeing's CST-100;

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/01/cst-100-part-intertwined-forward-path/

Quote
“The International Docking Adaptor (IDA) was turned over (to NASA) last week,” Mr. Elbon added. “It will fly on Gwynne’s spaceship (referring to SpaceX President Ms. Shotwell and the CRS Dragon) later this year.

Hrmmm, I wonder... if IDA can be used on a cargo Dragon, why can't CBM be placed on a cargo version of Dragon 2?

He meant that the ISS-side crew docking  adapter goes up in Dragon's trunk.later this year. CRS-8 I believe.

Oops, my bad. Thanks!!!

Hrmm... as for testing propulsive landings... will Dragon2 be capable of unmanned Dragonlab missions? A propulsive landing might be a big plus for certain kinds of research materials - much less time to get it out of the spacecraft and into the lab. .

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/31/2015 02:23 am
The cheapest way for SpaceX to test propulsive landing of Dragon V2 isn't to try to make a modified version of V2 with a different nose.  The cheapest way is to simply wait until they have some used Dragon V2s from the crew flights NASA is paying for, then use them in the DragonFly program.  Have them lift off under their own power and land propulsively.

That also has the bonus that it's consistent with what SpaceX has said.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 01/31/2015 08:19 am
The cheapest way for SpaceX to test propulsive landing of Dragon V2 isn't to try to make a modified version of V2 with a different nose.  The cheapest way is to simply wait until they have some used Dragon V2s from the crew flights NASA is paying for, then use them in the DragonFly program.  Have them lift off under their own power and land propulsively.

That also has the bonus that it's consistent with what SpaceX has said.

And when they want what would basically be a full-up test, they can put one on top of a recovered core/F9R-dev. and launch in New Mexico.  They can put it up to ~100km on a ballistic, suborbital trajectory and land propulsively after it's reentered.  TA-DA!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Nomadd on 01/31/2015 08:27 am
The cheapest way for SpaceX to test propulsive landing of Dragon V2 isn't to try to make a modified version of V2 with a different nose.  The cheapest way is to simply wait until they have some used Dragon V2s from the crew flights NASA is paying for, then use them in the DragonFly program.  Have them lift off under their own power and land propulsively.

That also has the bonus that it's consistent with what SpaceX has said.

Not so easy changing things after full scale production starts. They might need some testing prior to making certain decisions regarding final configuration. Moving a mold line an inch or something is no small deal anytime, much less after you get the production locked down.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kevinof on 01/31/2015 08:44 am
Do we know if the same Dragon is going to be used for both pad and in-flight abort tests? I'm assuming it's not. If they are different vehicles then why not use the pad abort vehicle to test propulsive landings after it's done the test?  The test is going to happen soon(ish) so would give SpaceX lots of time to test and refine, and get changes through into production.


The cheapest way for SpaceX to test propulsive landing of Dragon V2 isn't to try to make a modified version of V2 with a different nose.  The cheapest way is to simply wait until they have some used Dragon V2s from the crew flights NASA is paying for, then use them in the DragonFly program.  Have them lift off under their own power and land propulsively.

That also has the bonus that it's consistent with what SpaceX has said.

Not so easy changing things after full scale production starts. They might need some testing prior to making certain decisions regarding final configuration. Moving a mold line an inch or something is no small deal anytime, much less after you get the production locked down.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 01/31/2015 08:53 am
Do we know if the same Dragon is going to be used for both pad and in-flight abort tests? I'm assuming it's not. If they are different vehicles then why not use the pad abort vehicle to test propulsive landings after it's done the test?  The test is going to happen soon(ish) so would give SpaceX lots of time to test and refine, and get changes through into production.

Shotwell stated this week that the pad abort vehicle would be reused for the flight abort.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kevinof on 01/31/2015 09:25 am
Ok  missed that. Guess that dings my suggestion of using it for testing. Oh well.

thanks

Do we know if the same Dragon is going to be used for both pad and in-flight abort tests? I'm assuming it's not. If they are different vehicles then why not use the pad abort vehicle to test propulsive landings after it's done the test?  The test is going to happen soon(ish) so would give SpaceX lots of time to test and refine, and get changes through into production.

Shotwell stated this week that the pad abort vehicle would be reused for the flight abort.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: malenfant on 01/31/2015 09:53 am
The cheapest way for SpaceX to test propulsive landing of Dragon V2 isn't to try to make a modified version of V2 with a different nose.  The cheapest way is to simply wait until they have some used Dragon V2s from the crew flights NASA is paying for, then use them in the DragonFly program.  Have them lift off under their own power and land propulsively.

That also has the bonus that it's consistent with what SpaceX has said.

And when they want what would basically be a full-up test, they can put one on top of a recovered core/F9R-dev. and launch in New Mexico.  They can put it up to ~100km on a ballistic, suborbital trajectory and land propulsively after it's reentered.  TA-DA!

Neither of those tests validates the entire flight sequence so I doubt that they will be considered sufficient.  Test as you fly.

As for articulated nose caps,  I'll believe it when I see it.  Propulsive landing has been deleted since the dragon 2 reveal, who says details like an articulated nose are still in?  Articulated nose never made sense to me any way.  Seemed like a lot of extra weight and mechanical complexity to reuse something that should be very cheap to manufacture.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/31/2015 10:00 am
The cheapest way for SpaceX to test propulsive landing of Dragon V2 isn't to try to make a modified version of V2 with a different nose.  The cheapest way is to simply wait until they have some used Dragon V2s from the crew flights NASA is paying for, then use them in the DragonFly program.  Have them lift off under their own power and land propulsively.

That also has the bonus that it's consistent with what SpaceX has said.

Not so easy changing things after full scale production starts. They might need some testing prior to making certain decisions regarding final configuration. Moving a mold line an inch or something is no small deal anytime, much less after you get the production locked down.

It's a question of trade-offs.  If you have to multiply the odds of a major change times the cost of making that change later in the production run versus the cost of building a whole additional, early copy of the vehicle just to do earlier landing tests.

Statements by SpaceX that they won't be doing DragonFly testing for at least a year or two is pretty strong evidence of how they think the trade-offs pan out.

It's only less expensive to build another prototype and test it early if your prototype production processes are very different from your production processes.  That's true for cars, because they are very high volume production lines.  It's much less likely to be true with Dragon 2, which is going to be flying 1-2 times a year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/31/2015 10:10 am
The cheapest way for SpaceX to test propulsive landing of Dragon V2 isn't to try to make a modified version of V2 with a different nose.  The cheapest way is to simply wait until they have some used Dragon V2s from the crew flights NASA is paying for, then use them in the DragonFly program.  Have them lift off under their own power and land propulsively.

That also has the bonus that it's consistent with what SpaceX has said.

And when they want what would basically be a full-up test, they can put one on top of a recovered core/F9R-dev. and launch in New Mexico.  They can put it up to ~100km on a ballistic, suborbital trajectory and land propulsively after it's reentered.  TA-DA!

Neither of those tests validates the entire flight sequence so I doubt that they will be considered sufficient.  Test as you fly.

As for articulated nose caps,  I'll believe it when I see it.  Propulsive lannding has beeen deleted since the dragon 2 reveal, who says details like an articulated nose are still in?  Articulated nose never made sense to me any way.  Seemed like a lot of extra weight and mechanical complexity to reuse something that should be very cheap to manufacture.

It seems they moved away from propulsive landing for early missions because NASA was scared of it.  It's understandable NASA would be scared of that.  It's harder to believe NASA would be scared of an articulated nosecone.

Changing to a different docking adapter is more than substituting the nose cone.  It's a significant hardware change.  Doing a parachute landing in the water doesn't actually change the hardware at all -- they simply won't be using the option of propulsive landing.  Parachute landing has always been a capability that is needed for abort anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kirghizstan on 01/31/2015 10:33 am
Propulsive landing has been deleted since the dragon 2 reveal


I believe you are wrong as they have said for a LONG time that they will start with water landing and progress to propulsive landing through stages.  This actually reduces your initial schedule risk by not having a completely unproven technology mandatory to the capsules use.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 01/31/2015 11:13 am
I believe you are wrong as they have said for a LONG time that they will start with water landing and progress to propulsive landing through stages.  This actually reduces your initial schedule risk by not having a completely unproven technology mandatory to the capsules use.

When?

Garrett Reismann (ya know, head of the Dragon 2 program?) said in September that they would be starting with parachutes to land landings with shock absorbing legs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/31/2015 12:32 pm
I thought I heard mention of propulsive splashdown during the announcement.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/31/2015 12:51 pm

As for articulated nose caps,  I'll believe it when I see it.  Propulsive landing has been deleted since the dragon 2 reveal, who says details like an articulated nose are still in?  Articulated nose never made sense to me any way.  Seemed like a lot of extra weight and mechanical complexity to reuse something that should be very cheap to manufacture.

The articulating nose cap isn't there to avoid the cost of building a new nose cap. It's there to protect the relatively complex and fairly expensive mechanical docking mechanism from entry heating effects.

Remember, SpaceX's long-term goal is to drive costs lower. If they can front-load a relatively low cost/low complexity thing like a motor and hinge, thus saving the recurring cost for a much more complicated and expensive docking mechanism, that's an easy trade.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: malenfant on 01/31/2015 02:45 pm

As for articulated nose caps,  I'll believe it when I see it.  Propulsive landing has been deleted since the dragon 2 reveal, who says details like an articulated nose are still in?  Articulated nose never made sense to me any way.  Seemed like a lot of extra weight and mechanical complexity to reuse something that should be very cheap to manufacture.

The articulating nose cap isn't there to avoid the cost of building a new nose cap. It's there to protect the relatively complex and fairly expensive mechanical docking mechanism from entry heating effects.

Remember, SpaceX's long-term goal is to drive costs lower. If they can front-load a relatively low cost/low complexity thing like a motor and hinge, thus saving the recurring cost for a much more complicated and expensive docking mechanism, that's an easy trade.

The jetisonable nose cone protects the docking hardware just as well as a hinged one.  It's done a great job on dragon1.  Obviously there are some tradeoffs in the hinged concept or dragon1 would have it.

The main bennefit that I can see with the hinge is that it looks cooler in the promo videos to not throw away another bit of hardware.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/31/2015 03:03 pm

As for articulated nose caps,  I'll believe it when I see it.  Propulsive landing has been deleted since the dragon 2 reveal, who says details like an articulated nose are still in?  Articulated nose never made sense to me any way.  Seemed like a lot of extra weight and mechanical complexity to reuse something that should be very cheap to manufacture.

The articulating nose cap isn't there to avoid the cost of building a new nose cap. It's there to protect the relatively complex and fairly expensive mechanical docking mechanism from entry heating effects.

Remember, SpaceX's long-term goal is to drive costs lower. If they can front-load a relatively low cost/low complexity thing like a motor and hinge, thus saving the recurring cost for a much more complicated and expensive docking mechanism, that's an easy trade.

The jetisonable nose cone protects the docking hardware just as well as a hinged one.  It's done a great job on dragon1.  Obviously there are some tradeoffs in the hinged concept or dragon1 would have it.

On launch, sure. An expendable fairing works just fine. It won't do a thing to protect the mechanism on entry or after splashdown for potential re-use.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: malenfant on 01/31/2015 05:33 pm

As for articulated nose caps,  I'll believe it when I see it.  Propulsive landing has been deleted since the dragon 2 reveal, who says details like an articulated nose are still in?  Articulated nose never made sense to me any way.  Seemed like a lot of extra weight and mechanical complexity to reuse something that should be very cheap to manufacture.

The articulating nose cap isn't there to avoid the cost of building a new nose cap. It's there to protect the relatively complex and fairly expensive mechanical docking mechanism from entry heating effects.

Remember, SpaceX's long-term goal is to drive costs lower. If they can front-load a relatively low cost/low complexity thing like a motor and hinge, thus saving the recurring cost for a much more complicated and expensive docking mechanism, that's an easy trade.

The jetisonable nose cone protects the docking hardware just as well as a hinged one.  It's done a great job on dragon1.  Obviously there are some tradeoffs in the hinged concept or dragon1 would have it.

On launch, sure. An expendable fairing works just fine. It won't do a thing to protect the mechanism on entry or after splashdown for potential re-use.

Ok, point taken.  Not sure how i missed that in your previous post.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 01/31/2015 11:50 pm
The cheapest way for SpaceX to test propulsive landing of Dragon V2 isn't to try to make a modified version of V2 with a different nose.  The cheapest way is to simply wait until they have some used Dragon V2s from the crew flights NASA is paying for, then use them in the DragonFly program.  Have them lift off under their own power and land propulsively.

That also has the bonus that it's consistent with what SpaceX has said.

And when they want what would basically be a full-up test, they can put one on top of a recovered core/F9R-dev. and launch in New Mexico.  They can put it up to ~100km on a ballistic, suborbital trajectory and land propulsively after it's reentered.  TA-DA!
Neither of those tests validates the entire flight sequence so I doubt that they will be considered sufficient.  Test as you fly.

Why should that be a requirement for a test?  If that's the only testing that matters then why are they bothering with the altitude drops of the DragonFly?  You're grossly misinterpreting "Test as you fly".  The point is to identify some element/regime that needs testing/validation, then try to simulate that as realistically as possible.  But if you can get high fidelity to the conditions for which you want to test in more than one way there's no reason to choose the most expensive/dangerous one.  Sure, SpaceX would ideally want to test the propulsive landing on a V2 coming back from orbit.  But there are lots of cheaper/easier ways to individually test the various parts of that whole. 

A Dragon V2 launch to 100km on top of a F9R-dev would let them test their ability to aim/steer the capsule to a targeted landing area at high speeds after reentry.  As well as controlled propulsive landing from terminal velocity.  Of course, they could also test those things by actually launching a D2 to orbit then reentering it.  And I'm sure some of those things will be done on actual flights (at least the unmanned flight).  But dedicated test launches would be much more expensive and the licensing/permitting much more complex.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/01/2015 05:56 pm
I think the switch to water landings might have to do with the added language to recent NASA related bills that required NASA and commercial crew to put safety above everything else (or some nonsense like that). It might have caused NASA and subsequently SpaceX to take a more conservative approach until propulsive landing is proven safe (with a lot of tests). As for using a Dragon v2 for cargo, I wonder whether there will ever be supply runs that do not require the larger opening of the docking port, so that SpaceX can use a Dragon v2 instead. Maybe with a bit of planning by both NASA and SpaceX?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 02/01/2015 10:49 pm
As for using a Dragon v2 for cargo, I wonder whether there will ever be supply runs that do not require the larger opening of the docking port, so that SpaceX can use a Dragon v2 instead. Maybe with a bit of planning by both NASA and SpaceX?

Have any of the missions so far carried cargo that actually required a CBM sized port? I thought it was pretty much only ISP Racks that required that size opening.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: arachnitect on 02/01/2015 11:28 pm
As for using a Dragon v2 for cargo, I wonder whether there will ever be supply runs that do not require the larger opening of the docking port, so that SpaceX can use a Dragon v2 instead. Maybe with a bit of planning by both NASA and SpaceX?

Have any of the missions so far carried cargo that actually required a CBM sized port? I thought it was pretty much only ISP Racks that required that size opening.

Someone said the compressed gas tanks used to replenish station atmosphere won't fit through the docking adapters.

If they can't consolidate cargo into the larger "M" bags it means longer to unpack the vehicle. Not sure how much of a problem this is though... just tell the astros there's ice cream at the bottom and watch 'em fly through it.

Using one of the docking adapters may interfere with crew rotation (NASA wants 2 docking ports available when crew vehicles arrive).

Trunk access for the SSRMS could be an issue.

All that said, NASA didn't rule out using the docking ports for CRS II, but the RFP did say that proposers would have to explain it in detail.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/01/2015 11:31 pm
I think the switch to water landings might have to do with the added language to recent NASA related bills that required NASA and commercial crew to put safety above everything else (or some nonsense like that). It might have caused NASA and subsequently SpaceX to take a more conservative approach until propulsive landing is proven safe (with a lot of tests). As for using a Dragon v2 for cargo, I wonder whether there will ever be supply runs that do not require the larger opening of the docking port, so that SpaceX can use a Dragon v2 instead. Maybe with a bit of planning by both NASA and SpaceX?

If so, it will be as part of a change in the contract negotiated later or as an option.  I think we can be pretty certain that SpaceX's baseline CRS2 bid is for Dragon 1 and does not depend on Dragon 2, if only so NASA doesn't ding them for development schedule risk.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Roy_H on 02/02/2015 02:59 pm
SpaceX has stated that eventually D2 would replace D1 for supply. That means there will be a version of D2 designed for berthing with the larger cargo port. Why not sooner than later? NASA has been very good at encouraging innovation at SpaceX, so I don't think NASA would say no to delivering supplies via modified D2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 02/02/2015 03:02 pm
SpaceX has stated that eventually D2 would replace D1 for supply. That means there will be a version of D2 designed for berthing with the larger cargo ports. Why not sooner than later? NASA has been very good at encouraging innovation at SpaceX, so I don't think NASA would say no to delivering supplies via modified D2.

Agreed. SpaceX will develop 2 versions of D2; one for cargo and one for crew.
It is more efficient to have 2 versions of the same spacecraft than to have 2 different spacecraft.
For now they will concentrate on crew Dragon, then back-fit to cargo.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 02/02/2015 03:14 pm
SpaceX has stated that eventually D2 would replace D1 for supply. That means there will be a version of D2 designed for berthing with the larger cargo ports. Why not sooner than later? NASA has been very good at encouraging innovation at SpaceX, so I don't think NASA would say no to delivering supplies via modified D2.

Agreed. SpaceX will develop 2 versions of D2; one for cargo and one for crew.
It is more efficient to have 2 versions of the same spacecraft than to have 2 different spacecraft.
For now they will concentrate on crew Dragon, then back-fit to cargo.
I agree, the only question in my mind is what the timeline will be.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 02/02/2015 03:17 pm

He meant that the ISS-side crew docking  adapter goes up in Dragon's trunk.later this year. CRS-8 I believe.
Earlier than that.  CRS-8 is taking up the BEAM.

CRS-7 is scheduled to take the first NASA Docking Adapter, if Wikipedia is to be believed, sometime this June.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-7))
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Comga on 02/02/2015 03:43 pm

He meant that the ISS-side crew docking  adapter goes up in Dragon's trunk.later this year. CRS-8 I believe.
Earlier than that.  CRS-8 is taking up the BEAM.

CRS-7 is scheduled to take the first NASA Docking Adapter, if Wikipedia is to be believed, sometime this June.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-7))

A quick google search turns up a NASA ISS FPIP from July 2014 (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/ISS-USOS-Program-Status-NAC-Public-July-2014.pdf) which confirmed that IDA #1 was scheduled to ride on CRS-7, which is still scheduled for June 13. (http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/) 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: OSE on 02/02/2015 05:40 pm
We now know the first Dragon V2 landings will be parachute water landings. If in the very unlikely event of a parachute failure (2 chutes don't open/lines break/etc...) will they fire up the SuperDracos in a last ditch effort at a soft landing?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jarnis on 02/02/2015 05:47 pm
We now know the first Dragon V2 landings will be parachute water landings. If in the very unlikely event of a parachute failure (2 chutes don't open/lines break/etc...) will they fire up the SuperDracos in a last ditch effort at a soft landing?

Fairly theoretical, but why wouldn't they? Only reason to not do so that I could think of would be lack of ready-to-use software mode for this purpose for early flights. Still, I would imagine that an emergency/untested/beta/if-you-are-going-to-be-running-this-it-is-already-a-bad-day routine would exist that would try to land using the SuperDracos. What's you got to lose?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/02/2015 05:51 pm
New image:
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RonM on 02/02/2015 05:52 pm
We now know the first Dragon V2 landings will be parachute water landings. If in the very unlikely event of a parachute failure (2 chutes don't open/lines break/etc...) will they fire up the SuperDracos in a last ditch effort at a soft landing?

Fairly theoretical, but why wouldn't they? Only reason to not do so that I could think of would be lack of ready-to-use software mode for this purpose for early flights. Still, I would imagine that an emergency/untested/beta/if-you-are-going-to-be-running-this-it-is-already-a-bad-day routine would exist that would try to land using the SuperDracos. What's you got to lose?

They are not going to have an untested "beta" procedure, especially on a manned flight. What if there was a bug in the code and the SDs fired during a nominal landing? Possible LOC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 02/02/2015 06:01 pm
Do we have any data on how much cargo the Dragon 2 trunk can carry? The requirement that the trunk goes with Dragon on abort must put a limit on it.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 02/02/2015 06:41 pm
New image:

Beautiful!!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kevinof on 02/02/2015 06:49 pm
Lovely. Buck Rogers comes to mind.

New image:
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Barrie on 02/02/2015 06:54 pm
I see the nosecap joins at a jaunty angle.  Was that expected?  Any idea why?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JBF on 02/02/2015 06:55 pm
I see the nosecap joins at a jaunty angle.  Was that expected?  Any idea why?

Yes they needed more room for the parachute mortars.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AS-503 on 02/02/2015 06:59 pm
I see the nosecap joins at a jaunty angle.  Was that expected?  Any idea why?

Yes they needed more room for the parachute mortars.

Yes, that was known since the Dragon 2 reveal. NSF's very own helodriver was at the reveal and took quite a few high-res photos AND a video of the follow-on question and answer session.
The video was even transcribed by NSF's quantumg.

Jaunty? Form follows function.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/02/2015 07:19 pm
What is the purpose of the Ellipse shaped hole in the trunk? I haven't a clue.

Matthew

Edit: This feature does not seem to appear on the animation shown at the reveal event.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Barrie on 02/02/2015 07:35 pm
Yes, that was known since the Dragon 2 reveal. NSF's very own helodriver was at the reveal and took quite a few high-res photos AND a video of the follow-on question and answer session.
:-[ I looked at all  that stuff at the time, and have no recollection of the nose-beret.

I see they put a window in the trunk for coach class passengers  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: NovaSilisko on 02/02/2015 07:44 pm
Do we have any data on how much cargo the Dragon 2 trunk can carry? The requirement that the trunk goes with Dragon on abort must put a limit on it.

Maybe there's a quick release mount that's jettisoned upon an abort being triggered, to shed as much weight from the trunk as possible. Though I mean, the Soyuz abort system carries the entire orbital module along with it, so...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AS-503 on 02/02/2015 07:50 pm
Yes, that was known since the Dragon 2 reveal. NSF's very own helodriver was at the reveal and took quite a few high-res photos AND a video of the follow-on question and answer session.
:-[ I looked at all  that stuff at the time, and have no recollection of the nose-beret.

I see they put a window in the trunk for coach class passengers  :)

Shortly after the unveil Dragon 2 was on display at the Newseum in Washington DC.
Here is the NSF link http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34937.20
It is here that I recall the angle of the nose cone being discussed for the first time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 02/02/2015 08:23 pm
What is the purpose of the Ellipse shaped hole in the trunk? I haven't a clue.

Matthew

Edit: This feature does not seem to appear on the animation shown at the reveal event.

It is a service hatch to access the space after mating to the second stage.  The interstage has a similar opening, which was once used to give the 2nd stage nozel a haircut on the pad.  The opening will be closed up for launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DanielW on 02/02/2015 08:28 pm
What is the purpose of the Ellipse shaped hole in the trunk? I haven't a clue.

Matthew

Edit: This feature does not seem to appear on the animation shown at the reveal event.

It is a service hatch to access the space after mating to the second stage.  The interstage has a similar opening, which was once used to give the 2nd stage nozel a haircut on the pad.  The opening will be closed up for launch.

Ah ha, thanks for that. Any thoughts on why there appear to be two dracos behind the left Nacelle whereas there is only one at other locations?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 02/02/2015 08:55 pm
What is the purpose of the Ellipse shaped hole in the trunk? I haven't a clue.

Matthew

Edit: This feature does not seem to appear on the animation shown at the reveal event.

It is a service hatch to access the space after mating to the second stage.  The interstage has a similar opening, which was once used to give the 2nd stage nozel a haircut on the pad.  The opening will be closed up for launch.

Ah ha, thanks for that. Any thoughts on why there appear to be two dracos behind the left Nacelle whereas there is only one at other locations?
There are actually three on the left and on the extreme right.  You can't see all the Dracos because of the Super Dracos protruding from the Dragon obscure the line of sight.  I believe every SD "pack" has three Dracos on one side, and one Draco on the other.  They all point different directions and I assume the three/one split has to do with space constraints.

See: A photo from the reveal (http://img.new.livestream.com/events/00000000002e63e4/7752163b-703a-4c31-8f4a-eb86b8c9bd80.jpg)

edit: Clarification.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dorkmo on 02/02/2015 09:03 pm
What is the purpose of the Ellipse shaped hole in the trunk? I haven't a clue.

Matthew

Edit: This feature does not seem to appear on the animation shown at the reveal event.

It is a service hatch to access the space after mating to the second stage.  The interstage has a similar opening, which was once used to give the 2nd stage nozel a haircut on the pad.  The opening will be closed up for launch.

Ah ha, thanks for that. Any thoughts on why there appear to be two dracos behind the left Nacelle whereas there is only one at other locations?
There are actually three on the left and on the extreme right.  You can't see all the Dracos because of the Super Dracos protruding from the Dragon obscure the line of sight.  I believe every SD "pack" has three Dracos on one side, and one Draco on the other.  They all point different directions and I assume the three/one split has to do with space constraints.

See: A photo from the reveal (http://img.new.livestream.com/events/00000000002e63e4/7752163b-703a-4c31-8f4a-eb86b8c9bd80.jpg)

edit: Clarification.

i feel like these two dracos are missing from the pad abort dragon?

the two pictures that have been released are pretty much from the same angle. so not sure about the other sides.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 02/02/2015 09:09 pm
Perhaps the Dracos are deliberately "asymmetric" (mirror symmetry as opposed to rotational symmetry) to avoid having one Draco nozzle pointed directly at the crew door?  Looking at the reveal pic it seems significant that all six Dracos shown are pointed away. (Well, the "up" one is close, I'm surprised that's not on the other side of the superdraco, but maybe space constraints gave them no choice.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 02/02/2015 09:23 pm
the two pictures that have been released are pretty much from the same angle

The reveal photo is from the front, the new tweet is from the back [EDIT] more likely one side.  DragonV2 is not symmetrical front to back so we don't know what the reveal DragonV2 looked like from that perspective.  I think there were photos from all around when it went on tour but I can't seem to find them right now.

I did run across this when I was searching: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34841.msg1240895#msg1240895:
Some interesting comments from Garrett Reisman at the AIAA space Human Flight panel see 30:15 http://new.livestream.com/AIAAvideo/space2014/videos/58462185 (http://new.livestream.com/AIAAvideo/space2014/videos/58462185)

1. The capsule that was shown has the Interior Structural Qualification Article.
2. The exterior is the TPS panels that will be used on the Pad Abort vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 02/02/2015 09:27 pm
Quarter-rear and side views of the reveal vehicle at the DC event,
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: moralec on 02/02/2015 09:29 pm
DragonV2 is not symmetrical front to back so we  I think there were photos from all around when it went on tour but I can't seem to find them right now.


I made a "180 degree" view of the right side of the Washington DC vehicle, using the pictures I took that day. The spacecraft was  clearly symmetrical, with 6 dracos in the front, 6 in the back and two on the sides. That no longer seems to be the case......

You can check all my pictures from that day in here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34937.msg1212670#msg1212670).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 02/02/2015 09:29 pm
Quarter rear view of the reveal vehicle at the DC event,

So, is the yellow window we see in that pic the same as the yellow window we see in the new tweet?  So we're looking at one side of the capsule in the new pic?

Ah ha, that second picture you added fills in the picture totally.  Thanks!  It does look basically the same as the reveal article.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dorkmo on 02/02/2015 09:37 pm
i labeled all the pics with jetpack a b c and d to get our bearings
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/02/2015 10:04 pm
What is the purpose of the Ellipse shaped hole in the trunk? I haven't a clue.

Matthew

Edit: This feature does not seem to appear on the animation shown at the reveal event.

It is a service hatch to access the space after mating to the second stage.  The interstage has a similar opening, which was once used to give the 2nd stage nozel a haircut on the pad.  The opening will be closed up for launch.

Ah ha, thanks for that. Any thoughts on why there appear to be two dracos behind the left Nacelle whereas there is only one at other locations?
There are actually three on the left and on the extreme right.  You can't see all the Dracos because of the Super Dracos protruding from the Dragon obscure the line of sight.  I believe every SD "pack" has three Dracos on one side, and one Draco on the other.  They all point different directions and I assume the three/one split has to do with space constraints.

See: A photo from the reveal (http://img.new.livestream.com/events/00000000002e63e4/7752163b-703a-4c31-8f4a-eb86b8c9bd80.jpg)

edit: Clarification.

i feel like these two dracos are missing from the pad abort dragon?

the two pictures that have been released are pretty much from the same angle. so not sure about the other sides.

There is no conspiracy here... All Dracos are simply not installed in this abort test article. That's it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 02/02/2015 10:12 pm
I don't think we're sniffing out conspiracies here; we're just trying to learn all we can about the dragon.  If the pad abort vehicle does not have all the dracos installed, it implies that they are not used for in-atmosphere maneuvering or stability.  Which is reasonable: presumably the whole purpose of the trunk fins is to provide passive stability during abort, and the parachute system (including drogues) provides stability after apogee.  But it's still interesting; one could imagine other reasonable design choices.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dorkmo on 02/02/2015 10:26 pm
im just glad we can conspire about something other than the paint job :D

i wonder what they put there in place of the ornamental dracos?

and, wont they have to remove what ever it is for the space flying dragon?

my first theory: something we cant see if that electrical connection panel. maybe they reworked it for this flight so it could break away. and perhaps since this is a one-off flight they have a one-off umbilical cable mounting position.

idea 2: some sort of climate control hookup since maybe they havent designed/installed one internally yet
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DanielW on 02/02/2015 10:48 pm
In my original question I implied nothing like a conspiracy, merely a curiosity. It appears as if the test article has asymmetric draco placement. I can't be completely sure of that since I can't see the other two nacelles. In any case I was hoping someone who knew more about manoeuvring could comment on minimum practical requirements for six degrees of freedom given what we can see.

Edit: it occurs to me that they only need 3 degrees of freedom for this test. simply for rotation stabilization at the apex of the climb. It should be aerodynamically stable otherwise.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dorkmo on 02/02/2015 10:57 pm
any ideas about this white box? maybe some sort of NFC + inductive charging pad? maybe theyre running both styles hook ups to test a new system?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Zardar on 02/02/2015 10:59 pm
What advantage is it to leave out some of  dracos - surely it bould be best to "test as you fly", especially since one of the biggest "new" things to test will be the firing of the super dracos, and surely you'd want the full hypergolic plumbing system in there with all the tanks and pipes and valves and regulators etc, since its all connected and the shocks and pressure changes might shake something critical loose?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 02/02/2015 11:05 pm
You can have the full plumbing attached to cheap mass simulators vs. expensive thrusters.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 02/02/2015 11:11 pm
any ideas about this white box? maybe some sort of NFC + inductive charging pad? maybe theyre running both styles hook ups to test a new system?

no.

a.  Power levels would be too high
b.  The cable doesn't go to it.  It goes to the open panel. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 02/03/2015 01:55 am
As a potential hypothesis for why things might be left out of this article, it does need a bunch of new instrumentation and sensors that won't be needed in actual mission hardware.  They'll be trying to gather all sorts of data during the abort.  That stuff has to go somewhere.  Maybe to make room for it they left out some things that are unnecessary to the test.  Though, when I think about it, they do have a big empty space in the center.... 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: CameronD on 02/03/2015 01:57 am
....  Though, when I think about it, they do have a big empty space in the center....

Nope - that's for the (highly instrumented) cheese.  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: BobHk on 02/03/2015 02:58 am
As a potential hypothesis for why things might be left out of this article, it does need a bunch of new instrumentation and sensors that won't be needed in actual mission hardware.  They'll be trying to gather all sorts of data during the abort.  That stuff has to go somewhere.  Maybe to make room for it they left out some things that are unnecessary to the test.  Though, when I think about it, they do have a big empty space in the center....

Won't there be a dummy in the capsule?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: pospa on 02/03/2015 08:16 am
... Though, when I think about it, they do have a big empty space in the center....
Won't there be a dummy in the capsule?
Yes.
“We’ll do it at the Cape (SLC-40) and we’re going to have a crash test dummy inside in a prototype seat, so we’ll get data from that for the crew seat."
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: manboy on 02/03/2015 09:05 am
Reddit user shrubit put together a damn good comparison pic from when Dragon v2 was shown in D.C. versus the recently released picture.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/03/2015 09:14 am
SpaceX has stated that eventually D2 would replace D1 for supply. That means there will be a version of D2 designed for berthing with the larger cargo port. Why not sooner than later?

SpaceX has already said they're not going to do it sooner, they're going to do it later, if at all.

SpaceX statements trump speculation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 02/03/2015 01:48 pm
What is the purpose of the Ellipse shaped hole in the trunk? I haven't a clue.

Matthew

Edit: This feature does not seem to appear on the animation shown at the reveal event.

It is a service hatch to access the space after mating to the second stage.  The interstage has a similar opening, which was once used to give the 2nd stage nozel a haircut on the pad.  The opening will be closed up for launch.

Ah ha, thanks for that. Any thoughts on why there appear to be two dracos behind the left Nacelle whereas there is only one at other locations?
There are actually three on the left and on the extreme right.  You can't see all the Dracos because of the Super Dracos protruding from the Dragon obscure the line of sight.  I believe every SD "pack" has three Dracos on one side, and one Draco on the other.  They all point different directions and I assume the three/one split has to do with space constraints.

See: A photo from the reveal (http://img.new.livestream.com/events/00000000002e63e4/7752163b-703a-4c31-8f4a-eb86b8c9bd80.jpg)

edit: Clarification.

i feel like these two dracos are missing from the pad abort dragon?

the two pictures that have been released are pretty much from the same angle. so not sure about the other sides.

There is no conspiracy here... All Dracos are simply not installed in this abort test article. That's it.

Not surprising to me. Were all the Apollo abort, boilerplate, Block I and other flight test articles fully equipped? Did Orbiter Enterprise have fully working RCS systems for Approach and Landing Tests? This test vehicle has everything it needs for its first test, the pad abort, well inside the atmosphere. Perhaps for the flight abort, it'll have those thrusters installed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/03/2015 05:37 pm
SpaceX has stated that eventually D2 would replace D1 for supply. That means there will be a version of D2 designed for berthing with the larger cargo port. Why not sooner than later?

SpaceX has already said they're not going to do it sooner, they're going to do it later, if at all.

SpaceX statements trump speculation.

Yes, but SpaceX also often changed their statements.  And if there's one thing we can almost guarantee, is they will again as time progresses and plans change.

Despite their statement, I'd be surprised if they actually replace D1 with D2 later rather than sooner.  Why?  The sooner they get D2 operational, the sooner they can start practicing propulsive landing, which obviously they'll want to do as soon as possible.  The sooner they start landing propuslively, the sooner they'll get real-world reliability history logs for when they do it with crews on board.  Cargo DRagon returning from actual missions to actual orbit will be the test bed for crew Dragon.   Once crews start flying on it, how will you test it's propulsively landing capability from actual orbit (vs. drop tests) if D1 is still flying cargo?  The first try can't be with a crew on board in case there's a major problem.  They'll need to demonstrate several successful propulsive landings, as well as parachute aborted propulsive landings before NASA lets them do that with their crews.  SpaceX could fly their test pilots on test missions to verify operation, but until now they've been adverse to have dedicated test missions for testing new hardware, but rather combined it with other missions.  Testing D2 on cargo missions is the obvious way to do that, which means they'd transition to it sooner rather than later.

They may retain some D1 capsules and alternate them with D2.  But I'd expect D2 to start taking cargo to the ISS at least in a rotation with D1 pretty much as soon as it's ready. (Life supports systems not required yet for this obviously)



Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 02/03/2015 05:45 pm
With CRS-2 competition underway, and CCtCAP just awarded, it wouldn't be wise for SpaceX to be too explicit about their future cargo plans.  'We'll see' is the only sure thing...

BTW, I agree that SpaceX will start using D-2 for cargo and to practice propulsive landings asap.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: gongora on 02/03/2015 06:48 pm
SpaceX will use whatever NASA chooses under their contracts to deliver cargo.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/03/2015 06:58 pm
With CRS-2 competition underway, and CCtCAP just awarded, it wouldn't be wise for SpaceX to be too explicit about their future cargo plans.  'We'll see' is the only sure thing...

BTW, I agree that SpaceX will start using D-2 for cargo and to practice propulsive landings asap.

I'm constantly amazed by people's overconfidence in their own speculation over what SpaceX has explicitly said.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/03/2015 07:31 pm
SpaceX will use whatever NASA chooses under their contracts to deliver cargo.

I think the more accurate statement would be, SpaceX will use whatever they can get NASA to allow them to use.  NASA had wanted COTS 2 and COTS 3 to be different missions.  SpaceX wanted to combine them into one to limit the number of test flights.  NASA eventually allowed them to do so.

I don't know that NASA ever actually "chose" to have their cargo shipments fly on a booster that lands, but they are allowing SpaceX to use it if it doesn't interfere with the contracted capability.

NASA could bar SpaceX from delivering Cargo in D2, but why would they?  As long as they get their cargo, why would they have any issues?  I could see NASA barring SpaceX from testing their propulsive landings on certain downmass items they don't want to risk the chance of it becoming a smoking crater in a test landing.  But I'd rather expect most of it is replaceable, with SpaceX having to foot the bill for downmass in case of a loss of typical downmass.

One question is the docking adaptor vs. the CBM.  I've not seen any specfic info about D2 mounting a CBM.  All the renders I've seen just show the docking adaptor.  Must cargo come up and be berthed?  Could D2 simply dock instead?  Isn't not like the US docking adaptor has been used since the last Shuttle flight.  I believe the docking port is only a little smaller than the CBM so I'd think most cargo that Dragon would carry anyway could fit through it (unlike Cygnus with it's greater volume). 
If allowed by NASA, then D2 wouldn't need a CBM version.  D1's could be retained in case there's a cargo what would need the wider CBM opening.  After all, they -can- be reused.  Then production can switching to D2's with just the docking adaptor for cargo and then later crew.  It would also give SpaceX practice docking rather than needing to be grappled and berthed.  So by the time a crew would be ready to come up on D2, they'd have several autonomous dockings and propulsive landings under their belt.  It would also give them a test bed to test their life support system out without needing separate test missions.  Before or after a cargo delivery, D2 could spend several days on it's own where they can monitor the operation of the life support system.  Maybe have some sort of test device that consumes O2 and expells CO2 in order to see how well it removed the CO2 and replenishes O2.  Depending on the volume and mass requirements for the particular COTS mission of course.  As long as it didn't interfere with NASA requirements.

That would give SpaceX a bit of a leg up on Boeing in the big picturs, being able to use their COTS missions as Commercial crew test beds.  Boeing won't be able to do that with CST-100.
 
It would also give SpaceX the ability to say, "Hey, our D2 is ready to start taking crews to the ISS any time NASA's ready.  Our LAS system has been demonstrated, we're docking at the docking port, and we're landing propulsively on landings pads and have parachute backup.  We don't need to send another crew up on board Soyuz."  To see if they could garner political support to shorten up the Commercial Crew schedule.



Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/03/2015 07:47 pm
With CRS-2 competition underway, and CCtCAP just awarded, it wouldn't be wise for SpaceX to be too explicit about their future cargo plans.  'We'll see' is the only sure thing...

BTW, I agree that SpaceX will start using D-2 for cargo and to practice propulsive landings asap.

I'm constantly amazed by people's overconfidence in their own speculation over what SpaceX has explicitly said.

When logic dictates something somewhat different than a public statement by a private company which can have poltical implications, along with a recent history of revised and conflicting statements, then it's inevitable that there will be some speculation which differs from the public statements.

Raptor was a hydrolox upper stage engine...until it wasn't.  FH was to launch in 2013, until it didn't.  FH was to launch first from VAFB, until it was changed to LC-39A. 
Raptor was to be a 650klb engine, until it was a 1Mlb engine, until it was a 500klb engine.
F9's upper stage was to be reusable, until it wasn't.

These are all things SpaceX explicitly said, and then turned out to be different.  And in some cases, "speculation" called it before SpaceX's new statements did.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 02/03/2015 08:10 pm
And in some cases, "speculation" called it before SpaceX's new statements did.
Citation needed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Karloss12 on 02/03/2015 09:01 pm

The sooner they get D2 operational, the sooner they can start practicing propulsive landing, which obviously they'll want to do as soon as possible.  The sooner they start landing propuslively, the sooner they'll get real-world reliability history logs for when they do it with crews on board.     .....before NASA lets them do that with their crews.


I believe full propulsive landing of a crewed D2 will probably never happen.  Not for many many years anyway.

It comes down to safety, not what looks cool.

Parachutes alone will always be safer than Full Propulsion alone therefore parachutes will always win.

Parachutes plus Full Propulsion as back up for failed parachutes is even safer and as a bonus is safer than anything else on market.

Parachutes cannot be used as a back up for faulty draco's below a certain altitude.

I think they will only ever even attempt cargo full propulsive landings if they can re-use a second hand crewed D2.  They won't fabricate a more expensive D2 just to propulsive land test it when the D1 is much cheaper.  And as NASA currently only allow New D1's to the ISS, it could be quite a few years before we could see a 2nd hand D2 going to the ISS.

Elon also said at the D2 unveiling that the D1 and D2 would run in parallel for some time.

I believe full propulsive landing is an aspiration.  However, full propulsive landing will be required to land on Mars so you might see a few token full propulsive landings of the D2 to gain experience for the design of the completely different Mars Lander Capsule.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 02/03/2015 09:28 pm

Parachutes alone will always be safer than Full Propulsion alone therefore parachutes will always win.


Who says?

Airships will always be safer than heavier than air aircraft, so lighter than air aircraft always win. Monoplanes do not provide enough lift to get the job done so biplanes always win. Jet engines are prone to exploding and have terrible maintenance records so the piston engined plane will always win. Pressurised airliners will never come into vogue because they keep disintegrating. Aerospace history speaks for itself; once a technology has neared the extreme limits of what you can do with it, you move onto something new. Perhaps something that is (at first) unsuccessful, but the rewards outweigh the gains. You're ahead of the curb, pushing the envelope. That's part of what this is all about.


Just because something is unproven doesn't mean that it won't yet work any more than it means that it will work. However, both in theory and in simulation, propulsive landings give you accuracy, performance, rapidity of landing and redundancy that parachutes as a sole option do not give you.

Also, you cannot use a parachute on the moon, and not with any reasonable mass ratio on mars, so the technology is difficult to extrapolate out. Chutes are also heavier than propulsion, but this isn't an applicable argument in this case as D2 will feature both.

We can land a rocket stage propulsively. Why can't we land something significantly less unstable such as a capsule propulsively?

Not trying to cut your opinion at all, but I'd give propulsive landings "innocent until proven guilty". After all, there's a lot of talented engineers working on this who passionately disagree with you, including Elon Musk.

Edit: fixed a bum word.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/03/2015 09:53 pm

Parachutes alone will always be safer than Full Propulsion alone therefore parachutes will always win.


Who says?

Airships will always be safer than heavier than air aircraft, so lighter than air aircraft always win. Monoplanes do not provide enough lift to get the job done so biplanes always win. Jet engines are prone to exploding and have terrible maintenance records so the piston engined plane will always win. Pressurised airliners will never come into vogue because they keep disintegrating. Aerospace history speaks for itself; once a technology has neared the extreme limits of what you can do with it, you move onto something new. Perhaps something that is (at first) unsuccessful, but the rewards outweigh the gains. You're ahead of the curb, pushing the envelope. That's part of what this is all about.


I'd add helicopters into that.  Inherently less safe than fixed wing planes, but people are risked on them all the time vs. airplanes, because you can land them pretty much anywhere you want to, rather than being limited to airports.
Full propulsive landings are similar.  If they can drop it down reliably on a landing pad right at a facility, it's easier, cheaper and faster than a parachute dunk in the ocean. 
Plus it's a lot of work and development is they don't plan to use it.  More so than just the propulsion system itself, but the guidance needed to drop it down on a landing pad, not to mention the landing gear, etc.  They could have just done a system like CST-100, which is abort only and would be much cheaper and easier.
Also, as I understand, it'll have the ability to deploy the parachute and still land survivable on the ground if that was the scenario, or land partially propulsively under parachute.  So it really has 4 landings modes.  Parachute water, parachute ground (a hard landing, but I think it's an emergency option, and in fact the propulsive system would have to fail completely for this, which is pretty unlikely), full propulsive, and partially propulsive under parachute.  That's vs. only one landing mode for Orion and maybe two for CST-100 (water or ground under parachute?  I think it can do either).  I think that's as safe as one can expect from a space capsule.

I think they'll landing cargo fully propulsively as soon as NASA lets them.  Same with crews.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 02/03/2015 10:19 pm
Once the Dragonfly test program gets in full swing, these conversations will have a lot more firm ground to discuss.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 02/03/2015 10:28 pm
...
I believe full propulsive landing of a crewed D2 will probably never happen.  Not for many many years anyway.

It comes down to safety, not what looks cool.

Parachutes alone will always be safer than Full Propulsion alone therefore parachutes will always win.

Parachutes plus Full Propulsion as back up for failed parachutes is even safer and as a bonus is safer than anything else on market.

Parachutes cannot be used as a back up for faulty draco's below a certain altitude.
...
There is very little that can go wrong with a SuperDraco.  There's no turbo pump, they are pressure fed.  There's no issue with ignition, they are hypergolic.  If they have sufficient pressure and the (non-cryogenic, non-helium) valves open, they will ignite.  If the valves operate, it seems incredibly unlikely they'd stop working during the landing burn.  No doubt there are corner cases, but parachutes have plenty of potential "snags" as well.

I'd love to get the opinion of actual astronauts that are not affiliated with SpaceX or it competitors.  I'd bet money on the majority preferring propulsive landing with backup parachutes over parachutes as the primary mode any day.  They'd want proof, no doubt.  But once they have proof the design is solid and operates as promised, I can't imagine people that ride these things up being afraid of riding them down.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Karloss12 on 02/03/2015 11:14 pm

Parachutes alone will always be safer than Full Propulsion alone therefore parachutes will always win.


Who says?

Just because something is unproven doesn't mean that it won't yet work any more than it means that it will work. However, both in theory and in simulation, propulsive landings give you accuracy, performance, rapidity of landing and redundancy that parachutes as a sole option do not give you.

Also, you cannot use a parachute on the moon, and not with any reasonable mass ratio on mars, so the technology is difficult to extrapolate out. Chutes are also heavier than propulsion, but this isn't an applicable argument in this case as D2 will feature both.

We can land a rocket stage propulsively. Why can't we land something significantly less unstable such as a capsule propulsively?

Not trying to cut your opinion at all, but I'd give propulsive landings "innocent until proven guilty". After all, there's a lot of talented engineers working on this who passionately disagree with you, including Elon Musk.

Edit: fixed a bum word.

You seem to be insinuating that I am saying that full propulsive landing won't work.  It will work.

However, in my recollection of the Dragon unveiling video, Elon is asked "Who owns the Dragon 2 Space Craft?"  Elon replies "the Dragon 2 capsule is owned by NASA".  As the D2 is owned by NASA and will only be manned by NASA crew for many years, I think you will find that Elon will have absolutely no say in what configuration it uses to lands crew until he is sending his own SpaceX crew into Space.

The D2 will only be used for crew as standard and will land in a paddock by parachute with a small burst from the draco's at touchdown.  Currently D1 lands with an accuracy of less than a mile at sea.  This is good enough for D2 crew on land.  The full propulsive landing capability is a safety back up.  The primary function of the draco's are for LAS.  They are built in to the capsule to save the cost (to the tax payer) of re-fabricating the LAS for each launch.  This is the safest configuration with adequate landing accuracy.  To deviate from this sacrifices safety for coolness.  NASA doesn't do the type of coolness you suggest.

It will be many years before NASA lets SpaceX send a 2nd hand D2 to the ISS for testing full propulsive landing. The D2 is so much more expensive than the D1 therefore it won't be used as standard for Cargo.

Full propulsive landing may one day be as reliable as parachute alone, however as per my previous post this will be many many years away if ever.

The D1 may have an upgrade by adding some small thrusters for the final burst before touching down on land.  This upgrade happening will probably depend on the life of the ISS or other contracts.

As indicated in my previous post propulsive landing of a test D2 cargo will happen, but only for the purposes of gaining experience to propulsively land on Mars (or the moon).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: CameronD on 02/03/2015 11:25 pm
Full propulsive landing may one day be as reliable as parachute alone, however as per my previous post this will be many many years away if ever.

I, for one, do hope you're wrong.

Parachutes are not always reliable (subject to snags and failure of both tethers and the chutes themselves) whereas a dual-redundant hypergolic propulsion system is a little bit more fault-tolerant. ...and they need to be to form any kind of launch escape system: a parachute can't help you on the way up.

Soyuz currently comes down under parachute but uses a 'powered stop' at the end, so perhaps that's another landing mode available to SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 02/03/2015 11:26 pm
With CRS-2 competition underway, and CCtCAP just awarded, it wouldn't be wise for SpaceX to be too explicit about their future cargo plans.  'We'll see' is the only sure thing...

BTW, I agree that SpaceX will start using D-2 for cargo and to practice propulsive landings asap.

I'm constantly amazed by people's overconfidence in their own speculation over what SpaceX has explicitly said.

When logic dictates something somewhat different than a public statement by a private company which can have poltical implications, along with a recent history of revised and conflicting statements, then it's inevitable that there will be some speculation which differs from the public statements.

Raptor was a hydrolox upper stage engine...until it wasn't.  FH was to launch in 2013, until it didn't.  FH was to launch first from VAFB, until it was changed to LC-39A. 
Raptor was to be a 650klb engine, until it was a 1Mlb engine, until it was a 500klb engine.
F9's upper stage was to be reusable, until it wasn't.

These are all things SpaceX explicitly said, and then turned out to be different.  And in some cases, "speculation" called it before SpaceX's new statements did.

Lobo brings to light several good examples of where EM's statements were overcome by events or changed for whatever reason.  My original 'overconfidence' was simply speculation... probably stated too strongly. 

The competitive environment is in many regards a fight to the death; Boeing/LM/ULA are now playing for keeps and SpaceX is quite a bit less forthcoming as a result.  Just my opinion Chris Wilson...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 02/03/2015 11:41 pm
As I've stated before and even more firmly believe today, parachutes are an anachronism.

Warning, prediction follows (but it is only my opinion because it concerns the future):
Nothing will stop SpaceX making propulsive crewed landings as soon as they have tested the technology. Maybe they will use a re-flight of an ISS-veteran spacecraft or build one specifically for purpose, but they will fly and land without parachute deployment. NASA and its Astros will need to decide if they want the young crews from Hawthorne displaying the right stuff while they do retro landings where their grandfathers did.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Comga on 02/03/2015 11:42 pm
Soyuz currently comes down under parachute but uses a 'powered stop' at the end, so perhaps that's another landing mode available to SpaceX.

And there is a third mode possible, although I have never heard it mentioned:  Drogues and SuperDracos.  It's an intermediate case, with some of the advantages and disadvantages of each.  Things are certainy slower than a ballistic descent, and less thrust would be needed for braking, which equates to more redundancy.  It could probably be done with two out of the eight engines.  This mode still expends some small chutes and is subject to some wind drift, and it is probably not survivable if the SuperDracos don't fire at all.

ON the other hand, not only hasn't this been mentioned by SpaceX, but they tend to progress in "giant steps".
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/04/2015 12:13 am
I for one hope that they will move to full propulsive landing soon. Chutes seem so yesterday.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: punder on 02/04/2015 12:17 am
Musk has said over and over that "this is how a 21st century spaceship lands."  He is completely committed to propulsive landing. 

I believe he also said the D2 can land safely with two dead SDs (correct me if I'm wrong).  Also, the SDs are designed for launch abort, with the trunk attached no less, which requires a heck of a lot more thrust than landing.  I speculate the SDs will be operating well within their comfort zone during landing, not at the edge of their capability.

SpaceX has to make NASA happy, but as others have said above, it has won concessions before.  NASA is being conservative, rightly so, and will stay that way until it is satisfied that propulsive landing works.  Pretty clearly Musk knows what he is doing, and he will convince NASA that propulsive landing is safe, convenient, more comfortable and far cheaper than fishing crews out of the ocean.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 02/04/2015 12:17 am
I would also have to think that SpaceX is anxious to recover Dragons on land as soon as possible, whether with a propulsively-softened parachute descent or a full propulsive landing.  I'm fairly certain that it will be easier to refurbish a spacecraft that hasn't been allowed to float in salt water for several hours.  At least in Apollo landings, you always had a certain amount of seawater coming into the spacecraft through air vents and such, and it's just not possible to keep the salt water from coming into the thruster and SD nozzles.

Remember, the only manned spacecraft that has ever been dropped into the ocean, fished out, refurbished and flown again was Gemini Spacecraft 2, flown on Gemini 2 and re-flown in the MOL demonstration flight nearly three years later.  In neither flight did that one carry men.

I would just have to think that it would be more difficult and expensive to refurbish a spacecraft that has been dunked in corrosive salt water than one that landed on a nice dry lakebed, or on a concrete landing pad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: BobHk on 02/04/2015 12:58 am
I would also have to think that SpaceX is anxious to recover Dragons on land as soon as possible, whether with a propulsively-softened parachute descent or a full propulsive landing.  I'm fairly certain that it will be easier to refurbish a spacecraft that hasn't been allowed to float in salt water for several hours.  At least in Apollo landings, you always had a certain amount of seawater coming into the spacecraft through air vents and such, and it's just not possible to keep the salt water from coming into the thruster and SD nozzles.

Remember, the only manned spacecraft that has ever been dropped into the ocean, fished out, refurbished and flown again was Gemini Spacecraft 2, flown on Gemini 2 and re-flown in the MOL demonstration flight nearly three years later.  In neither flight did that one carry men.

I would just have to think that it would be more difficult and expensive to refurbish a spacecraft that has been dunked in corrosive salt water than one that landed on a nice dry lakebed, or on a concrete landing pad.

Or near a freshwater lake?  If its accurate bring it down near a lake inland just in case you have need of the water.  Quite a few are deep enough (or they could make their own) to accommodate a splashdown. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: CameronD on 02/04/2015 01:06 am
Or near a freshwater lake?  If its accurate bring it down near a lake inland just in case you have need of the water.  Quite a few are deep enough (or they could make their own) to accommodate a splashdown.

Conjures visions of this:

Lots of icky, icky, mud...  ;D

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 02/04/2015 01:08 am
So, if SpaceX found themselves with a slightly-used Dragon 2 -- after first unmanned flight in 2016, for instance -- and a couple slightly-used cores, would anything stop them from sending the D2 into orbit, several times even, and landing it on a pad at Vandenberg (or in the desert somewhere, or on the ASDS)?  Combine this with  DragonFly testing around the same time, and maybe, just maybe, people would take notice.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Karloss12 on 02/04/2015 01:12 am
Musk has said over and over that "this is how a 21st century spaceship lands."  He is completely committed to propulsive landing. 

This is currently marketing/aspiration.  It will happen in maybe 10-15 years when preparing to go to the Moon/Mars.

NASA owns the Dragon 2 space craft and fills it with NASA crew.  Therefore NASA tells SpaceX how the D2 will land for ISS crew transport.  I imagine Elon doesn't even bother expressing his aspiration to NASA as he has such little leverage on the decision.

He will have to wait until he is launching his own crew to use full propulsive crew landing.

The D2 will definitely be touching down on land as soon as possible.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 02/04/2015 01:27 am
Musk has said over and over that "this is how a 21st century spaceship lands."  He is completely committed to propulsive landing. 

This is currently marketing/aspiration.  It will happen in maybe 10-15 years when preparing to go to the Moon/Mars.

NASA owns the Dragon 2 space craft and fills it with NASA crew.  Therefore NASA tells SpaceX how the D2 will land for ISS crew transport.  I imagine Elon doesn't even bother expressing his aspiration to NASA as he has such little leverage on the decision.

He will have to wait until he is launching his own crew to use full propulsive crew landing.

The D2 will definitely be touching down on land as soon as possible.

NASA is buying transportation services via CCtCAP and subsequent contracts, just as they are buying cargo deliveries in CRS. 
They don't and won't own the Dragon 2, F9, CST-100, or Atlas V.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: punder on 02/04/2015 02:24 am
I imagine Elon doesn't even bother expressing his aspiration to NASA

Hmm, we must be talking about two different Elon Musks!!      ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 02/04/2015 02:33 am

However, in my recollection of the Dragon unveiling video, Elon is asked "Who owns the Dragon 2 Space Craft?"  Elon replies "the Dragon 2 capsule is owned by NASA".  As the D2 is owned by NASA and will only be manned by NASA crew for many years, I think you will find that Elon will have absolutely no say in what configuration it uses to lands crew until he is sending his own SpaceX crew into Space.



My recollection differs.  I remember something about a NASA crew being the occupants, but that does not mean NASA owns the spacecraft.  This is a service contract, not a sale.


Once propulsive landing has been demonstrated to be safe and reliable, NASA is not going to continue to prefer parachute landings in the ocean, which have their own hazards and require expensive logistics.  I think NASA is in many ways just as eager for propulsive landing as Musk is.  But it has to be properly established as legitimate.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: joek on 02/04/2015 02:51 am
NASA owns the Dragon 2 space craft and fills it with NASA crew.  Therefore NASA tells SpaceX how the D2 will land for ISS crew transport.
NASA certifies the Dragon 2, they don't own it any more than they own the rocket it was launched on or the pad it was launched from.*  This is referred to as the "rental car" model.


* edit: OK, bad analogy, NASA owns LC-39 where it will be launched from.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/04/2015 03:18 am
With CRS-2 competition underway, and CCtCAP just awarded, it wouldn't be wise for SpaceX to be too explicit about their future cargo plans.  'We'll see' is the only sure thing...

BTW, I agree that SpaceX will start using D-2 for cargo and to practice propulsive landings asap.

I'm constantly amazed by people's overconfidence in their own speculation over what SpaceX has explicitly said.

When logic dictates something somewhat different than a public statement by a private company which can have poltical implications, along with a recent history of revised and conflicting statements, then it's inevitable that there will be some speculation which differs from the public statements.

Not all statements are created equal.  Some statements are about active R&D programs, and obviously those could change over time as SpaceX learns more.  Other statements are about things that are well underway and don't have a lot of unknowns SpaceX has to figure out.

The bids for CRS2 are already in.  At the time SpaceX made the statements about continuing to use Dragon 1, they were already well into the CRS2 process.  There weren't a lot of unknowns, and certainly the reasons people have been given for using Dragon 2 for CRS2 instead of Dragon 1 involve nothing that was unknown to SpaceX when they made their statements.

Raptor was a hydrolox upper stage engine...until it wasn't.  FH was to launch in 2013, until it didn't.  FH was to launch first from VAFB, until it was changed to LC-39A. 
Raptor was to be a 650klb engine, until it was a 1Mlb engine, until it was a 500klb engine.
F9's upper stage was to be reusable, until it wasn't.

Those are all examples of statements about active R&D programs or about schedule slips.  Those are totally different kinds of statements.

These are all things SpaceX explicitly said, and then turned out to be different.  And in some cases, "speculation" called it before SpaceX's new statements did.

And many other times SpaceX said something, plenty of people speculated it would be different, and it turned out to be just what SpaceX said.

Again, there's a difference between schedule slips and R&D programs with lots of unknowns that SpaceX is exploring versus a statement about whether they're going to be using Dragon 1 or Dragon 2 on CRS2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/04/2015 03:24 am
It comes down to safety, not what looks cool.

Parachutes alone will always be safer than Full Propulsion alone therefore parachutes will always win.

I don't think there's any evidence at all that is true.  Harrier jets make full-propulsive landings all the time.  SuperDracos are much simpler engines, and they have parachute backup if they fail to start up.  The chances of a SuperDraco firing up but then failing during the actual landing are small, I think.  And even if one does, they have enough others to land anyway.

Parachutes are really not very safe.  You don't get pinpoint accuracy.  They are subject to the wind.  More worryingly, they can get their lines tangled.  A far higher percentage of parachute landing attempts have failed than propulsive landing attempts.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/04/2015 03:35 am
With CRS-2 competition underway, and CCtCAP just awarded, it wouldn't be wise for SpaceX to be too explicit about their future cargo plans.  'We'll see' is the only sure thing...

BTW, I agree that SpaceX will start using D-2 for cargo and to practice propulsive landings asap.

I'm constantly amazed by people's overconfidence in their own speculation over what SpaceX has explicitly said.

When logic dictates something somewhat different than a public statement by a private company which can have poltical implications, along with a recent history of revised and conflicting statements, then it's inevitable that there will be some speculation which differs from the public statements.

Raptor was a hydrolox upper stage engine...until it wasn't.  FH was to launch in 2013, until it didn't.  FH was to launch first from VAFB, until it was changed to LC-39A. 
Raptor was to be a 650klb engine, until it was a 1Mlb engine, until it was a 500klb engine.
F9's upper stage was to be reusable, until it wasn't.

These are all things SpaceX explicitly said, and then turned out to be different.  And in some cases, "speculation" called it before SpaceX's new statements did.

Lobo brings to light several good examples of where EM's statements were overcome by events or changed for whatever reason.  My original 'overconfidence' was simply speculation... probably stated too strongly. 

The competitive environment is in many regards a fight to the death; Boeing/LM/ULA are now playing for keeps and SpaceX is quite a bit less forthcoming as a result.  Just my opinion Chris Wilson...

Fair enough.  Sorry, I was overly harsh in my reply.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/04/2015 03:46 am
However, in my recollection of the Dragon unveiling video, Elon is asked "Who owns the Dragon 2 Space Craft?"  Elon replies "the Dragon 2 capsule is owned by NASA".

QuantumG maintains a site where he keeps transcripts of most of the public things Elon Musk says.  His transcripts are high quality, and he solicits feedback from other NSF members to make them even more accurate.

His site has transcripts for the Dragon 2 unveil presentation and for the Q&A afterwards.  In neither does anyone talk about owning anything.

http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-unveils-dragon-2-2014-05-29

http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-dragon-2-unveil-qa-2014-05-29

If you think something is missing from these transcripts, the burden is on you to cite a source for the claim Elon ever said NASA owns Dragon 2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: BobHk on 02/04/2015 04:37 am
Where is the 'Dragon 2 propulsive Landing Testing Dummy' signup thread?  I've had my kids, my wife is done with me and I'm looking for something more interesting than skydiving. 

It makes sense that NASA is evolving their approach to manned space flight (ref: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031840.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031840.pdf)) as they evolve their manned missions.  But how much is CYA vs. do it safe/with known tech first? 

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ScepticMatt on 02/04/2015 10:43 am
I wonder whether the flight-ready Dragon 2 will receive as much "detailing" as the reveal Dragon 2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: moralec on 02/04/2015 02:23 pm
Reddit user shrubit put together a damn good comparison pic from when Dragon v2 was shown in D.C. versus the recently released picture.

Very good comparison. Most of the vehicle looks identical: expect for the Dracos. I agree with the people here that is expected that only some (or maybe none) will be installed for this test..... however, I still think is curious that:
- The spaces/nozzles for all other dracos appear to be there. Will they be used in the abort test?
- A new compartment that was not there before seems to have been right next to the place were the Dracos where before.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 02/04/2015 02:25 pm
It comes down to safety, not what looks cool.

Parachutes alone will always be safer than Full Propulsion alone therefore parachutes will always win.

I don't think there's any evidence at all that is true.  Harrier jets make full-propulsive landings all the time.  SuperDracos are much simpler engines, and they have parachute backup if they fail to start up.  The chances of a SuperDraco firing up but then failing during the actual landing are small, I think.  And even if one does, they have enough others to land anyway.

Parachutes are really not very safe.  You don't get pinpoint accuracy.  They are subject to the wind.  More worryingly, they can get their lines tangled.  A far higher percentage of parachute landing attempts have failed than propulsive landing attempts.

You're mixing apples and oranges and have a poor count of them to boot.

A Harrier is using a known, proven engine--jets--to do its work. Rockets are different, and we know this. SuperDracos are new tech, and tests of these in an integrated craft haven't been done at all yet.

Statistically there are virtually no stats for rocket-powered propulsive capsule landings to base your claim.

Further, with the exception of the first Soyuz flight, every capsule landing I can recall that uses parachutes brought home a crew safely. The closest we've come to a serious problem was when one of Apollo 15's main chutes failed, but two were enough to splash safely, by design.

NASA's already grown past their "creative" phase with the Orbiters and non-parachute landings. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that they won't entertain redundancies for safe returns. If a two-chute failure ever occurs, it doesn't take a John Aaron to order the spacecraft to go propulsive mode.

Propulsive landing offers this should a serious issue with the chutes arises. It's a far risky option without a lot of flight/testing hours but it certainly beats LoC and LoV.

Once SpaceX gets DragonFly data, they'll get a clearer picture. But right now they're still perfecting landing a first stage this way, much less a crew vehicle. Until then, capsule propulsive landing is vaporware. And it's dangerous to propose the use of unproven tech until they know that the system can work at all, much less reliably.

Edit: clarification
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/04/2015 02:29 pm
Just to note, I don't like to see people sneak in opinions as facts, especially when quoting people like Elon. Be very careful with that (as much as I see it was quickly addressed).


Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 02/04/2015 02:48 pm
Landing anything substantial on Mars requires a propulsive landing.  Parachutes are useless on Mars except for the initial deceleration from hypersonic speeds at high altitude.  Everything SpaceX does is working toward Mars, and they would want to be very experienced in all the necessary technologies. 

So I can see why, even if everything else was equal, they would choose to perfect propulsive landings on Earth.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/04/2015 03:20 pm
The list of spacecraft that have done propulsive landings successfully is reasonable.  SpaceX is working towards landing on other destinations besides earth, there is no other option besides propulsive landing.

It comes down to safety, not what looks cool.

Parachutes alone will always be safer than Full Propulsion alone therefore parachutes will always win.

I don't think there's any evidence at all that is true.  Harrier jets make full-propulsive landings all the time.  SuperDracos are much simpler engines, and they have parachute backup if they fail to start up.  The chances of a SuperDraco firing up but then failing during the actual landing are small, I think.  And even if one does, they have enough others to land anyway.

Parachutes are really not very safe.  You don't get pinpoint accuracy.  They are subject to the wind.  More worryingly, they can get their lines tangled.  A far higher percentage of parachute landing attempts have failed than propulsive landing attempts.

You're mixing apples and oranges and have a poor count of them to boot.

A Harrier is using a known, proven engine--jets--to do its work. Rockets are different, and we know this. SuperDracos are new tech, and tests of these in an integrated craft haven't been done at all yet.

Statistically there are virtually no stats for rocket-powered propulsive capsule landings to base your claim.

Further, with the exception of the first Soyuz flight, every capsule landing I can recall that uses parachutes brought home a crew safely. The closest we've come to a serious problem was when one of Apollo 15's main chutes failed, but two were enough to splash safely, by design.

NASA's already grown past their "creative" phase with the Orbiters and non-parachute landings. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that they won't entertain redundancies for safe returns. If a two-chute failure ever occurs, it doesn't take a John Aaron to order the spacecraft to go propulsive mode.

Propulsive landing offers this should a serious issue with the chutes arises. It's a far risky option without a lot of flight/testing hours but it certainly beats LoC and LoV.

Once SpaceX gets DragonFly data, they'll get a clearer picture. But right now they're still perfecting landing a first stage this way, much less a crew vehicle. Until then, capsule propulsive landing is vaporware. And it's dangerous to propose the use of unproven tech until they know that the system can work at all, much less reliably.

Edit: clarification
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 02/04/2015 03:33 pm
The list of spacecraft that have done propulsive landings successfully is reasonable.  SpaceX is working towards landing on other destinations besides earth, there is no other option besides propulsive landing.

It comes down to safety, not what looks cool.

Parachutes alone will always be safer than Full Propulsion alone therefore parachutes will always win.

I don't think there's any evidence at all that is true.  Harrier jets make full-propulsive landings all the time.  SuperDracos are much simpler engines, and they have parachute backup if they fail to start up.  The chances of a SuperDraco firing up but then failing during the actual landing are small, I think.  And even if one does, they have enough others to land anyway.

Parachutes are really not very safe.  You don't get pinpoint accuracy.  They are subject to the wind.  More worryingly, they can get their lines tangled.  A far higher percentage of parachute landing attempts have failed than propulsive landing attempts.

You're mixing apples and oranges and have a poor count of them to boot.

A Harrier is using a known, proven engine--jets--to do its work. Rockets are different, and we know this. SuperDracos are new tech, and tests of these in an integrated craft haven't been done at all yet.

Statistically there are virtually no stats for rocket-powered propulsive capsule landings to base your claim.

Further, with the exception of the first Soyuz flight, every capsule landing I can recall that uses parachutes brought home a crew safely. The closest we've come to a serious problem was when one of Apollo 15's main chutes failed, but two were enough to splash safely, by design.

NASA's already grown past their "creative" phase with the Orbiters and non-parachute landings. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that they won't entertain redundancies for safe returns. If a two-chute failure ever occurs, it doesn't take a John Aaron to order the spacecraft to go propulsive mode.

Propulsive landing offers this should a serious issue with the chutes arises. It's a far risky option without a lot of flight/testing hours but it certainly beats LoC and LoV.

Once SpaceX gets DragonFly data, they'll get a clearer picture. But right now they're still perfecting landing a first stage this way, much less a crew vehicle. Until then, capsule propulsive landing is vaporware. And it's dangerous to propose the use of unproven tech until they know that the system can work at all, much less reliably.

Edit: clarification

That's fine. But we're speaking of manned capsules landing on Earth, which logically is all that NASA cares to worry about for now, especially since NASA isn't (yet) considering Dragons for their Mars missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 02/04/2015 03:46 pm
NASA's already grown past their "creative" phase with the Orbiters and non-parachute landings. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that they won't entertain redundancies for safe returns. If a two-chute failure ever occurs, it doesn't take a John Aaron to order the spacecraft to go propulsive mode.

Propulsive landing offers this should a serious issue with the chutes arises. It's a far risky option without a lot of flight/testing hours but it certainly beats LoC and LoV.


Interesting use of term... like USG calling spending 'investment'.
Something of lipstick on a pig IMHO.

I'd accept chutes as a back-up to propulsive landing for the foreseeable future, but not the other way around.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/04/2015 03:52 pm
NASA isn't designing or building dragon, for SpaceX it is a means to an end.  SpaceX doesn't appear to be waiting for NASA to take interest in their Mars plans.

The list of spacecraft that have done propulsive landings successfully is reasonable.  SpaceX is working towards landing on other destinations besides earth, there is no other option besides propulsive landing.

It comes down to safety, not what looks cool.

Parachutes alone will always be safer than Full Propulsion alone therefore parachutes will always win.

I don't think there's any evidence at all that is true.  Harrier jets make full-propulsive landings all the time.  SuperDracos are much simpler engines, and they have parachute backup if they fail to start up.  The chances of a SuperDraco firing up but then failing during the actual landing are small, I think.  And even if one does, they have enough others to land anyway.

Parachutes are really not very safe.  You don't get pinpoint accuracy.  They are subject to the wind.  More worryingly, they can get their lines tangled.  A far higher percentage of parachute landing attempts have failed than propulsive landing attempts.

You're mixing apples and oranges and have a poor count of them to boot.

A Harrier is using a known, proven engine--jets--to do its work. Rockets are different, and we know this. SuperDracos are new tech, and tests of these in an integrated craft haven't been done at all yet.

Statistically there are virtually no stats for rocket-powered propulsive capsule landings to base your claim.

Further, with the exception of the first Soyuz flight, every capsule landing I can recall that uses parachutes brought home a crew safely. The closest we've come to a serious problem was when one of Apollo 15's main chutes failed, but two were enough to splash safely, by design.

NASA's already grown past their "creative" phase with the Orbiters and non-parachute landings. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that they won't entertain redundancies for safe returns. If a two-chute failure ever occurs, it doesn't take a John Aaron to order the spacecraft to go propulsive mode.

Propulsive landing offers this should a serious issue with the chutes arises. It's a far risky option without a lot of flight/testing hours but it certainly beats LoC and LoV.

Once SpaceX gets DragonFly data, they'll get a clearer picture. But right now they're still perfecting landing a first stage this way, much less a crew vehicle. Until then, capsule propulsive landing is vaporware. And it's dangerous to propose the use of unproven tech until they know that the system can work at all, much less reliably.

Edit: clarification

That's fine. But we're speaking of manned capsules landing on Earth, which logically is all that NASA cares to worry about for now, especially since NASA isn't (yet) considering Dragons for their Mars missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/04/2015 05:13 pm
I would also have to think that SpaceX is anxious to recover Dragons on land as soon as possible, whether with a propulsively-softened parachute descent or a full propulsive landing.  I'm fairly certain that it will be easier to refurbish a spacecraft that hasn't been allowed to float in salt water for several hours.  At least in Apollo landings, you always had a certain amount of seawater coming into the spacecraft through air vents and such, and it's just not possible to keep the salt water from coming into the thruster and SD nozzles.

Remember, the only manned spacecraft that has ever been dropped into the ocean, fished out, refurbished and flown again was Gemini Spacecraft 2, flown on Gemini 2 and re-flown in the MOL demonstration flight nearly three years later.  In neither flight did that one carry men.

I would just have to think that it would be more difficult and expensive to refurbish a spacecraft that has been dunked in corrosive salt water than one that landed on a nice dry lakebed, or on a concrete landing pad.

Or near a freshwater lake?  If its accurate bring it down near a lake inland just in case you have need of the water.  Quite a few are deep enough (or they could make their own) to accommodate a splashdown.

I'd think freshwater would be easier on it than salt, but I don't know if enough to being trying to target a lake.  It's not like it'd be floating out in the ocean for very long anyway, and they can get to cleaning it out fairly quickly I'd think.  And if you need to abort the normal propulsive landing, then nothing beats a giant ocean for crew safety.  Really no chance of missing like you could with a lake.  If everything goes as planned, it's moot because it lands on the ground.

I know SpaceX has shown Dragon landing at KSC, and that's likely their eventual plan.  But I'd expect the first test propulsive landings to be at Edwards.  There's SpaceX videos showing landings at Edwards.  These would be Cargo D2's doing tests upon return.  That gives a lot of room to miss your target.  After that, they'd be at VAFB.  SLC-4 does say it's a launch and landing facility.  That gives a nice approach over water so in case of any problems prior to terminal landing, they can pop the chutes and lan in the ocean.  Once they get the landing with demonstrated reliability, I'd think this is where the first crews would land because of the ease of a water abort.  If there's some full superdraco failure, that's softer than the dry lakebed at EAFB under parachute.   A recovery boat can be staged at the VAFB barge dock there where the Delta Clipper docks, in case of water abort.  Recovered D2's go then to Hawthorwne for checkout and refurb, and are easy to truck haul back to CCAFS.

Then down the road they can land them at CCAFS, and go right into some processing facility that would be built there. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/04/2015 05:18 pm

Once propulsive landing has been demonstrated to be safe and reliable, NASA is not going to continue to prefer parachute landings in the ocean, which have their own hazards and require expensive logistics.  I think NASA is in many ways just as eager for propulsive landing as Musk is.  But it has to be properly established as legitimate.

@This.  After all, pretty much all the post Apollo crew concepts were ground landing space planes.  They even designed Gemini to land on the ground, although it never did for any of the Gemini missions.
They obviously weren't in a hurry to return to water landings after Apollo.  Even the original Orion was to land on the ground, with water landing backup.  A capability removed due to Ares 1 performance shortfalls as I understand.
Dreamchaser would land on the ground, as will CST-100.  So why would they be so apprehesive about Dragon landing on the ground?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/04/2015 05:25 pm
The idea of drog chutes to slow the capsule has an interesting  additional unity. Drogs are used to pull mains
 from the capsule. If drogs are already deployed at SD start attempt, then restart fails the mains can be released quickly, actually in very short time on the order of a second or two. This is something that would make chute backup a viable system since there is only probably 10 seconds before impacting the ground.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/04/2015 05:40 pm
Drogue, not Drog. :) [ducks]
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: TripD on 02/04/2015 05:41 pm
Ok.  I need clarification.  One of the goals of the propulsive crew capsule is to provide in flight LAS right?  If this should ever occur, won't the fuel be all but spent?  With this in mind, I was under the assumption that parachutes would have to be part of any configuration to bring the capsule down softly.  Am I misinformed?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RoboGoofers on 02/04/2015 05:51 pm
NASA had no problem with relying solely on propulsively landing back in 1969. I know, the Moon is different and the LM could abort to orbit. But even so, they entrusted 12 lives to propulsive landing working perfectly, and it did.

If superdracos are used to deobit (are they?), they would likely have high confidence that they would work at landing. if they didn't fire, they could deorbit with the dracos and land under parachute.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/04/2015 05:53 pm
Ok.  I need clarification.  One of the goals of the propulsive crew capsule is to provide in flight LAS right?  If this should ever occur, won't the fuel be all but spent?  With this in mind, I was under the assumption that parachutes would have to be part of any configuration to bring the capsule down softly.  Am I misinformed?

You are correct. In an abort there will be no fuel left. Dragon 2 will always carry a parachute for this reason, no matter if it is the default landing mode or not.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: eriblo on 02/04/2015 06:56 pm
I'm not completely sure what's being argued about regarding powered landings so I'll just add my thoughts:

I never anticipated fully propulsive landings until after the DragonFly program (up to 60 "flights"). As it has been obvious for some time that it wouldn't be completed in time (as in not even begun) I fully expected parachute landings as the baseline - with splashdown being the low risk option (to the program, the same situation as Dragon v1 reuse).
 
However I still think that they will try to move to assisted landings (on land) as soon as possible and eventually to fully propulsive landings, which I think will be safer for two reasons:

First: Higher reliability. Of course having two systems (parachutes will be retained as backup) is safer than either alone but I believe the SuperDracos to be capable of a higher inherent reliability. They (the actual flight hardware) will be previously tested both on the ground and in flight and "only" require a set of valves to continue operating for the duration of the landing. They will also be far from their operating limits. Parachutes on the other hand are a mature technology with known risks and performance - but there is a reason that skydivers use a professionally packed reserve. Deployment is crucial and has to rely on packing procedure (flight hardware can not be tested in exact configuration).

Secondly: Safer recovery. Avoiding splashdowns removes a lot of risk during recovery (ask Gus Grissom) but landing on land has it's own risks, especially during off-nominal scenarios (as in Soyuz-18a and Soyuz-23). Propulsive landings enable increased safety through pinpoint accuracy - it will be interesting to see if piloted or automatic hazard avoidance will be implemented.

 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: eriblo on 02/04/2015 07:03 pm
[...]
If superdracos are used to deobit (are they?), they would likely have high confidence that they would work at landing. if they didn't fire, they could deorbit with the dracos and land under parachute.

No reason to, vastly overpowered and inefficient. The stated plan is to ignite them at a safe altitude (for parachute deployment) before committing to a propulsive landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Eerie on 02/04/2015 07:32 pm
NASA had no problem with relying solely on propulsively landing back in 1969. I know, the Moon is different and the LM could abort to orbit.

And D2 can abort to parachutes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/04/2015 08:52 pm
NASA had no problem with relying solely on propulsively landing back in 1969. I know, the Moon is different and the LM could abort to orbit.

And D2 can abort to parachutes.

Up to a point.  There is gonna be a dead man's curve.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/04/2015 08:54 pm
Statistically there are virtually no stats for rocket-powered propulsive capsule landings to base your claim.
I am not sure one can say that. Soyuz uses propulsive breaking to soften the landing. So there is quite a bit of data related to that. IIRC, they have had very few failures of that (from what I could find), most were related to other issues that caused them. They had quite a few parachute related issues as well, though. Several hard landings, bounces, rolls down hills due to windgusts, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 02/04/2015 08:56 pm
Musk has said over and over that "this is how a 21st century spaceship lands."  He is completely committed to propulsive landing. 

This is currently marketing/aspiration.  It will happen in maybe 10-15 years when preparing to go to the Moon/Mars.

NASA owns the Dragon 2 space craft and fills it with NASA crew.  Therefore NASA tells SpaceX how the D2 will land for ISS crew transport.  I imagine Elon doesn't even bother expressing his aspiration to NASA as he has such little leverage on the decision.

He will have to wait until he is launching his own crew to use full propulsive crew landing.

The D2 will definitely be touching down on land as soon as possible.
1. If propulsive landing was only "marketing/aspiration" aimed 10-15 years in the future, SpaceX would not be bothering to get permits from the FAA for the DragonFly program (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/DragonFly_Final_EA_sm.pdf).
2. SpaceX owns the Dragon V2, the F9, and owns or leases it's pads.  NASA contracts for rides to the ISS and whether or not propulsive landings are an option comes down to the contract between NASA and SpaceX.  None of us can make definitive statements without seeing the contract.  And there is no way NASA is unaware of SpaceX's goal of propulsive landing.  I expect the DragonFly

I personally don't think that NASA is afraid of propulsive landing, it is my opinion that once it's proven to be reliable that NASA and astronauts will prefer it.  And it's my opinion that NASA will be supportive of experiments that support the advancement of propulsive landing (possibly allowing D2 use for cargo that "fits" through the smaller docking adapter followed by a propulsive water or desert landing with less important return cargo.)  Just as they have been supportive of flying F9s with legs.  I don't claim to know time frames for these things, but I believe they are being actively pursued.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mvpel on 02/04/2015 09:02 pm
Very good comparison. Most of the vehicle looks identical: expect for the Dracos. I agree with the people here that is expected that only some (or maybe none) will be installed for this test..... however, I still think is curious that:
- The spaces/nozzles for all other dracos appear to be there. Will they be used in the abort test?
- A new compartment that was not there before seems to have been right next to the place were the Dracos where before.

Note that the abort test Dragon's Dracos are all pointing forward - this presumably means they don't need the additional control authority that the other two Dracos in the three-nozzle pod provide. I suspect that these forward-facing Dracos will be used to position the capsule properly for parachute deployment once the SuperDraco burn is complete.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DanielW on 02/04/2015 09:09 pm
Very good comparison. Most of the vehicle looks identical: expect for the Dracos. I agree with the people here that is expected that only some (or maybe none) will be installed for this test..... however, I still think is curious that:
- The spaces/nozzles for all other dracos appear to be there. Will they be used in the abort test?
- A new compartment that was not there before seems to have been right next to the place were the Dracos where before.

Note that the abort test Dragon's Dracos are all pointing forward - this presumably means they don't need the additional control authority that the other two Dracos in the three-nozzle pod provide. I suspect that these forward-facing Dracos will be used to position the capsule properly for parachute deployment once the SuperDraco burn is complete.

I wondered if those forward dracos might also be used for fine adjustments to correct for throttling on the less accurate and responsive super-dracos.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 02/05/2015 01:13 am
And it's my opinion that NASA will be supportive of experiments that support the advancement of propulsive landing (possibly allowing D2 use for cargo that "fits" through the smaller docking adapter followed by a propulsive water or desert landing with less important return cargo.)  Just as they have been supportive of flying F9s with legs.

Agreed. The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (as amended) under Sec. 102 (Declaration of Policy and Purpose) sets out the following:

"(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage to the maximum extent possible the fullest commercial use of space.

(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
...
•(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
...
•(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere; ..."

NASA is well aware of its mandate, and wouldn't want to be seen as a block to technological or other developments in spaceflight. Also, though safety is one of NASA's objectives that doesn't mean NASA takes no risks at all, just that it strives to minimise those risks and eliminate unnecessary ones. NASA can see the advantages of propulsive landings as well as anyone, so although there will be lots of talk of 'walking before trying to run' and of extensive testing it will IMO seek to facilitate the development rather than stymie it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Comga on 02/05/2015 04:39 am
(snip)
NASA is well aware of its mandate, and wouldn't want to be seen as a block to technological or other developments in spaceflight. Also, though safety is one of NASA's objectives that doesn't mean NASA takes no risks at all, just that it strives to minimise those risks and eliminate unnecessary ones. NASA can see the advantages of propulsive landings as well as anyone, so although there will be lots of talk of 'walking before trying to run' and of extensive testing it will IMO seek to facilitate the development rather than stymie it.

This is veering into politics, which besides leading OT will not garner universal agreement, regardless of how definitively it is stated.  Perhaps we can avoid a debate over whether NASA is or is not still trying "to boldly go where no man has gone before" and see what evidence we can find for if and when propulsive landings will be attempted with a crew on board.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Comga on 02/05/2015 04:48 am
The idea of drog chutes to slow the capsule has an interesting  additional unity. Drogs are used to pull mains
 from the capsule. If drogs are already deployed at SD start attempt, then restart fails the mains can be released quickly, actually in very short time on the order of a second or two. This is something that would make chute backup a viable system since there is only probably 10 seconds before impacting the ground.

That's what I posted a couple of days back, except it was spelled "drogue" as Lars-J noted. ;)

You are correct about the drogues pulling out the main chutes for Dragon.  It's a good point that the mains could be deployed in seconds, but it would still take some time to dereef them and get them inflated.  (Can anyone here tell us how the dereefing delay is controlled?)

As a  comparison, Orion only uses its drogues to slow and stabilize the capsule.  It uses separate pilot chutes to pull out the main chutes. (And three more to pull off the forward bay cover.  That's a lot of little chutes.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: darkenfast on 02/05/2015 05:04 am
I would also have to think that SpaceX is anxious to recover Dragons on land as soon as possible, whether with a propulsively-softened parachute descent or a full propulsive landing.  I'm fairly certain that it will be easier to refurbish a spacecraft that hasn't been allowed to float in salt water for several hours.  At least in Apollo landings, you always had a certain amount of seawater coming into the spacecraft through air vents and such, and it's just not possible to keep the salt water from coming into the thruster and SD nozzles.

Remember, the only manned spacecraft that has ever been dropped into the ocean, fished out, refurbished and flown again was Gemini Spacecraft 2, flown on Gemini 2 and re-flown in the MOL demonstration flight nearly three years later.  In neither flight did that one carry men.

I would just have to think that it would be more difficult and expensive to refurbish a spacecraft that has been dunked in corrosive salt water than one that landed on a nice dry lakebed, or on a concrete landing pad.

Or near a freshwater lake?  If its accurate bring it down near a lake inland just in case you have need of the water.  Quite a few are deep enough (or they could make their own) to accommodate a splashdown.

I'd think freshwater would be easier on it than salt, but I don't know if enough to being trying to target a lake.  It's not like it'd be floating out in the ocean for very long anyway, and they can get to cleaning it out fairly quickly I'd think.  And if you need to abort the normal propulsive landing, then nothing beats a giant ocean for crew safety.  Really no chance of missing like you could with a lake.  If everything goes as planned, it's moot because it lands on the ground.

I know SpaceX has shown Dragon landing at KSC, and that's likely their eventual plan.  But I'd expect the first test propulsive landings to be at Edwards.  There's SpaceX videos showing landings at Edwards.  These would be Cargo D2's doing tests upon return.  That gives a lot of room to miss your target.  After that, they'd be at VAFB.  SLC-4 does say it's a launch and landing facility.  That gives a nice approach over water so in case of any problems prior to terminal landing, they can pop the chutes and lan in the ocean.  Once they get the landing with demonstrated reliability, I'd think this is where the first crews would land because of the ease of a water abort.  If there's some full superdraco failure, that's softer than the dry lakebed at EAFB under parachute.   A recovery boat can be staged at the VAFB barge dock there where the Delta Clipper docks, in case of water abort.  Recovered D2's go then to Hawthorwne for checkout and refurb, and are easy to truck haul back to CCAFS.

Then down the road they can land them at CCAFS, and go right into some processing facility that would be built there. 

Where do they dispose of the trunk if they land at the Cape?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Comga on 02/05/2015 05:19 am
Where do they dispose of the trunk if they land at the Cape?
Over the Gulf of Mexico?
The hollow trunk will have a MUCH lower ballistic coefficient and will slow faster and drop quicker than the Dragon capsule, before fragmenting and largely burning up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 02/05/2015 07:53 am

Where do they dispose of the trunk if they land at the Cape?

I would guess that if they ever actually do propulsive landings it will be close to Johnson in Texas.  It's home to the astronauts.  Why make them fly back from Florida when you can just drop them at their door?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Semmel on 02/05/2015 08:56 am
It would make sense to aim at the west coast for propulsive landing because it an abort to parachutes into the pacific is possible in case something goes wrong. I assume here that the trajectory of Dragon 2 would be shorter in case of a parachute abort compared to the propulsive landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 02/05/2015 09:13 am
It would make sense to aim at the west coast for propulsive landing because it an abort to parachutes into the pacific is possible in case something goes wrong. I assume here that the trajectory of Dragon 2 would be shorter in case of a parachute abort compared to the propulsive landing.

You mean as opposed to aiming for Johnson in Houston and diverting to Galveston Bay or the Gulf of Mexico, which is like literally right there?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Semmel on 02/05/2015 10:38 am
You mean as opposed to aiming for Johnson in Houston and diverting to Galveston Bay or the Gulf of Mexico, which is like literally right there?

Well, thats not exactly what I meant. Looking at the map, I realize that it might be impossible for Dragon to reach the west coast of the USA at the pacific ocean because it is too far north. Maybe the west coast of Florida would work. That is driven by the assumption that Dragon needs to be able to perform a parachute landing in the ocean in case a propulsive landing is aborted mid-descent.

If the parachute descend is shorter than the propulsive landing, the target should be a west coast (water is west of the land) and if the parachute descend is longer than the propulsive landing, the target location should be an east-coast (water east of the land).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JBF on 02/05/2015 10:43 am
You mean as opposed to aiming for Johnson in Houston and diverting to Galveston Bay or the Gulf of Mexico, which is like literally right there?

Well, thats not exactly what I meant. Looking at the map, I realize that it might be impossible for Dragon to reach the west coast of the USA at the pacific ocean because it is too far north. Maybe the west coast of Florida would work. That is driven by the assumption that Dragon needs to be able to perform a parachute landing in the ocean in case a propulsive landing is aborted mid-descent.

If the parachute descend is shorter than the propulsive landing, the target should be a west coast (water is west of the land) and if the parachute descend is longer than the propulsive landing, the target location should be an east-coast (water east of the land).
I would disagree, the dragon will be coming in on a west east trajectory final testing of the dracos will be somewhere over the continental US.  If they have to use parachutes they will drift further east. The east side of the cape would be the best landing spot.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Semmel on 02/05/2015 10:56 am

Well, thats not exactly what I meant. Looking at the map, I realize that it might be impossible for Dragon to reach the west coast of the USA at the pacific ocean because it is too far north. Maybe the west coast of Florida would work. That is driven by the assumption that Dragon needs to be able to perform a parachute landing in the ocean in case a propulsive landing is aborted mid-descent.

If the parachute descend is shorter than the propulsive landing, the target should be a west coast (water is west of the land) and if the parachute descend is longer than the propulsive landing, the target location should be an east-coast (water east of the land).
I would disagree, the dragon will be coming in on a west east trajectory final testing of the dracos will be somewhere over the continental US.  If they have to use parachutes they will drift further east. The east side of the cape would be the best landing spot.

So your assumption is, that Dragon 2 would perform a breaking maneuver mid-descend with the Superdracos? If so, at what altitude would that be necessary so that you can deploy the parachutes safely and drift further into the ocean in case the superdracos fail?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/05/2015 12:11 pm
If they need to abort a fully propulsive landing, they can pull the chute and land on land without injury, though the capsule will surely be totaled without any propulsive assist. That much has been said by SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/05/2015 04:40 pm
If they need to abort a fully propulsive landing, they can pull the chute and land on land without injury, though the capsule will surely be totaled without any propulsive assist. That much has been said by SpaceX.

Yes, but as others have pointed out, the parachute needs to be deployed above a certain altitude. Below that - you can get into trouble. That's why confidence in the system is needed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 02/05/2015 05:08 pm
So your assumption is, that Dragon 2 would perform a breaking maneuver mid-descend with the Superdracos? If so, at what altitude would that be necessary so that you can deploy the parachutes safely and drift further into the ocean in case the superdracos fail?

My understanding of the concept is firing the SuperDraco at the altitude where they still can safely deploy the parachutes. That firing is for verification that the SuperDraco work only, not for braking. So a fraction of a second.

If the firing goes without a hitch they commit for propulsive landing. If the SuperDraco fail at the landing burn a few seconds later it would be lethal. But with the basic reliability of the concept, pressure fed, hypergolic it is extremely unlikely that they will suddenly fail at that point in time. And they can still compensate if one or two of them do fail.

If they use parachutes, they can still utilize working SuperDraco for a soft landing. If all SuperDraco fail the landing will be probably without injuries to crew, but really hard.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RoboGoofers on 02/05/2015 05:32 pm
[...]
If superdracos are used to deobit (are they?), they would likely have high confidence that they would work at landing. if they didn't fire, they could deorbit with the dracos and land under parachute.

No reason to, vastly overpowered and inefficient. The stated plan is to ignite them at a safe altitude (for parachute deployment) before committing to a propulsive landing.

I can't find any published ISP for Dracos, but why would they be much more efficient than Superdracos? Same fuel.

Yes they're overpowered, but they throttle low, and you don't need to burn all 8, presumably. Might that be low enough? Also the current deorbit burn (i've recall) is 10 mins with dracos.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Owlon on 02/05/2015 05:33 pm
[...]
If superdracos are used to deobit (are they?), they would likely have high confidence that they would work at landing. if they didn't fire, they could deorbit with the dracos and land under parachute.

No reason to, vastly overpowered and inefficient. The stated plan is to ignite them at a safe altitude (for parachute deployment) before committing to a propulsive landing.

I can't find any published ISP for Dracos, but why would they be much more efficient than Superdracos? Same fuel.

Yes they're overpowered, but they throttle low, and you don't need to burn all 8, presumably. Might that be low enough? Also the current deorbit burn (i've recall) is 10 mins with dracos.

The draco thrusters are tiny, so they can afford to have a relatively larger nozzle with a better expansion ratio. The superdracos are very space constrained.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Semmel on 02/05/2015 06:48 pm
So your assumption is, that Dragon 2 would perform a breaking maneuver mid-descend with the Superdracos? If so, at what altitude would that be necessary so that you can deploy the parachutes safely and drift further into the ocean in case the superdracos fail?

My understanding of the concept is firing the SuperDraco at the altitude where they still can safely deploy the parachutes. That firing is for verification that the SuperDraco work only, not for braking. So a fraction of a second.

If the firing goes without a hitch they commit for propulsive landing. If the SuperDraco fail at the landing burn a few seconds later it would be lethal. But with the basic reliability of the concept, pressure fed, hypergolic it is extremely unlikely that they will suddenly fail at that point in time. And they can still compensate if one or two of them do fail.

If they use parachutes, they can still utilize working SuperDraco for a soft landing. If all SuperDraco fail the landing will be probably without injuries to crew, but really hard.

If that assumption is correct, then Dragon 2 would fall short when using the parachutes backup because the chutes have more drag and the capsule would not sail as far through the air. So is the abort scenario "parachute to ocean" (implies a west coast) or is it "parachute to land" (implies entirely over land or at an east coast)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: nadreck on 02/05/2015 06:53 pm
At 3G (2G deceleration plus 1G of gravity) decelerating the capsule from 200m/s would take 1km of altitude by thruster, which is far more than needed for any parachute system to work, yes with the drogue.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 02/05/2015 06:54 pm
Just a quick question:

How many superdracos are necessary to land safely? As far as I know, one loss (together with its counterpart on the other side) is acceptable. But is it possible to land under full propulsion with 2 losses and their switched off counterparts (means: 4 SD out of 8 working).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Nomadd on 02/05/2015 08:51 pm
Just a quick question:

How many superdracos are necessary to land safely? As far as I know, one loss (together with its counterpart on the other side) is acceptable. But is it possible to land under full propulsion with 2 losses and their switched off counterparts (means: 4 SD out of 8 working).
4 would be more than enough. 2 would be enough thrust to land if they lost engines late in the descent and had already decelerated. 2 might not be very stable though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Roy_H on 02/05/2015 08:54 pm
2 might not be very stable though.

That is a serious problem, and I don't think landing with just 2 working thrusters would be successful.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Roy_H on 02/05/2015 08:58 pm
So, I am disappointed to find out that the first few piloted flights will land in the ocean. This appears to be because NASA is not comfortable with propulsive landing, but does anybody know why? I suspect that there may be more concern about the use of hypergolics than landing accuracy or touching down gently.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: hrissan on 02/05/2015 09:08 pm
2 might not be very stable though.

That is a serious problem, and I don't think landing with just 2 working thrusters would be successful.
Well, if the altitude is too low for a chute, then probably the computer will use all remaining SDs in combination with Dracos to 1. Maintain stability 2. Brake as much as possible. The task is simplified because low altitude means low speed, so aerodynamic forces are smaller.

So with some luck (exactly opposite 2 SDs still working) probably the thrust of 4 Dracos (2 firing down and 2 up) will be able to balance the capsule? 400N*4 acting with leverage of 1.5 meters is respectable torque. For compariosn the much greater thrust of 2 SDs firing with 73000N*2 is applied to almost the center of mass of the capsule.

The Dracos must overcome only disbalance, and I bet the computer will do its best to land even in this desperate situation, (if physically possible).

Edit: quick calc, let's pretend we have just 2 SDs remaining, they are in opposite pair, but not quite opposite to each other, there are about 0.2 meters between their centers, so the disbalance torque from SDs is 73000*2*0.1=14600N*m, while the balancing torque from 4 Dracos at 1.5 meters is 400*4*1.5= 2400N*m, so we are doomed in that case. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: NaN on 02/05/2015 09:11 pm
So, I am disappointed to find out that the first few piloted flights will land in the ocean. This appears to be because NASA is not comfortable with propulsive landing, but does anybody know why? I suspect that there may be more concern about the use of hypergolics than landing accuracy or touching down gently.

Lack of flight heritage is the obvious reason. Nobody, whether NASA or other, should be comfortable with having lives depend on propulsive landing until the system in question has been successfully demonstrated multiple times. Parachutes are very well understood yet they still flight-tested their new parachute system, propulsive is no different. I'm disappointed but hardly surprised that they will be using parachutes at first; they're just behind in development.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: moralec on 02/05/2015 09:17 pm
2 might not be very stable though.

That is a serious problem, and I don't think landing with just 2 working thrusters would be successful.

They have 8 SuperDracos right? I still a certain risk in the unlikely even of having only 2 thrusters working, is acceptable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Roy_H on 02/05/2015 09:19 pm
So, I am disappointed to find out that the first few piloted flights will land in the ocean. This appears to be because NASA is not comfortable with propulsive landing, but does anybody know why? I suspect that there may be more concern about the use of hypergolics than landing accuracy or touching down gently.

Lack of flight heritage is the obvious reason. Nobody, whether NASA or other, should be comfortable with having lives depend on propulsive landing until the system in question has been successfully demonstrated multiple times. Parachutes are very well understood yet they still flight-tested their new parachute system, propulsive is no different. I'm disappointed but hardly surprised that they will be using parachutes at first; they're just behind in development.

Propulsive landing is not that new, a dozen Apollo Moon landings were propulsive, plus Mars rover etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: NaN on 02/05/2015 09:31 pm
So, I am disappointed to find out that the first few piloted flights will land in the ocean. This appears to be because NASA is not comfortable with propulsive landing, but does anybody know why? I suspect that there may be more concern about the use of hypergolics than landing accuracy or touching down gently.

Lack of flight heritage is the obvious reason. Nobody, whether NASA or other, should be comfortable with having lives depend on propulsive landing until the system in question has been successfully demonstrated multiple times. Parachutes are very well understood yet they still flight-tested their new parachute system, propulsive is no different. I'm disappointed but hardly surprised that they will be using parachutes at first; they're just behind in development.

Propulsive landing is not that new, a dozen Apollo Moon landings were propulsive, plus Mars rover etc.

That's why I said "the system in question" - a bit vague, but I meant they need to demonstrate Dragon 2 landing on Earth, and at least once from an orbital reentry, IMO.
Anyway, even if SpaceX believes they can develop and test it in time, now is not the time to talk about it. Show lots of success and then talk about it :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 02/05/2015 10:54 pm
Just a quick question:

How many superdracos are necessary to land safely? As far as I know, one loss (together with its counterpart on the other side) is acceptable. But is it possible to land under full propulsion with 2 losses and their switched off counterparts (means: 4 SD out of 8 working).
4 would be more than enough. 2 would be enough thrust to land if they lost engines late in the descent and had already decelerated. 2 might not be very stable though.

That could be the worst case scenario: slow down enough to deploy the chutes safely.

I know, that would already mean: test fire was okay, the capsule did not deploy the chutes. Then, 3 engines failed (not simultanous, but that would make the situation even worse) and the capsule had to turn off their counterparts, being left with 2 engines. Well, the capsule needs to slow down till it can safely deploy the chutes.

Of course, that would ground Dragon 2 for quite some while, till spaceX figures out what happend.

Initially, I just wanted to know, if dragon can still function with 2 failed engines (I knew that it was constructed to deal with one failing engine... out of eight).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 02/05/2015 11:10 pm
...
I know, that would already mean: test fire was okay, the capsule did not deploy the chutes. Then, 3 engines failed (not simultanous, but that would make the situation even worse) and the capsule had to turn off their counterparts, being left with 2 engines. Well, the capsule needs to slow down till it can safely deploy the chutes.

Of course, that would ground Dragon 2 for quite some while, till spaceX figures out what happend.

Initially, I just wanted to know, if dragon can still function with 2 failed engines (I knew that it was constructed to deal with one failing engine... out of eight).

According to Musk, it can land even if 2 engines fail SpaceX Dragon 2 Unveil Transcript (http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-unveils-dragon-2-2014-05-29):
Quote
Dragon version two still retains the parachutes of Dragon version one, so that - what it'll do when it reaches a particular altitude just a few miles before landing, it will test the engines, verify that all the engines are working, it will then proceed to a propulsive landing. If there's any anomaly detected with the engines or the propulsion system it will then deploy the parachutes to ensure a safe landing even in the event the propulsion system is not working. Even after starting the propulsion system, it can afford to lose up to two engines and still land safely. After the engines are started it deploys the landing legs for a soft landing.

I don't know if it matters which two engines or if it's really "any" two engines.  So the important question which will take testing to determine is "what are the odds of a pressure fed hypergolic engine failing after ignition?"  My bet is that it is incredibly unlikely.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 02/06/2015 12:00 am
Just a quick question:

How many superdracos are necessary to land safely? As far as I know, one loss (together with its counterpart on the other side) is acceptable. But is it possible to land under full propulsion with 2 losses and their switched off counterparts (means: 4 SD out of 8 working).
4 would be more than enough. 2 would be enough thrust to land if they lost engines late in the descent and had already decelerated. 2 might not be very stable though.

That could be the worst case scenario: slow down enough to deploy the chutes safely.

I know, that would already mean: test fire was okay, the capsule did not deploy the chutes. Then, 3 engines failed (not simultanous, but that would make the situation even worse) and the capsule had to turn off their counterparts, being left with 2 engines. Well, the capsule needs to slow down till it can safely deploy the chutes.

Parachutes don't really work that way.  Especially when we're talking about the monsters used on reentering spacecraft.  The problem is that Dragon will need to be falling faster than a certain velocity in order for the parachutes to open properly.  It isn't just a matter of needing to be above a certain altitude to allow enough time for the chutes to fully open; they also need to be moving fast enough.  So, yes.  Even with some thrusters still working, there's still a black zone if the failure happens below the safe chute deployment altitude.  They may be able to reduce the size of the zone a bit with thrusters but not  that much and it's not a given.  What's got to happen is that they get the chutes open as much as possible, then use what thrusters they have to try to lessen the impact as much as they can (like soyuz).  They don't do it the other way, i.e. thrusters to slow down then try to open chutes.

Edit: This was assuming that the thruster failure precluded a safe propulsive landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 02/06/2015 12:49 am
This is currently marketing/aspiration.  It will happen in maybe 10-15 years when preparing to go to the Moon/Mars.

NASA owns the Dragon 2 space craft and fills it with NASA crew.

As others have said, NASA does **not** own the Dragon. It belongs to SpaceX.
As for the 10-15 year crack, try 18 months.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: solartear on 02/06/2015 01:05 am
Suppose the nose cone cannot re-latch correctly after visiting ISS. Could the Dragon jettison the nose cone? IMHO yes, as a failsafe, since a loose nose cone would be dangerous for re-entry, descent and landing.

Would they then blow the emergency explosive bolts for the berthing port before re-entry to prevent accidental triggering during re-entry? The top looks rather exposed without a nose cone.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/06/2015 01:23 am
Parachutes can also have problems. It's possible propulsive landing will ultimately be safer when combined with a chute backup.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 02/06/2015 02:19 am
Propulsive landings.  Hmm.

A little history, first.  The very first images of spaceships landing on Earth, presented to us by our science fiction, showed great cigar-shaped spaceships backing themselves onto great landing pads, fire shooting out of their rockets and dramatically splaying across the landing field.

But then came real, actual spaceflights.  And us Americans, anyway, figured it was safer to drop a capsule into the ocean and go fish it out than to risk a rocket cutting out just as you approached the ground.  If  manned spacecraft was going to land on terra firma, it was going to land on wheels (or skids) and roll out like a real aircraft, by God!

Gemini was supposed to land via the Rogallo wing inflatable paraglider, and many people fought to keep it despite developmental problems just to land the thing like a real aircraft.  The development problems were eventually overcome, and the final tests did prove out the entire deployment sequence, but by that time NASA management was developing an allergy to flying the thing regardless of how well the final tests went.  They just didn't trust that it would work when push came to shove, and the abort alternative -- punching out in the ejection seats -- was something every single person who ever flew in a Gemini fervently prayed they would never have to use.

Note that the only American spacecraft to land on land was the Shuttle, which perforce had to land on a runway or a dry lakebed.  It wouldn't survive any other type of landing.  But it landed on wheels and rolled out like a real aircraft, by God.  It wasn't some juvenile, discredited concept of a big ol' SSTO spaceship backing itself down on its engine thrust and landing.  That was kid's sci fi junk, and they were real aerospace engineers now.  There are unwritten, unspoken rules as to how an aircraft is supposed to land, and if you land on land, you're suppose do land on wheels and roll out down the runway.  That's how it's done.

Now, as has been pointed out, yes, the Apollo LM landed humans propulsively.  But on a small, airless body with only one-sixth of Earth's gravity.  That makes it seem somehow easier to do -- that and you didn't have to survive a fiery plunge into the atmosphere, generating thousands of degrees of heat on your back end, and then turn on your rocket.  The latter, in a G-field six times stronger, makes it seem harder and more dangerous.

There is a definite emotional reluctance to fly anything to the ground that doesn't come in like an aircraft and land on wheels.  No matter how many times the propulsive landing tests show a fine success rate, no matter how sound the engineering, and no matter how many times the technique has been proven on unmanned test flights, there will still be an emotional reluctance to commit human lives to engines (particularly those that have just had to endure atmospheric entry heat) that must work properly, throttle properly, and permit safe landings not just most of the time, but every time.

I think there will come a day, in the not-too-distant future, when propulsive landings have become the norm, and the risks will be accepted as no worse than the risks all of us take when we fly on commercial airliners.  But it's going to take a while for the group mind (especially the one in the aerospace industry) to get used to the idea and to embrace it.  Until then, there is going to be a steady stream of skepticism and unease about propulsive landings, and we'll just have to sit back and watch them overcome it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jcc on 02/06/2015 02:38 am
The Russians have always landed on land, and with many fewer casualties than the Shuttle had.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 02/06/2015 04:14 am
The Russians have always landed on land, and with many fewer casualties than the Shuttle had.

Ah, but, a) they were Russians (and this, I think, is more of an American allergy to propulsive landings than anything else), and b) even the Russians didn't let their people land inside the spacecraft until they were literally forced by the Voskhod design to accept a solution that left the crew inside all the way to the ground.  And even then, designer Feoktistov had to volunteer to fly in the first one because many people, including Korolev, didn't think the Voskhod landing system was particularly safe.

Heck, when Max Faget was first starting to think about landing on the Moon, he initially thought about going into lunar orbit, scouting the site from there, and then descending from orbit.  Von Braun and Pickering and others were thinking about shooting a direct ascent vehicle right at the Moon and just starting to brake about 60 seconds prior to lunar impact.  Faget questioned this, saying "It would be a pretty bad day if your engines failed to light."  And Faget eventually got his way.

So, for human landings, just dropping on in and depending on your engines to light fairly late in your descent to land safely has been resisted for quite a long time, at least at NASA.  I bet the FAA is going to take some amount of convincing before they issue permits for propulsive landings (as I do believe they will be required), and even with parachute backup, I think it will take a lot of fault-free testing and several successful demonstrations before NASA allows one of its crews to participate in a fully propulsive landing.

Now, a totally SpaceX crew, that's another matter...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 02/06/2015 04:34 am
Propulsive landings.  Hmm.

A little history, first.  The very first images of spaceships landing on Earth, presented to us by our science fiction, showed great cigar-shaped spaceships backing themselves onto great landing pads, fire shooting out of their rockets and dramatically splaying across the landing field.

But then came real, actual spaceflights.  And us Americans, anyway, figured it was safer to drop a capsule into the ocean and go fish it out than to risk a rocket cutting out just as you approached the ground.  If  manned spacecraft was going to land on terra firma, it was going to land on wheels (or skids) and roll out like a real aircraft, by God!

Gemini was supposed to land via the Rogallo wing inflatable paraglider, and many people fought to keep it despite developmental problems just to land the thing like a real aircraft.  The development problems were eventually overcome, and the final tests did prove out the entire deployment sequence, but by that time NASA management was developing an allergy to flying the thing regardless of how well the final tests went.  They just didn't trust that it would work when push came to shove, and the abort alternative -- punching out in the ejection seats -- was something every single person who ever flew in a Gemini fervently prayed they would never have to use.

Note that the only American spacecraft to land on land was the Shuttle, which perforce had to land on a runway or a dry lakebed.  It wouldn't survive any other type of landing.  But it landed on wheels and rolled out like a real aircraft, by God.  It wasn't some juvenile, discredited concept of a big ol' SSTO spaceship backing itself down on its engine thrust and landing.  That was kid's sci fi junk, and they were real aerospace engineers now.  There are unwritten, unspoken rules as to how an aircraft is supposed to land, and if you land on land, you're suppose do land on wheels and roll out down the runway.  That's how it's done.

Now, as has been pointed out, yes, the Apollo LM landed humans propulsively.  But on a small, airless body with only one-sixth of Earth's gravity.  That makes it seem somehow easier to do -- that and you didn't have to survive a fiery plunge into the atmosphere, generating thousands of degrees of heat on your back end, and then turn on your rocket.  The latter, in a G-field six times stronger, makes it seem harder and more dangerous.

There is a definite emotional reluctance to fly anything to the ground that doesn't come in like an aircraft and land on wheels.  No matter how many times the propulsive landing tests show a fine success rate, no matter how sound the engineering, and no matter how many times the technique has been proven on unmanned test flights, there will still be an emotional reluctance to commit human lives to engines (particularly those that have just had to endure atmospheric entry heat) that must work properly, throttle properly, and permit safe landings not just most of the time, but every time.

I think there will come a day, in the not-too-distant future, when propulsive landings have become the norm, and the risks will be accepted as no worse than the risks all of us take when we fly on commercial airliners.  But it's going to take a while for the group mind (especially the one in the aerospace industry) to get used to the idea and to embrace it.  Until then, there is going to be a steady stream of skepticism and unease about propulsive landings, and we'll just have to sit back and watch them overcome it.

Very much so.

The whole concept of winged flight has taken root in the collective subconscious because airplanes are so successful. It looks almost "natural".

We forget that landing is an insane maneuver, where you approach the ground at lethal speeds and thus require dedicated obstacle-free "runways" in order to pull it off....  and that this maneuver is required because of the reliance on wings, and wings are necessary because of the realities of prolonged aerodynamic flights.

And hence came the concept of "space planes", and the giant technological detour that culminated in STS.

But even inertia can only carry you so far.  I am glad to finally see a "reset", and even happier to see it happen in the large concept of a Mars-centric plan.  Good times.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/06/2015 05:47 am

But even inertia can only carry you so far.  I am glad to finally see a "reset", and even happier to see it happen in the large concept of a Mars-centric plan.  Good times.

I would only add the addendum that the true lifting body spaceplane never got a chance to fill its niche as the winged space shuttle was a far cry from what the lifting body would've evolved into had it not been derailed by Apollo.  I was hoping HL-20 would finally get its chance in the form of Dream Chaser, but c'est la vie.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: zodiacchris on 02/06/2015 06:06 am
And then there are the helicopters, whirly things that go vertically up and down, rely on their engines and sometimes land on skids, and pretty much everywhere.

But if the engine fails below autorotation speed, golly, you do have a problem indeed! ???

This to me would be the closest concept wise to propulsive landing of Dragon, parachute deployment minimum = autorotation height, and ability to put down in a paddock, runway optional.

We do accept the dead man's corner on helicopters, I guess we'll get used to the ones on Dragon, too, eventually.

5c worth...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 02/06/2015 06:16 am

But even inertia can only carry you so far.  I am glad to finally see a "reset", and even happier to see it happen in the large concept of a Mars-centric plan.  Good times.

I would only add the addendum that the true lifting body spaceplane never got a chance to fill its niche as the winged space shuttle was a far cry from what the lifting body would've evolved into had it not been derailed by Apollo.  I was hoping HL-20 would finally get its chance in the form of Dream Chaser, but c'est la vie.

Even though I like vertical landings much better, I still wanted it to lose (or win!) based on its merits, and I agree that it did not get that chance.  X-38 CRV didn't get one either.



Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: darkenfast on 02/06/2015 06:46 am
1. When the whole Constellation thing started, they had to discuss landings in the report.  They originally were going to land what became Orion at two locations: Edwards and Moses dry lake in Washington.  Those were the only two places that were considered good, not just because of lunar return restrictions, or landing error requirements on parachutes, but because the vehicle's back end HAD to be disposed of over the open ocean.  Now, the Dragon's trunk is a smaller and much lighter object, but I still doubt that re-entry licenses are going to be issued for routine disposal of the trunk over the U.S.. Someone who has actual facts to the contrary should please produce them.

2. As pointed out above, at least half of the Super-Dracos can fail and still have plenty of margin to land a Dragon.  The SDs will probably be used to maneuver during the last phase of the flight, so the vehicle will know what it has available before it has to commit to a powered landing vice a parachute abort.  If these thrusters are like those used on various other manned spacecraft, they have back-up valve paths.  They are simple pressure-fed motors.  At some point, the system becomes less failure-prone than parachutes.  I don't know where that point is, but maybe someone here does.  I DO believe, however, that the proposed Dragon landing system IS way more reliable than any VTOL aircraft ever made (Harrier, Yak-38, F-35), with their turbofan engines, rotating nozzles, etc..
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: hrissan on 02/06/2015 08:05 am
About "testing" superdracos before landing, that was probably a simplified explanation for a general public.

Actually, braking at comfortable acceleration from terminal velocity requires starting maneuver about kilometer above surface, so "testing" is just starting the braking burn.

Once started SDs probably will not be turned off until capsule is sitting firmly on the ground.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 02/06/2015 08:10 am
About "testing" superdracos before landing, that was probably a simplified explanation for a general public.

Actually, braking at comfortable acceleration from terminal velocity requires starting maneuver about kilometer above surface, so "testing" is just starting the braking burn.

Once started SDs probably will not be turned off until capsule is sitting firmly on the ground.

In that case risk would approach Zero!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 02/06/2015 12:32 pm
Full mission duration safety should be the safety criterion, and the NASA bench mark should be the Shuttle. 
If it is safer than what NASA chose to fly for a generation, then it should not be deemed too risky (by NASA, anyway). 

Getting up through the atmosphere and back down will always be the most risk... Landing propulsively (after appropriate hardware/software tests and demos, of course) with parachute back-up, will never dominate the risk budget of a flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 02/06/2015 12:51 pm
The Russians have always landed on land, and with many fewer casualties than the Shuttle had.

But there was a casualty: Vladimir Komarov, on the first Soyuz mission. His parachute failed and the spacecraft crashed to Earth. Parachute.

We lost no Shuttle Orbiters on glide (proven technology from the lifting body programs) but we had a re-entry failure.

The best conclusion we can say to-date is that an Earth re-entry system, from entry interface to landing, has to have its protections and systems working for there's often no backup.

SpaceX's design is adding a backup (or new primary mode, depending on how you look at it) that we've not had before, and that's refreshing. But we can't discuss it as if it's a given, proven technology until it has a proven track record (actually flown) and it's properly integrated into existing recovery systems. As someone just said, propulsive manned landings to Earth from LEO or beyond haven't been done.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sghill on 02/06/2015 12:54 pm
The Russians have always landed on land, and with many fewer casualties than the Shuttle had.

But there was a casualty: Vladimir Komarov, on the first Soyuz mission. His parachute failed and the spacecraft crashed to Earth. Parachute.

And don't forget that Gagarin was forced to bail out of his capsule.  Again. Parachute.
;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 02/06/2015 12:54 pm
Suppose the nose cone cannot re-latch correctly after visiting ISS. Could the Dragon jettison the nose cone? IMHO yes, as a failsafe, since a loose nose cone would be dangerous for re-entry, descent and landing.

Would they then blow the emergency explosive bolts for the berthing port before re-entry to prevent accidental triggering during re-entry? The top looks rather exposed without a nose cone.

I don't think that SpaceX has answered this question yet. While their design is similar to other capsules, it's a bit longer than Apollo or CST-100 (which had/will get reentry exposure indirectly as plasma goes by), so the exposure of the docking hatch to reentry heat is a concern.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 02/06/2015 02:45 pm
Full mission duration safety should be the safety criterion, and the NASA bench mark should be the Shuttle. 



That's a pretty low bar, unfortunately.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: NovaSilisko on 02/06/2015 03:19 pm
Suppose the nose cone cannot re-latch correctly after visiting ISS. Could the Dragon jettison the nose cone? IMHO yes, as a failsafe, since a loose nose cone would be dangerous for re-entry, descent and landing.

Would they then blow the emergency explosive bolts for the berthing port before re-entry to prevent accidental triggering during re-entry? The top looks rather exposed without a nose cone.

I don't think that SpaceX has answered this question yet. While their design is similar to other capsules, it's a bit longer than Apollo or CST-100 (which had/will get reentry exposure indirectly as plasma goes by), so the exposure of the docking hatch to reentry heat is a concern.

Dragon v1 has reentered fine several times without a nosecone, I suspect covering the docking port and hatch has more to do with making reuse easier (and discarding less hardware)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 02/06/2015 03:27 pm
Full mission duration safety should be the safety criterion, and the NASA bench mark should be the Shuttle. 



That's a pretty low bar, unfortunately.

Lived with it for a generation... maybe 3x lower, 10x lower is a better bar and probably also easily achievable.  I just think we should use the units of "Shuttles" (e.g., 3x safer than Shuttle, 10x safer than Shuttle, etc.) to put things into perspective.  We should not have 'as safe as we can make it' as some absolute standard.  We're not forcing anyone to ride these things, are we?

How about Orion's planned risk?  Can we now use that as the gold standard?
NASA does seem ready to launch crew on second Orion...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: watermod on 02/06/2015 03:55 pm
Full mission duration safety should be the safety criterion, and the NASA bench mark should be the Shuttle. 



That's a pretty low bar, unfortunately.

Lived with it for a generation... maybe 3x lower, 10x lower is a better bar and probably also easily achievable.  I just think we should use the units of "Shuttles" (e.g., 3x safer than Shuttle, 10x safer than Shuttle, etc.) to put things into perspective.  We should not have 'as safe as we can make it' as some absolute standard.  We're not forcing anyone to ride these things, are we?

How about Orion's planned risk?  Can we now use that as the gold standard?
NASA does seem ready to launch crew on second Orion...

Interesting way of looking at things.   Brings up the question of when civil passenger air was deemed the gold standard of safety compared to gov (military) passenger air.  Pan Am Clipper?  Earlier?   
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/06/2015 04:11 pm
The Russians have always landed on land, and with many fewer casualties than the Shuttle had.

But there was a casualty: Vladimir Komarov, on the first Soyuz mission. His parachute failed and the spacecraft crashed to Earth. Parachute.

And don't forget that Gagarin was forced to bail out of his capsule.  Again. Parachute.
;)

He wasn't forced, that was planned. I believe this happened for all manned Vostok flights?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/06/2015 04:53 pm
Hence the emoticon.  But thank you as always for daily correcting each of my posts. :)

It's on my daily to-do list, apparently!  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: arachnitect on 02/06/2015 04:58 pm

2. As pointed out above, at least half of the Super-Dracos can fail and still have plenty of margin to land a Dragon.  The SDs will probably be used to maneuver during the last phase of the flight, so the vehicle will know what it has available before it has to commit to a powered landing vice a parachute abort.  If these thrusters are like those used on various other manned spacecraft, they have back-up valve paths.  They are simple pressure-fed motors.  At some point, the system becomes less failure-prone than parachutes.  I don't know where that point is, but maybe someone here does.  I DO believe, however, that the proposed Dragon landing system IS way more reliable than any VTOL aircraft ever made (Harrier, Yak-38, F-35), with their turbofan engines, rotating nozzles, etc..

The problem isn't the thrusters, it's control. With parachutes you just need a few pieces of hardware to operate correctly and you're pretty much safe. With propulsive landing just having the thrusters firing isn't sufficient.

I'm sure they can figure it out eventually if they really want to, but getting the avionics and software for propulsive landing designed, tested, and certified in 2 years was never going to happen.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ggr on 02/06/2015 05:08 pm
And then there are the helicopters, whirly things that go vertically up and down, rely on their engines and sometimes land on skids, and pretty much everywhere.

But if the engine fails below autorotation speed, golly, you do have a problem indeed! ???

This to me would be the closest concept wise to propulsive landing of Dragon, parachute deployment minimum = autorotation height, and ability to put down in a paddock, runway optional.

We do accept the dead man's corner on helicopters, I guess we'll get used to the ones on Dragon, too, eventually.

5c worth...

Thanks. I've been thinking of mentioning helicopters, but as a bug-splatterer, I didn't feel like I could be authoritative.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 02/06/2015 05:27 pm

2. As pointed out above, at least half of the Super-Dracos can fail and still have plenty of margin to land a Dragon.  The SDs will probably be used to maneuver during the last phase of the flight, so the vehicle will know what it has available before it has to commit to a powered landing vice a parachute abort.  If these thrusters are like those used on various other manned spacecraft, they have back-up valve paths.  They are simple pressure-fed motors.  At some point, the system becomes less failure-prone than parachutes.  I don't know where that point is, but maybe someone here does.  I DO believe, however, that the proposed Dragon landing system IS way more reliable than any VTOL aircraft ever made (Harrier, Yak-38, F-35), with their turbofan engines, rotating nozzles, etc..

The problem isn't the thrusters, it's control. With parachutes you just need a few pieces of hardware to operate correctly and you're pretty much safe. With propulsive landing just having the thrusters firing isn't sufficient.

I'm sure they can figure it out eventually if they really want to, but getting the avionics and software for propulsive landing designed, tested, and certified in 2 years was never going to happen.


I would think it's mostly designed already.  As for the rate of testing and certification, that really depends on how the Dragonfly program goes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 02/06/2015 06:25 pm
The problem isn't the thrusters, it's control. With parachutes you just need a few pieces of hardware to operate correctly...

... that, and have deployment aerodynamics cooperate, even in abnormal conditions.  That's not a sure bet.

A propulsive lander is at no-one's mercy but its own.  If it's going to crash, it's going to be its own damn fault.
 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: solartear on 02/06/2015 06:39 pm
Dragon v1 has reentered fine several times without a nosecone, I suspect covering the docking port and hatch has more to do with making reuse easier (and discarding less hardware)

Does Dragon's current PCBM have explosive bolts as a backup in case it cannot disconnect from ISS nominally?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: philw1776 on 02/06/2015 06:54 pm
You mean as opposed to aiming for Johnson in Houston and diverting to Galveston Bay or the Gulf of Mexico, which is like literally right there?

Well, thats not exactly what I meant. Looking at the map, I realize that it might be impossible for Dragon to reach the west coast of the USA at the pacific ocean because it is too far north. Maybe the west coast of Florida would work.

There is a nice lake just off the deck behind my winter home on the west coast of FL.  I for one would be happy to invite the crew in for drinks and a steak dinner.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/06/2015 07:06 pm
Not all statements are created equal.  Some statements are about active R&D programs, and obviously those could change over time as SpaceX learns more.  Other statements are about things that are well underway and don't have a lot of unknowns SpaceX has to figure out.

The bids for CRS2 are already in.  At the time SpaceX made the statements about continuing to use Dragon 1, they were already well into the CRS2 process.  There weren't a lot of unknowns, and certainly the reasons people have been given for using Dragon 2 for CRS2 instead of Dragon 1 involve nothing that was unknown to SpaceX when they made their statements.


Understood.  But things change, which is my point.  Certain topics are more in flux and more likely to change than others, but that's not to say a statement made yesterday will be 100% true forever.

As to using D1 vs. D2, SpaceX's statement is not mutually exclusive with my speculation.  They can continue to operate D1 as well as start sending D2 to the ISS, and even use the docking port, if the cargo is such it will fit through the docking hatch.  It makes sense in fact to retain D1 as it's CBM hatch is larger and so larger items can be transported in them.  But I don't believe SpaceX said specifically they'd -only- send D1 to the ISS.  Just that they'd continue to send it there...or something to that effect.
That way they don't need to have two versions of D2, a CBM version and a docking port version (I've not seen any graphics of a CBM D2.  Has it been mentioned if they planned one?  I'd assumed a docking port only version of it.)

But it clearly makes sense to send D2 on missions to the ISS when the payload allows it, and downmass as well, if they are practicing a propulsive landing.  Any critical downmass could go down in D1 in the water.  So I'd be amazed if -some- COTS missions don't have D2 once it's ready to fly.  To get those test missions in as wel as showcase their new flagship spacecraft.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: arachnitect on 02/06/2015 07:07 pm
The problem isn't the thrusters, it's control. With parachutes you just need a few pieces of hardware to operate correctly...

... that, and have deployment aerodynamics cooperate, even in abnormal conditions.  That's not a sure bet.

A propulsive lander is at no-one's mercy but its own.  If it's going to crash, it's going to be its own damn fault.
 

In the long run that may be an advantage. For now it's just more stuff to test.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 02/06/2015 07:12 pm
The problem isn't the thrusters, it's control. With parachutes you just need a few pieces of hardware to operate correctly...

... that, and have deployment aerodynamics cooperate, even in abnormal conditions.  That's not a sure bet.

A propulsive lander is at no-one's mercy but its own.  If it's going to crash, it's going to be its own damn fault.
 

In the long run that may be an advantage. For now it's just more stuff to test.
That's for sure.

But the point made upthread still holds:

Going from some 300 m/s to zero at (say) 2g takes over 2 km and 15 seconds.   So while you're testing, there's still a lot of time and altitude to "abort to parachute".

(2g acceleration, 3g force)

(Not sure exactly what the terminal velocity is)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/06/2015 07:26 pm
Propulsive landings.  Hmm.

A little history, first.  The very first images of spaceships landing on Earth, presented to us by our science fiction, showed great cigar-shaped spaceships backing themselves onto great landing pads, fire shooting out of their rockets and dramatically splaying across the landing field.

But then came real, actual spaceflights.  And us Americans, anyway, figured it was safer to drop a capsule into the ocean and go fish it out than to risk a rocket cutting out just as you approached the ground.  If  manned spacecraft was going to land on terra firma, it was going to land on wheels (or skids) and roll out like a real aircraft, by God!

Gemini was supposed to land via the Rogallo wing inflatable paraglider, and many people fought to keep it despite developmental problems just to land the thing like a real aircraft.  The development problems were eventually overcome, and the final tests did prove out the entire deployment sequence, but by that time NASA management was developing an allergy to flying the thing regardless of how well the final tests went.  They just didn't trust that it would work when push came to shove, and the abort alternative -- punching out in the ejection seats -- was something every single person who ever flew in a Gemini fervently prayed they would never have to use.

Note that the only American spacecraft to land on land was the Shuttle, which perforce had to land on a runway or a dry lakebed.  It wouldn't survive any other type of landing.  But it landed on wheels and rolled out like a real aircraft, by God.  It wasn't some juvenile, discredited concept of a big ol' SSTO spaceship backing itself down on its engine thrust and landing.  That was kid's sci fi junk, and they were real aerospace engineers now.  There are unwritten, unspoken rules as to how an aircraft is supposed to land, and if you land on land, you're suppose do land on wheels and roll out down the runway.  That's how it's done.

Now, as has been pointed out, yes, the Apollo LM landed humans propulsively.  But on a small, airless body with only one-sixth of Earth's gravity.  That makes it seem somehow easier to do -- that and you didn't have to survive a fiery plunge into the atmosphere, generating thousands of degrees of heat on your back end, and then turn on your rocket.  The latter, in a G-field six times stronger, makes it seem harder and more dangerous.

There is a definite emotional reluctance to fly anything to the ground that doesn't come in like an aircraft and land on wheels.  No matter how many times the propulsive landing tests show a fine success rate, no matter how sound the engineering, and no matter how many times the technique has been proven on unmanned test flights, there will still be an emotional reluctance to commit human lives to engines (particularly those that have just had to endure atmospheric entry heat) that must work properly, throttle properly, and permit safe landings not just most of the time, but every time.

I think there will come a day, in the not-too-distant future, when propulsive landings have become the norm, and the risks will be accepted as no worse than the risks all of us take when we fly on commercial airliners.  But it's going to take a while for the group mind (especially the one in the aerospace industry) to get used to the idea and to embrace it.  Until then, there is going to be a steady stream of skepticism and unease about propulsive landings, and we'll just have to sit back and watch them overcome it.

Very much so.

The whole concept of winged flight has taken root in the collective subconscious because airplanes are so successful. It looks almost "natural".

We forget that landing is an insane maneuver, where you approach the ground at lethal speeds and thus require dedicated obstacle-free "runways" in order to pull it off....  and that this maneuver is required because of the reliance on wings, and wings are necessary because of the realities of prolonged aerodynamic flights.

And hence came the concept of "space planes", and the giant technological detour that culminated in STS.

But even inertia can only carry you so far.  I am glad to finally see a "reset", and even happier to see it happen in the large concept of a Mars-centric plan.  Good times.

Yup.

Landing on wheels and wings seems to "right".
But the wings and wheels (particularly the wings) don't help through the first 95% of the mission, and are in fact a hinderence.  A big mass, aerodynamic load, and exposed TPS liabity until right at the end. 

However, one advantage.  Wings are passive and unless one rips off somewhere along the lines, they can't really "fail". 
Although even that's a misnomer.  If a control surface fails during glide mode, that could result in the LOC if there are no ejection seats.  Injury (or possibly death) are risks of there was an issue of a wheel failing to deploy (See DreamChaser)

So yea, I like the reset too.  Wings and wheels have their draw backs and dangers. As do parachutes either in water or on land, and neither parachute landing lends itself well to reuse.
The goal should be a soft, dry landing on a predetermined spot for optimal reuse.  Wings/wheels and propulsion both get you there, but propulsion has the much lower overal mass/load penalty to the performance, and if done right, should be as safe or more safe as wings/wheels.  Particularly with a secondary landing mode in parachutes.  The Shuttle never had that.  I think the original ISS emergency escape vehicle was a spaceplane which had a parachute on it so it would have.  But no spaceplane that's ever flown has had any backup landing mode.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/06/2015 07:43 pm
1. When the whole Constellation thing started, they had to discuss landings in the report.  They originally were going to land what became Orion at two locations: Edwards and Moses dry lake in Washington.  Those were the only two places that were considered good, not just because of lunar return restrictions, or landing error requirements on parachutes, but because the vehicle's back end HAD to be disposed of over the open ocean.  Now, the Dragon's trunk is a smaller and much lighter object, but I still doubt that re-entry licenses are going to be issued for routine disposal of the trunk over the U.S.. Someone who has actual facts to the contrary should please produce them.


Yea, this has always been my thought too.  But SpaceX did have an old video of the original rough version of D2 landing at KSC.  That may have been artistic license to sell the concept as landing where the Shuttle did.  Unlike the Shuttle, if Dragon lands on the West Coast, it's easily put on a semi truck and driven anywhere in the US.  Obviously moving the Shuttle once it landed was far, FAR more problematic, so there was a lot of advantage to being able to land it back at KSC as the primary landing point.  Plus it didn't jettison anything prior to reentry.

So I don't really see any need for Dragon to go all the way back to KSC myself, especially when it will probably be transported to some other SpaceX facility for evaluation/refub.  Hawthorne or wherever.
I'd very much excpet SLC-4W at VAFB to be the intended normal return location, with Edwards being used for intial testing.  VAFB is really ideal.  No chance of debris hitting anywhere in the continential US, even with a light trunk.  And a very favorable water approach in case of abort, right to what will already be a SpaceX facility, which will have SpaceX personnel already stationed there and can have a rescue boat staged right there in case of a water abort.

Now, trajectory wise, are there problems with coming back at VAFB?  I wouldn't think so.  The shuttle went to the ISS and could divert to Edwards if weather was unfavorable at KSC, which is pretty much just directly due east inland of VAFB.  But I'm no orbital mechanics guy, so I'm not sure.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/07/2015 06:51 am
@Lobo there is the Gulf of Mexico option with an ASDS a couple hundred kilometers from any  offshore infrastructure. If you can land a F9R core on the ASDS than a Dragon should be easier by comparison.

Presuming there will be some USN assets at the landing site. The Dragon's crew and contents can be airlifted inshore with Helos or Vertols, in about 90 minutes from the middle of the Gulf with Vertols. While the Dragon sail to a Gulf port at a slower pace.

edit: typo
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: speedevil on 02/07/2015 02:26 pm

We lost no Shuttle Orbiters on glide (proven technology from the lifting body programs) but we had a re-entry failure.

STS-1 came pretty close too.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88290main_H-1894.pdf

The RCS jet behaviour was sufficiently poorly modeled on reentry that had it been off as much in different
directions, it is unclear that the vehicle would have made it down in as few pieces.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/07/2015 02:43 pm
If Shuttle weren't a giant glider, it would likely not have been side mounted and obviously wouldn't have suffered a fatal wing strike. Not being sidemount may have improved the odds of surviving Challenger, too.

I don't think a lifting glider approach is intrinsically better for safety, at least to any significant degree.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 02/07/2015 03:10 pm

STS-1 came pretty close too.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88290main_H-1894.pdf

The RCS jet behaviour was sufficiently poorly modeled on reentry that had it been off as much in different
directions, it is unclear that the vehicle would have made it down in as few pieces.


Nonsense, it wasn't "close".  There was sufficient control authority even with the poor modeling.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 02/07/2015 07:21 pm

STS-1 came pretty close too.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88290main_H-1894.pdf

The RCS jet behaviour was sufficiently poorly modeled on reentry that had it been off as much in different
directions, it is unclear that the vehicle would have made it down in as few pieces.


Nonsense, it wasn't "close".  There was sufficient control authority even with the poor modeling.

Shuttle is OT, but does anyone have a source or other information (such as a report) for that?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Norm38 on 02/07/2015 09:36 pm
The problem isn't the thrusters, it's control. With parachutes you just need a few pieces of hardware to operate correctly and you're pretty much safe. With propulsive landing just having the thrusters firing isn't sufficient.

I'm sure they can figure it out eventually if they really want to, but getting the avionics and software for propulsive landing designed, tested, and certified in 2 years was never going to happen.

But the thrusters aren't entirely new.  Same fuel, larger valves I'm sure, but entirely new avionics?  If they didn't know how to do control for the Dracos, they couldn't get to ISS or deorbit.  It's not like with parachutes there's no reliance on thrusters.

They have to scale up and test, but they've got the basics down.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 02/08/2015 01:24 pm

STS-1 came pretty close too.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88290main_H-1894.pdf

The RCS jet behaviour was sufficiently poorly modeled on reentry that had it been off as much in different
directions, it is unclear that the vehicle would have made it down in as few pieces.


Nonsense, it wasn't "close".  There was sufficient control authority even with the poor modeling.

Shuttle is OT, but does anyone have a source or other information (such as a report) for that?


At risk of going even further OT ... this was discussed to death for years on the sci.space.* newsgroups, and then regurgitated again in the wake of the Columbia disaster. A Google search might turn up the archived discussions. There were some NASA papers cited that used to be available on NTRS but who knows if they are still ... As a pointer for All Things Shuttle Aero-Thermodynamics-Related, look for posts from Mary Shafer.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/11/2015 11:11 pm
@Lobo there is the Gulf of Mexico option with an ASDS a couple hundred kilometers from any  offshore infrastructure. If you can land a F9R core on the ASDS than a Dragon should be easier by comparison.

Presuming there will be some USN assets at the landing site. The Dragon's crew and contents can be airlifted inshore with Helos or Vertols, in about 90 minutes from the middle of the Gulf with Vertols. While the Dragon sail to a Gulf port at a slower pace.

edit: typo

Yes, the ASDS would give various options.  But the question would come back to "why"?  Why not recover at VAFB or EAFB on the West Coast?  Then the crew can get out and be driven where they need to go.
Dragon would be coming in on a West to East trajectory anyway, why go all the way to the Gulf, or to KSC?  Especially since their main facility is in California anyway.  That's where the Dragons are made so it's a good place for them to go back to for inspection and refurb one would think. 

The ASDS could be stationed off the West Coast and be used for a propulsive abort I suppose, but whatever condition would keep it from doing a propulsive landing back at VAFB would probably keep it from doing a propulsive landing on the ASDS...as it would be a problem with the Superdracos one would assume.  If it's off target for some reason, then it'd be off target to make the ASDS too.  But fortunately, the ocean is a quote large backup landing pad.  ;-)
So I would guess they'd just have a ground propulsive landing and Vandy or Edwards as the nominal target, and if there's some sort of problem with that, they abort to chutes and put down in the ocean wherever their sitaution demands...  Fast boats can be dispatched rapidly to get the crew out if necessary, or a helicoptor or whatever abort emergency contingency plan they'd have in place. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/11/2015 11:56 pm
@Lobo there is the Gulf of Mexico option with an ASDS a couple hundred kilometers from any  offshore infrastructure. If you can land a F9R core on the ASDS than a Dragon should be easier by comparison.

Presuming there will be some USN assets at the landing site. The Dragon's crew and contents can be airlifted inshore with Helos or Vertols, in about 90 minutes from the middle of the Gulf with Vertols. While the Dragon sail to a Gulf port at a slower pace.

edit: typo

Yes, the ASDS would give various options.  But the question would come back to "why"?  Why not recover at VAFB or EAFB on the West Coast?  Then the crew can get out and be driven where they need to go.
Dragon would be coming in on a West to East trajectory anyway, why go all the way to the Gulf, or to KSC?  Especially since their main facility is in California anyway.  That's where the Dragons are made so it's a good place for them to go back to for inspection and refurb one would think. 

The ASDS could be stationed off the West Coast and be used for a propulsive abort I suppose, but whatever condition would keep it from doing a propulsive landing back at VAFB would probably keep it from doing a propulsive landing on the ASDS...as it would be a problem with the Superdracos one would assume.  If it's off target for some reason, then it'd be off target to make the ASDS too.  But fortunately, the ocean is a quote large backup landing pad.  ;-)
So I would guess they'd just have a ground propulsive landing and Vandy or Edwards as the nominal target, and if there's some sort of problem with that, they abort to chutes and put down in the ocean wherever their sitaution demands...  Fast boats can be dispatched rapidly to get the crew out if necessary, or a helicoptor or whatever abort emergency contingency plan they'd have in place.

The crew and down mass cargo goes to Houston after the mission. If they return in a Vertol (V-22 Osprey) from the Gulf, they land at Ellington Field in about 90 minutes or less after embarking.

The return Dragons currently goes to McGregor for post-flight servicing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 02/12/2015 01:02 am
They could land right at the door of the McGregor Dragon Storage warehouse!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/12/2015 09:54 pm

The crew and down mass cargo goes to Houston after the mission. If they return in a Vertol (V-22 Osprey) from the Gulf, they land at Ellington Field in about 90 minutes or less after embarking.

The return Dragons currently goes to McGregor for post-flight servicing.

Why does it go to MCGregor when it's built at Hawthorne.  Seems like it would make more sense to send it to where they build them for inspection, and refurbishment for reflight if they opt to do that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: nadreck on 02/12/2015 09:58 pm

The crew and down mass cargo goes to Houston after the mission. If they return in a Vertol (V-22 Osprey) from the Gulf, they land at Ellington Field in about 90 minutes or less after embarking.

The return Dragons currently goes to McGregor for post-flight servicing.

Why does it go to MCGregor when it's built at Hawthorne.  Seems like it would make more sense to send it to where they build them for inspection, and refurbishment for reflight if they opt to do that.

They can't test engines at Hawthorne
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/12/2015 10:06 pm

The crew and down mass cargo goes to Houston after the mission. If they return in a Vertol (V-22 Osprey) from the Gulf, they land at Ellington Field in about 90 minutes or less after embarking.

The return Dragons currently goes to McGregor for post-flight servicing.

Why does it go to MCGregor when it's built at Hawthorne.  Seems like it would make more sense to send it to where they build them for inspection, and refurbishment for reflight if they opt to do that.

They can't test engines at Hawthorne

Ahhh.....
thanks for that.  I wasn't aware.

Do the new Dragons go to McGregor for testing prior to going to the Cape for launch?  I assume so if that's the reason they are there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: nadreck on 02/12/2015 10:20 pm

The crew and down mass cargo goes to Houston after the mission. If they return in a Vertol (V-22 Osprey) from the Gulf, they land at Ellington Field in about 90 minutes or less after embarking.

The return Dragons currently goes to McGregor for post-flight servicing.

Why does it go to MCGregor when it's built at Hawthorne.  Seems like it would make more sense to send it to where they build them for inspection, and refurbishment for reflight if they opt to do that.

They can't test engines at Hawthorne

Ahhh.....
thanks for that.  I wasn't aware.

Do the new Dragons go to McGregor for testing prior to going to the Cape for launch?  I assume so if that's the reason they are there.
Referring to the D2's I don't know if they are testing full units with their super draco's, just the super draco's or relying (since the D2's so far are not even manned) on testing done on separate units developed for that purpose.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/12/2015 10:27 pm
They could land right at the door of the McGregor Dragon Storage warehouse!

Somehow I think the FAA takes a dim view of landing near populated areas.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/12/2015 10:54 pm
They could land right at the door of the McGregor Dragon Storage warehouse!

Somehow I think the FAA takes a dim view of landing near populated areas.

Yea, this is why I think even if D2 would go all the way back to McGregor for testing, they'd land at VAFB, then truck it to McGreggor, as apparently is done with D1 now after they fish it out of the ocean.  They just won't have to fish D2 out of the ocean typically.

That also give a nice safe water approach in case of a parachute abort vs. landing under parachute on land in some undesirable location (towns, power lines, the edge of a cliff, deep in a forest, on a mountain side, etc). 

In addition, how much of an issue is the trunk?  Can they jettison it in such a way that any reminants of it splash well out in the Pacific ocean before making land fall?  Or would it it be breaking up over land if D2 were to go directly to KSC, or to McGregor, or somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico?
Obviously it wasn't an issue with Shuttle because nothing was being jettisoned prior to reentry. 
How exactly is the current trunk jettisoned?  Does it trail Dragon during reentry?  Or does Dragon trail the trunk?  I'm assuming the trunk trails Dragon so any debris would be to the west of Dragon, but am not sure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jcc on 02/13/2015 03:16 pm
The current trunk burns up on reentry, and the remaining bits slow down quickly and fall in the pacific well before the Dragon does.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 02/13/2015 04:03 pm
They could land right at the door of the McGregor Dragon Storage warehouse!

Somehow I think the FAA takes a dim view of landing near populated areas.

They're called airports and are located in many very densely populated areas.
And I don't believe the FAA has jurisdiction over returning spacecraft.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 02/13/2015 04:50 pm
They're called airports and are located in many very densely populated areas.
And I don't believe the FAA has jurisdiction over returning spacecraft.

Pretty sure that SpaceX had to get an FAA re-entry license.  Yeah: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/launch_details/?launchId=799.
Quote
The Dragon capsule will reenter the atmosphere under an FAA reentry license, the first ever issued. In addition to the Dragon Capsule, SpaceX will deploy 8 cubesats.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MechE31 on 02/14/2015 12:24 am

The crew and down mass cargo goes to Houston after the mission. If they return in a Vertol (V-22 Osprey) from the Gulf, they land at Ellington Field in about 90 minutes or less after embarking.

The return Dragons currently goes to McGregor for post-flight servicing.

Why does it go to MCGregor when it's built at Hawthorne.  Seems like it would make more sense to send it to where they build them for inspection, and refurbishment for reflight if they opt to do that.

They can't test engines at Hawthorne

They don't test the engines after flight.

The reason it goes to McGregor is that Hawthorne isn't set up to deal with decontamination of hypers.

Do the new Dragons go to McGregor for testing prior to going to the Cape for launch?  I assume so if that's the reason they are there.

No, the Dragon and the trunk go straight from Hawthorne to the Cape.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: nadreck on 02/14/2015 08:11 am

The crew and down mass cargo goes to Houston after the mission. If they return in a Vertol (V-22 Osprey) from the Gulf, they land at Ellington Field in about 90 minutes or less after embarking.

The return Dragons currently goes to McGregor for post-flight servicing.

Why does it go to MCGregor when it's built at Hawthorne.  Seems like it would make more sense to send it to where they build them for inspection, and refurbishment for reflight if they opt to do that.

They can't test engines at Hawthorne

They don't test the engines after flight.


They have never flown a D2 how can you assert that they never test the super dracos after a flight?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: eriblo on 02/14/2015 11:33 am

The crew and down mass cargo goes to Houston after the mission. If they return in a Vertol (V-22 Osprey) from the Gulf, they land at Ellington Field in about 90 minutes or less after embarking.

The return Dragons currently goes to McGregor for post-flight servicing.
Why does it go to MCGregor when it's built at Hawthorne.  Seems like it would make more sense to send it to where they build them for inspection, and refurbishment for reflight if they opt to do that.
They can't test engines at Hawthorne
They don't test the engines after flight.
They have never flown a D2 how can you assert that they never test the super dracos after a flight?

He doesn't, they are talking about D1 as historically processed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: nadreck on 02/14/2015 05:18 pm

The crew and down mass cargo goes to Houston after the mission. If they return in a Vertol (V-22 Osprey) from the Gulf, they land at Ellington Field in about 90 minutes or less after embarking.

The return Dragons currently goes to McGregor for post-flight servicing.
Why does it go to MCGregor when it's built at Hawthorne.  Seems like it would make more sense to send it to where they build them for inspection, and refurbishment for reflight if they opt to do that.
They can't test engines at Hawthorne
They don't test the engines after flight.
They have never flown a D2 how can you assert that they never test the super dracos after a flight?

He doesn't, they are talking about D1 as historically processed.

Fair enough, I thought the query was about the D2 portion of the post
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/16/2015 05:51 pm

The crew and down mass cargo goes to Houston after the mission. If they return in a Vertol (V-22 Osprey) from the Gulf, they land at Ellington Field in about 90 minutes or less after embarking.

The return Dragons currently goes to McGregor for post-flight servicing.
Why does it go to MCGregor when it's built at Hawthorne.  Seems like it would make more sense to send it to where they build them for inspection, and refurbishment for reflight if they opt to do that.
They can't test engines at Hawthorne
They don't test the engines after flight.
They have never flown a D2 how can you assert that they never test the super dracos after a flight?

He doesn't, they are talking about D1 as historically processed.

Fair enough, I thought the query was about the D2 portion of the post

Well, I wonder if D2 were to come into VAFB for landings, if they might set up something there or near there to handle the hypergolic propellants?  Then it could go right to Hawthorne for reprocessing, before going back out to the cape.  Or to McGregor to test all the engines prior to reflight?  It'd be on the way.

Otherwise it'd have to go from VAFB to McGregor, then probably back to Hawthorne for processing, before going to the Cape or back to McGregor if they want to test the engines proir to the next launch.  that's doable but seems like it'd be an easier cycle chain to go:  VAFB-Hawthorne-McGregor-KSC-ISS-VAFB-repeat.  It's a nice loop that way if they can decontaminate at VAFB or Hawthorne.  :-)

Doesn't really matter yet for D1 until they start flying used ones, as they can just go to McGregor, get de-toxed, and go into storage or on display or wherever.



Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Roy_H on 02/17/2015 10:01 pm
Well, I wonder if D2 were to come into VAFB for landings, if they might set up something there or near there to handle the hypergolic propellants?

I can't believe they wouldn't purge the hypergolics at VAFB, would it be safe to transfer the Dragon on highways with the hypergolics still on board? I think not. I would expect that to get permits to ship the Dragon with hypergolics would be a nightmare.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 02/18/2015 01:37 am
Well, I wonder if D2 were to come into VAFB for landings, if they might set up something there or near there to handle the hypergolic propellants?

I can't believe they wouldn't purge the hypergolics at VAFB, would it be safe to transfer the Dragon on highways with the hypergolics still on board? I think not. I would expect that to get permits to ship the Dragon with hypergolics would be a nightmare.

Hazardous materials are transported by truck or rail all the time.  Why should this be any different?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 02/18/2015 02:23 am

Hazardous materials are transported by truck or rail all the time.  Why should this be any different?

They are in DOT approved containers.  Spacecraft tanks aren't.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 02/18/2015 03:13 am

Hazardous materials are transported by truck or rail all the time.  Why should this be any different?

They are in DOT approved containers.  Spacecraft tanks aren't.

What, the DOT hasn't approved trash bags and masking tape?  Shocking.   ;D

I just saw the attached pics.  I guess I had assumed that Dragon shipping would be done with the capsule inside of a dedicated hard container.  i.e.  One that was certified for hazmats.  But, thinking about it more, I guess even that wouldn't really be good enough.  A spill of hypergolics inside of the container would be less than ideal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: gongora on 02/18/2015 04:51 am

Well, I wonder if D2 were to come into VAFB for landings, if they might set up something there or near there to handle the hypergolic propellants?  Then it could go right to Hawthorne for reprocessing, before going back out to the cape.  Or to McGregor to test all the engines prior to reflight?  It'd be on the way.

Otherwise it'd have to go from VAFB to McGregor, then probably back to Hawthorne for processing, before going to the Cape or back to McGregor if they want to test the engines proir to the next launch.  that's doable but seems like it'd be an easier cycle chain to go:  VAFB-Hawthorne-McGregor-KSC-ISS-VAFB-repeat.  It's a nice loop that way if they can decontaminate at VAFB or Hawthorne.  :-)

Doesn't really matter yet for D1 until they start flying used ones, as they can just go to McGregor, get de-toxed, and go into storage or on display or wherever.

A lot of people seem to be assuming that the Dragon will need to go back to Hawthorne.  Why?  I thought Hawthorne was getting crowded with all the new employees and the production lines, why would they want to set up an area to reprocess flown vehicles there instead of McGregor or in Florida?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: BobHk on 02/18/2015 04:55 am

Well, I wonder if D2 were to come into VAFB for landings, if they might set up something there or near there to handle the hypergolic propellants?  Then it could go right to Hawthorne for reprocessing, before going back out to the cape.  Or to McGregor to test all the engines prior to reflight?  It'd be on the way.

Otherwise it'd have to go from VAFB to McGregor, then probably back to Hawthorne for processing, before going to the Cape or back to McGregor if they want to test the engines proir to the next launch.  that's doable but seems like it'd be an easier cycle chain to go:  VAFB-Hawthorne-McGregor-KSC-ISS-VAFB-repeat.  It's a nice loop that way if they can decontaminate at VAFB or Hawthorne.  :-)

Doesn't really matter yet for D1 until they start flying used ones, as they can just go to McGregor, get de-toxed, and go into storage or on display or wherever.

A lot of people seem to be assuming that the Dragon will need to go back to Hawthorne.  Why?  I thought Hawthorne was getting crowded with all the new employees and the production lines, why would they want to set up an area to reprocess flown vehicles there instead of McGregor or in Florida?

If NASA is unlikely to want a reused D2/D capsule and the testing for a used one doesnt have to be done in Hawthorne why not take it to McGregor (testing facilities) or Boca Chica (commercial launches only so far planned there according to the EIS).  Unless they want to put it into a museum.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/18/2015 06:17 am

Well, I wonder if D2 were to come into VAFB for landings, if they might set up something there or near there to handle the hypergolic propellants?  Then it could go right to Hawthorne for reprocessing, before going back out to the cape.  Or to McGregor to test all the engines prior to reflight?  It'd be on the way.

Otherwise it'd have to go from VAFB to McGregor, then probably back to Hawthorne for processing, before going to the Cape or back to McGregor if they want to test the engines proir to the next launch.  that's doable but seems like it'd be an easier cycle chain to go:  VAFB-Hawthorne-McGregor-KSC-ISS-VAFB-repeat.  It's a nice loop that way if they can decontaminate at VAFB or Hawthorne.  :-)

Doesn't really matter yet for D1 until they start flying used ones, as they can just go to McGregor, get de-toxed, and go into storage or on display or wherever.

A lot of people seem to be assuming that the Dragon will need to go back to Hawthorne.  Why?  I thought Hawthorne was getting crowded with all the new employees and the production lines, why would they want to set up an area to reprocess flown vehicles there instead of McGregor or in Florida?

I suspect that the people who think it will go back to Hawthorne are the same ones who think it will require an extensive overhaul before reflight.  If you believe it will have to be torn down and rebuilt, then Hawthorne becomes a reasonable destination for it.

I agree with you that Texas and Florida are more likely destinations.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RoboGoofers on 02/18/2015 05:57 pm
The seats might need extensive cleaning after propulsive landings...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/18/2015 06:22 pm

Well, I wonder if D2 were to come into VAFB for landings, if they might set up something there or near there to handle the hypergolic propellants?  Then it could go right to Hawthorne for reprocessing, before going back out to the cape.  Or to McGregor to test all the engines prior to reflight?  It'd be on the way.

Otherwise it'd have to go from VAFB to McGregor, then probably back to Hawthorne for processing, before going to the Cape or back to McGregor if they want to test the engines proir to the next launch.  that's doable but seems like it'd be an easier cycle chain to go:  VAFB-Hawthorne-McGregor-KSC-ISS-VAFB-repeat.  It's a nice loop that way if they can decontaminate at VAFB or Hawthorne.  :-)

Doesn't really matter yet for D1 until they start flying used ones, as they can just go to McGregor, get de-toxed, and go into storage or on display or wherever.

A lot of people seem to be assuming that the Dragon will need to go back to Hawthorne.  Why?  I thought Hawthorne was getting crowded with all the new employees and the production lines, why would they want to set up an area to reprocess flown vehicles there instead of McGregor or in Florida?

I suspect that the people who think it will go back to Hawthorne are the same ones who think it will require an extensive overhaul before reflight.  If you believe it will have to be torn down and rebuilt, then Hawthorne becomes a reasonable destination for it.

I agree with you that Texas and Florida are more likely destinations.

It certainly wouldn't need to go back to Hawthorne if they wanted to set up a processing/storage facility separate somewhere.  Just thinking if it came back to VAFB, then Hawthone is very close and it -is- the Dragon production line.  If they found damage, all the necessary parts to repair would be right there in stock, even if it was fairly extensive damage.   Not to mention the personnel who could do the repairs.  If you have a separate processing facility then if there's more extensive repairs necessary you'd need a lot of duplicate work space and skilled personnel.
If they are reusing some or all D2's, then the actual production rate won't be very high.  So there can be a lot of slack production space/people who'd then have work to do reprocessing flown D2's. 
If they aren't reusing any of them, then the production line could be busy enough they wouldn't want the extra work and a separate facility would be desirable. 
But as I understand, the plan is to reuse them.  And as I understand the deal with NASA getting new D1's every mission isn't because NASA forbid reusing them, but that SpaceX couldn't guarantee costs for reusing them for some missions...because they had no data to go on as D1 hadn't flown yet.   So it was agreed NASA would get new D1's every time because SpaceX could guarantee those prices.
That was my understanding.  If that's accurate, then they should now have enough D1 data to be able to guarantee NASA prices for reusing the D2's.  Remember, Dreamchaser was touted from Day 1 as reusable and NASA never seemed to have any issues with that part of DC.  So no reason to think NASA has an issue with reused spacecraft per se.
And if SpaceX proposes reusability into their Commercial Crew supply contract final bid, once there's a small fleet of D2's built, how busy will Hawthorne be building new ones?  So they may be a desirable place to send flown D2's to for processing after recovery at VAFB?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 02/18/2015 06:37 pm
It makes sense to me that D2's should land at Mojave and be flown to Hawthorne for refurbishment. LAX is only 4-5 miles from the factory and Hawthorn Municipal Airport is just up the road, less than a half a mile. Mojave is only about 100 miles north of Hawthorn. The Sikorsky Sky Crane helicopter has a range of 230 miles. It could easily carry a returned Dragon back to Hawthorn. Hell they could even truck it south if they didn't want to deal with LAX traffic. To me Mojave to Hawthorn is a no-brainer.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JasonAW3 on 02/18/2015 08:46 pm
Anybody know what's up with Dragonfly?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 02/19/2015 12:10 am
Anybody know what's up with Dragonfly?

Per the DragonFly Environmental Assessment (.pdf) (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/DragonFly_Final_EA_sm.pdf), done as part of the FAA experimental permit application, they have to be finished with the F9R-dev program at McGregor prior to the start of DragonFly operations. 
Quote from: FAA Final EA for issuing DragonFly an Experimental Permit @ McGregor Test Site, page 20
The F9R test program consists of 10 launches at McGregor.  The Grasshopper RLV and the F9R test programs would be completed prior to the implementation of the Proposed Action.  Therefore, the baseline conditions (refer to Section 2.2, No Action Alternative) for the analysis in this EA do not include the Grasshopper RLV and F9R test program operations.
[bold emphasis added]

IMO, they still want to do at least 1 more test flight of the F9R-dev at McGregor before moving it to New Mexico.  They're putting a lot of effort into setting a higher launch cadence.  Which is likely delaying a resumption of the F9R-dev program for that final Texas flight.  So, if nothing else, that may be delaying DragonFly a little bit.  But maybe more importantly, they just have a ton of stuff going on right now.  Look at how long it's taken them to get the test article for the abort tests ready.  Also, their Dragon V2 folks are getting deeper and deeper into CCtCap activities now.  And the pace for deliveries of Dragon v1s for CRS has to keep up with increased schedule pressure due to Antares' failure.  Etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: SleeperService on 02/19/2015 05:00 am
I would think the FAA statement is out of date by now...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 02/19/2015 07:23 pm
It makes sense to me that D2's should land at Mojave and be flown to Hawthorne for refurbishment. LAX is only 4-5 miles from the factory and Hawthorn Municipal Airport is just up the road, less than a half a mile. Mojave is only about 100 miles north of Hawthorn. The Sikorsky Sky Crane helicopter has a range of 230 miles. It could easily carry a returned Dragon back to Hawthorn. Hell they could even truck it south if they didn't want to deal with LAX traffic. To me Mojave to Hawthorn is a no-brainer.

@this Chuck.

Although like I said, I could see them landing at VAFB due to the ocean approach.  That leave the option for parachute to water open pretty much until the very last part prior to landing. 
But I'd guess the first few D2's hauling cargo making test landings will land at Mojave as there's so much open room in case of an off-target landing.  They could then move to SLC-4 once they've proven the accuracy and reliability of thier propulsive landings. 
A sky crane could do the job, but so could a flatbed truck.  Although having a Skycrane available at first wouldn't be a bad idea in case it ends up out in the mountains somewhere rather than on the dry lakebed.  It could also pick it up from whever in the lakebed it lands and take it to where they'd have a truck stationed to recieve it.  Then just an easy drive to Hawthorne.
I'd guess they'd want some means of draining the hypergolics at Mojave prior to transport back to Hawthorne in case of a leak in the plumbing after a landing.  If moved to VAFB later, then they could do it there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sheltonjr on 02/19/2015 10:14 pm
Could not find this in a search but the Aviation Week Feb 2-15 had a commercial crew article with this quote from Gwynne Shotwell:

Quote
Says the company has just finished integrating the crew Dragon's launch-abort system, which may one day enable propulsive landings at Ellington Field in Houston

I guess they are thinking about it. Whether any one will let them is another thing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 02/20/2015 12:44 am
Could not find this in a search but the Aviation Week Feb 2-15 had a commercial crew article with this quote from Gwynne Shotwell:

Quote
Says the company has just finished integrating the crew Dragon's launch-abort system, which may one day enable propulsive landings at Ellington Field in Houston

I guess they are thinking about it. Whether any one will let them is another thing.

That's only ~8 miles from JSC. Talk about home delivery. Here's the link,

Jan 30, 2015 AvWeek.... (http://www.aviationweek.com/space/boeing-spacex-prepare-first-crew-flights-iss)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/20/2015 01:01 am
A lot of people seem to be assuming that the Dragon will need to go back to Hawthorne.  Why?  I thought Hawthorne was getting crowded with all the new employees and the production lines, why would they want to set up an area to reprocess flown vehicles there instead of McGregor or in Florida?

I suspect that the people who think it will go back to Hawthorne are the same ones who think it will require an extensive overhaul before reflight.  If you believe it will have to be torn down and rebuilt, then Hawthorne becomes a reasonable destination for it.

I agree with you that Texas and Florida are more likely destinations.

It certainly wouldn't need to go back to Hawthorne if they wanted to set up a processing/storage facility separate somewhere.  Just thinking if it came back to VAFB, then Hawthone is very close and it -is- the Dragon production line.  If they found damage, all the necessary parts to repair would be right there in stock, even if it was fairly extensive damage.   Not to mention the personnel who could do the repairs.  If you have a separate processing facility then if there's more extensive repairs necessary you'd need a lot of duplicate work space and skilled personnel.

That's not necessarily true.  A car repair shop is very different from a car factory.  The equipment and skill sets of the workers in the two places are very different.

Today, McGregor, not Hawthorne, does structural testing and engine testing.  If you'd want to do either of those kinds of tests on a stage after flight, McGregor is the place to send it.

Remember, Dreamchaser was touted from Day 1 as reusable and NASA never seemed to have any issues with that part of DC.

Dream Chaser lost.  It lost in large part because it was deemed too risky by NASA.  There's no reason to believe that reusability isn't considered a risk by NASA.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: gongora on 02/20/2015 02:52 am
Could not find this in a search but the Aviation Week Feb 2-15 had a commercial crew article with this quote from Gwynne Shotwell:

Quote
Says the company has just finished integrating the crew Dragon's launch-abort system, which may one day enable propulsive landings at Ellington Field in Houston

I guess they are thinking about it. Whether any one will let them is another thing.

That's only ~8 miles from JSC. Talk about home delivery. Here's the link,

Jan 30, 2015 AvWeek.... (http://www.aviationweek.com/space/boeing-spacex-prepare-first-crew-flights-iss)

She may have said that more because the event was at JSC, much like Elon said it was possible the first people to Mars _might_ fly from Texas in his Boca Chica speech.  Don't remember her exact words, but it didn't really sound like they actually had any plan to land there, more encouraging NASA to think about the advantages of using propulsive landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/20/2015 03:41 am
It makes sense to me that D2's should land at Mojave and be flown to Hawthorne for refurbishment. LAX is only 4-5 miles from the factory and Hawthorn Municipal Airport is just up the road, less than a half a mile. Mojave is only about 100 miles north of Hawthorn. The Sikorsky Sky Crane helicopter has a range of 230 miles. It could easily carry a returned Dragon back to Hawthorn. Hell they could even truck it south if they didn't want to deal with LAX traffic. To me Mojave to Hawthorn is a no-brainer.

@this Chuck.

Although like I said, I could see them landing at VAFB due to the ocean approach.  That leave the option for parachute to water open pretty much until the very last part prior to landing. 
But I'd guess the first few D2's hauling cargo making test landings will land at Mojave as there's so much open room in case of an off-target landing.  They could then move to SLC-4 once they've proven the accuracy and reliability of thier propulsive landings. 
A sky crane could do the job, but so could a flatbed truck.  Although having a Skycrane available at first wouldn't be a bad idea in case it ends up out in the mountains somewhere rather than on the dry lakebed.  It could also pick it up from whever in the lakebed it lands and take it to where they'd have a truck stationed to recieve it.  Then just an easy drive to Hawthorne.
I'd guess they'd want some means of draining the hypergolics at Mojave prior to transport back to Hawthorne in case of a leak in the plumbing after a landing.  If moved to VAFB later, then they could do it there.

You don't needed the aging Sky Crane helicopter for this purpose. The CH-47 Chinook have better range and load capacity along with  gentler down wash from the tandem rotors.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: arachnitect on 02/20/2015 03:49 am
It makes sense to me that D2's should land at Mojave and be flown to Hawthorne for refurbishment. LAX is only 4-5 miles from the factory and Hawthorn Municipal Airport is just up the road, less than a half a mile. Mojave is only about 100 miles north of Hawthorn. The Sikorsky Sky Crane helicopter has a range of 230 miles. It could easily carry a returned Dragon back to Hawthorn. Hell they could even truck it south if they didn't want to deal with LAX traffic. To me Mojave to Hawthorn is a no-brainer.

@this Chuck.

Although like I said, I could see them landing at VAFB due to the ocean approach.  That leave the option for parachute to water open pretty much until the very last part prior to landing. 
But I'd guess the first few D2's hauling cargo making test landings will land at Mojave as there's so much open room in case of an off-target landing.  They could then move to SLC-4 once they've proven the accuracy and reliability of thier propulsive landings. 
A sky crane could do the job, but so could a flatbed truck.  Although having a Skycrane available at first wouldn't be a bad idea in case it ends up out in the mountains somewhere rather than on the dry lakebed.  It could also pick it up from whever in the lakebed it lands and take it to where they'd have a truck stationed to recieve it.  Then just an easy drive to Hawthorne.
I'd guess they'd want some means of draining the hypergolics at Mojave prior to transport back to Hawthorne in case of a leak in the plumbing after a landing.  If moved to VAFB later, then they could do it there.

You don't needed the aging Sky Crane helicopter for this purpose. The CH-47 Chinook have better range and load capacity along with  gentler down wash from the tandem rotors.

Not many civilian Chinooks out there, but I'm sure Boeing would be happy to help them out... unfortunately only available in special "Fly Boeing" livery...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/20/2015 04:11 am

...

Not many civilian Chinooks out there, but I'm sure Boeing would be happy to help them out... unfortunately only available in special "Fly Boeing" livery...

Was thinking of SpaceX renting some Chinooks with crew from the ANG. Would be useful training exercise for the ANG personnel carrying external load with the Chinook.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 02/20/2015 07:19 am
Could not find this in a search but the Aviation Week Feb 2-15 had a commercial crew article with this quote from Gwynne Shotwell:

Quote
Says the company has just finished integrating the crew Dragon's launch-abort system, which may one day enable propulsive landings at Ellington Field in Houston

I guess they are thinking about it. Whether any one will let them is another thing.

That's only ~8 miles from JSC. Talk about home delivery. Here's the link,

Jan 30, 2015 AvWeek.... (http://www.aviationweek.com/space/boeing-spacex-prepare-first-crew-flights-iss)

She may have said that more because the event was at JSC, much like Elon said it was possible the first people to Mars _might_ fly from Texas in his Boca Chica speech.  Don't remember her exact words, but it didn't really sound like they actually had any plan to land there, more encouraging NASA to think about the advantages of using propulsive landing.

There are very real, tangible benefits to landing in Houston.  1.  JSC is the home for the astronaut corps.  2.  It is also the 1st stop for NASA cargo coming back from the station.  This could be a big improvement for any microgravity science experiments.  Having them land right at the off loading site for faster access limits the amount of time when the materiel is dealing with gravity prior to analysis.

That said, it may never happen.  NASA's call.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: billh on 02/21/2015 04:21 pm
Shoot, you could set her down right here at the Center. That's where they test the Morpheus lander.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: darkenfast on 02/22/2015 03:48 am
And where are you going to dispose of the trunk?  El Paso?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 02/22/2015 06:22 am
And where are you going to dispose of the trunk?  El Paso?

Drop it in the Pacific Ocean. Dragon can fly 10 minutes without it plus the time from atmospheric contact to landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/22/2015 06:37 am

And where are you going to dispose of the trunk?  El Paso?

Drop it in the Pacific Ocean. Dragon can fly 10 minutes without it plus the time from atmospheric contact to landing.

How? The trunk has no propulsion on its own. You either do a deorbit burn with it or you leave in orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 02/22/2015 06:44 am

And where are you going to dispose of the trunk?  El Paso?

Drop it in the Pacific Ocean. Dragon can fly 10 minutes without it plus the time from atmospheric contact to landing.

How? The trunk has no propulsion on its own. You either do a deorbit burn with it or you leave in orbit.

You are right. They could leave it in orbit but then it would descend anywhere without control.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MP99 on 02/22/2015 07:21 am

And where are you going to dispose of the trunk?  El Paso?

Drop it in the Pacific Ocean. Dragon can fly 10 minutes without it plus the time from atmospheric contact to landing.

How? The trunk has no propulsion on its own. You either do a deorbit burn with it or you leave in orbit.
It has a low ballistic coefficient. Reentry will brake it more quickly than Dragon.

It would be interesting to find out how far up-track the (notional?) impact point has been for trunks on missions so far.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 02/22/2015 02:30 pm
And where are you going to dispose of the trunk?  El Paso?

No.  You can't pack enough explosives into the trunk to make that really worth the effort.   ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/27/2015 08:03 pm
New Dragon v2 image?  It seems to be a new angle of the last released image. (with new "Dragon" logo?)

Source: https://twitter.com/SpaceXEngineer/status/571378327669178369
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/27/2015 08:24 pm
Some interesting new information from the Garrett Reisman pre-congressional-hearing written statement released today:

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-GReisman-20150227.pdf

Some interesting information within...

Crew Dragon:
Quote
Crew Dragon is comprised of three main structural elements: the nosecone, which protects the vessel and the docking adaptor during ascent and reentry; the spacecraft, which houses the crew and pressurized cargo, as well as the service section (containing avionics, directional thrusters, parachutes, and other infrastructure); and the trunk, which will support Crew Dragon’s solar arrays and radiators, as well as providing aerodynamic stability during aborts.

- Trunk fins for abort stability is confirmed.

Quote
Dragon’s passively stable shape generates lift as it reenters the Earth’s atmosphere supersonically. I In addition to the 8 SuperDraco engines onboard Crew Dragon, its 16 Draco thrusters provide 2-fault tolerant roll control during reentry for precision guidance on course for a soft touchdown on land. Additionally, a movable ballast sled allows the angle of attack to be actively controlled during entry to further provide precision landing control. The rew Dragon’s SuperDraco engines are divided into four quads, each with two SuperDracos and 4 Draco engines. The SuperDracos will activate to provide precision land landing capability. Nominally, only two quads are used for on-orbit propellant with the Dracos and two quads are reserved for propulsive landing using the SuperDracos. For aborts or onorbit faults, all four quads are available for Draco or SuperDraco operations, increasing flexibility, robustness, and performance in these
critical situations.

- The movable ballast sled is a new information! I wonder where it is located?
- 50% of the propellant is reserved for landing. (nominally, but can be used for other purposes)

Quote
Crew Dragon carries sufficient breathable gas stores to allow for a safe return to Earth in the event of a leak of up to an equivalent orifice of 0.25 inches in diameter. As an extra level of protection, the crew will wear SpaceX-designed spacesuits to protect them from a rapid cabin depressurization emergency event of even greater severity. The suits and the vehicle itself will be rated for operation at vacuum.

- Presumably this means that the interior electronics will be vacuum rated?

Quote
Notably, the Cargo Dragon and Falcon 9 are scheduled to fly together at least 9 more times before the first Crew Dragon manned test flight in 2017. The Falcon 9 itself is scheduled to launch more than 50 times prior to the first Dragon crew mission

EDIT: more...

Quote
Since submitting the CCtCap proposal in January 2014, SpaceX has continued to enhance the Crew Dragon design to improve safety, operational flexibility, and reliability. These improvements include: the ability to perform precision propulsive land landing with full fault tolerance; increased propellant tank capacity for improved mission performance and to support propulsive landing; a movable ballast system to allow for high precision landings; life support system components moved from the trunk into the capsule service section to increase reliability; and consolidated avionics components to decrease complexity. The near doubling of the propellant tank capacity significantly increases the available impulse of the LAS allowing the capsule to travel further away from a failing launch vehicle. Additionally, the migration of life support consumables into the capsule allows the capsule to maintain pressure during the entire descent phase assuming a worst-case leak. Active center of gravity control allows for lift vector modulation for precise landings that ultimately enable fast access to the
returning crew either on land or in the water.

- The current iteration of the Dragon v2 design has close to double the propellant of the first proposal (similar to Cargo Dragon I assume)
- Crew consumables appear to be stored in the pressurized volume? (or in the unpressurized service ring?)
- Again a reference to the movable ballast sled

Quote
Precision propulsive land landing will be certified in parallel with parachute to water landing for Crew Dragon. This will allow the teams to stay on schedule and ensure U.S. crew transportation safely and reliably in 2017. Land landing will become the baseline for the early post-certification missions; in the meantime, precision water landing under parachutes has been proposed as the baseline return and recovery approach for the first few flights of Crew Dragon.

- For schedule reasons, the first few flights will do water landing.
- But propulsive land landings have not been abandoned :)


Pad 39A:
Quote
SpaceX is investing over $60 million in LC-39A to modernize the complex for Crew Dragon, Falcon 9
and Falcon Heavy. Construction on the hangar has begun and will be completed later this year. Taking advantage of the existing launch tower, SpaceX will add a crew gantry access arm and white room to allow for crew and cargo ingress to the vehicle. The existing Space Shuttle evacuation slide-wire basket system will also be re-purposed to provide a safe emergency egress for the Dragon crew in the event of an emergency on the pad that does not necessitate using the Crew Dragon’s launch abort system.

- Crew access arm will be added to the existing tower
- Shuttle slide-wire escape baskets will be used
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kevinof on 02/27/2015 08:37 pm
Will be interesting to see what the interior of the Dragon 2 is like now compared to the original reveal. My guess is that it will be a lot more "cramped" with lots more equipment and systems installed.

It is interesting that there is a movable ballast system. Did/Does any other capsule have such a system?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/27/2015 08:41 pm
Will be interesting to see what the interior of the Dragon 2 is like now compared to the original reveal. My guess is that it will be a lot more "cramped" with lots more equipment and systems installed.

Yes, clearly. But shhhh... don't say it too loud, you'll be shouted down as an unbeliever for not thinking that was a flight-ready interior.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kevinof on 02/27/2015 08:45 pm
Oops. too late.

It's great that they are still pushing ahead with propulsive landings. That's great to see.

Will be interesting to see what the interior of the Dragon 2 is like now compared to the original reveal. My guess is that it will be a lot more "cramped" with lots more equipment and systems installed.

Yes, clearly. But shhhh... don't say it too loud, you'll be shouted down as an unbeliever for not thinking that was a flight-ready interior.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 02/28/2015 01:34 am
Some interesting new information from the Garrett Reisman pre-congressional-hearing written statement released today:

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-GReisman-20150227.pdf

Some interesting information within...

Quote from: Reisman's Statement
Crew Dragon’s seats are being designed with advanced occupant protections that draw on lessons learned from the Space Shuttle Columbia accident investigation reports, as well as the latest in automotive occupant protection technologies.

-2 of the recommendations from the Aeromedical investigation of the Columbia accident (.pdf) (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140008287.pdf) were "6. The design of the seat restraint systems should include considerations to preclude restraint-induced injuries during dynamic motion (e.g., NASCAR racing-type straps). 7. The suit-seat-restraint system should provide support for the head-neck complex (e.g., conformal helmets, head and neck restraint-type devices)."  The second one of those sounds something like the HANS device (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HANS_device) employed in race cars.  In light of this, maybe it's not so surprising that the seats from the unveiling looked so much like car seats.

Quote
Crew Dragon can suffer a failure within its system and still operate safely during the majority of the ascent.  (emphasis added)

-I thought this was an interesting point.  They've said that the SuperDraco LAS can provide safe abort the whole ride up.  But, if there's a failure within that system, they end up with at least some black zone.  I assume this is around the max drag point where they'd need the most effort to escape an exploding stage.  NB: This is not a criticism of the system or SpaceX's previous statements.  I'm actually impressed that they are still able to safely abort most of the time with a failure in the system.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 02/28/2015 02:05 am
video of the hearing:

http://youtu.be/CWVECucF2CY
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 02/28/2015 02:36 am
Some interesting new information from the Garrett Reisman pre-congressional-hearing written statement released today:

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-GReisman-20150227.pdf

Some interesting information within...

Crew Dragon:
Quote
Crew Dragon is comprised of three main structural elements: the nosecone, which protects the vessel and the docking adaptor during ascent and reentry; the spacecraft, which houses the crew and pressurized cargo, as well as the service section (containing avionics, directional thrusters, parachutes, and other infrastructure); and the trunk, which will support Crew Dragon’s solar arrays and radiators, as well as providing aerodynamic stability during aborts.

- Trunk fins for abort stability is confirmed.

Quote
Dragon’s passively stable shape generates lift as it reenters the Earth’s atmosphere supersonically. I In addition to the 8 SuperDraco engines onboard Crew Dragon, its 16 Draco thrusters provide 2-fault tolerant roll control during reentry for precision guidance on course for a soft touchdown on land. Additionally, a movable ballast sled allows the angle of attack to be actively controlled during entry to further provide precision landing control. The rew Dragon’s SuperDraco engines are divided into four quads, each with two SuperDracos and 4 Draco engines. The SuperDracos will activate to provide precision land landing capability. Nominally, only two quads are used for on-orbit propellant with the Dracos and two quads are reserved for propulsive landing using the SuperDracos. For aborts or onorbit faults, all four quads are available for Draco or SuperDraco operations, increasing flexibility, robustness, and performance in these
critical situations.

- The movable ballast sled is a new information! I wonder where it is located?
- 50% of the propellant is reserved for landing. (nominally, but can be used for other purposes)

Quote
Crew Dragon carries sufficient breathable gas stores to allow for a safe return to Earth in the event of a leak of up to an equivalent orifice of 0.25 inches in diameter. As an extra level of protection, the crew will wear SpaceX-designed spacesuits to protect them from a rapid cabin depressurization emergency event of even greater severity. The suits and the vehicle itself will be rated for operation at vacuum.

- Presumably this means that the interior electronics will be vacuum rated?

Quote
Notably, the Cargo Dragon and Falcon 9 are scheduled to fly together at least 9 more times before the first Crew Dragon manned test flight in 2017. The Falcon 9 itself is scheduled to launch more than 50 times prior to the first Dragon crew mission

EDIT: more...

Quote
Since submitting the CCtCap proposal in January 2014, SpaceX has continued to enhance the Crew Dragon design to improve safety, operational flexibility, and reliability. These improvements include: the ability to perform precision propulsive land landing with full fault tolerance; increased propellant tank capacity for improved mission performance and to support propulsive landing; a movable ballast system to allow for high precision landings; life support system components moved from the trunk into the capsule service section to increase reliability; and consolidated avionics components to decrease complexity. The near doubling of the propellant tank capacity significantly increases the available impulse of the LAS allowing the capsule to travel further away from a failing launch vehicle. Additionally, the migration of life support consumables into the capsule allows the capsule to maintain pressure during the entire descent phase assuming a worst-case leak. Active center of gravity control allows for lift vector modulation for precise landings that ultimately enable fast access to the
returning crew either on land or in the water.

- The current iteration of the Dragon v2 design has close to double the propellant of the first proposal (similar to Cargo Dragon I assume)
- Crew consumables appear to be stored in the pressurized volume? (or in the unpressurized service ring?)
- Again a reference to the movable ballast sled

Quote
Precision propulsive land landing will be certified in parallel with parachute to water landing for Crew Dragon. This will allow the teams to stay on schedule and ensure U.S. crew transportation safely and reliably in 2017. Land landing will become the baseline for the early post-certification missions; in the meantime, precision water landing under parachutes has been proposed as the baseline return and recovery approach for the first few flights of Crew Dragon.

- For schedule reasons, the first few flights will do water landing.
- But propulsive land landings have not been abandoned :)


Pad 39A:
Quote
SpaceX is investing over $60 million in LC-39A to modernize the complex for Crew Dragon, Falcon 9
and Falcon Heavy. Construction on the hangar has begun and will be completed later this year. Taking advantage of the existing launch tower, SpaceX will add a crew gantry access arm and white room to allow for crew and cargo ingress to the vehicle. The existing Space Shuttle evacuation slide-wire basket system will also be re-purposed to provide a safe emergency egress for the Dragon crew in the event of an emergency on the pad that does not necessitate using the Crew Dragon’s launch abort system.

- Crew access arm will be added to the existing tower
- Shuttle slide-wire escape baskets will be used

Sensational new information support the far-fetched notion that SpaceX actually does analysis and ground testing :)

But, seriously now - any idea what this sled is?  "Movable ballast" - ballast against what?  Is this for changing the location of the cg under some test condition?

I tried googling it, but it's hard to wade through the references to fluorescent lighting and sailing boats.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DavidH on 02/28/2015 02:38 am
Some interesting new information from the Garrett Reisman pre-congressional-hearing written statement released today:

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-GReisman-20150227.pdf

Some interesting information within...

Crew Dragon:
Quote
Crew Dragon is comprised of three main structural elements: the nosecone, which protects the vessel and the docking adaptor during ascent and reentry; the spacecraft, which houses the crew and pressurized cargo, as well as the service section (containing avionics, directional thrusters, parachutes, and other infrastructure); and the trunk, which will support Crew Dragon’s solar arrays and radiators, as well as providing aerodynamic stability during aborts.

- Trunk fins for abort stability is confirmed.

Quote
Dragon’s passively stable shape generates lift as it reenters the Earth’s atmosphere supersonically. I In addition to the 8 SuperDraco engines onboard Crew Dragon, its 16 Draco thrusters provide 2-fault tolerant roll control during reentry for precision guidance on course for a soft touchdown on land. Additionally, a movable ballast sled allows the angle of attack to be actively controlled during entry to further provide precision landing control. The rew Dragon’s SuperDraco engines are divided into four quads, each with two SuperDracos and 4 Draco engines. The SuperDracos will activate to provide precision land landing capability. Nominally, only two quads are used for on-orbit propellant with the Dracos and two quads are reserved for propulsive landing using the SuperDracos. For aborts or onorbit faults, all four quads are available for Draco or SuperDraco operations, increasing flexibility, robustness, and performance in these
critical situations.

- The movable ballast sled is a new information! I wonder where it is located?
- 50% of the propellant is reserved for landing. (nominally, but can be used for other purposes)

Quote
Crew Dragon carries sufficient breathable gas stores to allow for a safe return to Earth in the event of a leak of up to an equivalent orifice of 0.25 inches in diameter. As an extra level of protection, the crew will wear SpaceX-designed spacesuits to protect them from a rapid cabin depressurization emergency event of even greater severity. The suits and the vehicle itself will be rated for operation at vacuum.

- Presumably this means that the interior electronics will be vacuum rated?

Quote
Notably, the Cargo Dragon and Falcon 9 are scheduled to fly together at least 9 more times before the first Crew Dragon manned test flight in 2017. The Falcon 9 itself is scheduled to launch more than 50 times prior to the first Dragon crew mission

EDIT: more...

Quote
Since submitting the CCtCap proposal in January 2014, SpaceX has continued to enhance the Crew Dragon design to improve safety, operational flexibility, and reliability. These improvements include: the ability to perform precision propulsive land landing with full fault tolerance; increased propellant tank capacity for improved mission performance and to support propulsive landing; a movable ballast system to allow for high precision landings; life support system components moved from the trunk into the capsule service section to increase reliability; and consolidated avionics components to decrease complexity. The near doubling of the propellant tank capacity significantly increases the available impulse of the LAS allowing the capsule to travel further away from a failing launch vehicle. Additionally, the migration of life support consumables into the capsule allows the capsule to maintain pressure during the entire descent phase assuming a worst-case leak. Active center of gravity control allows for lift vector modulation for precise landings that ultimately enable fast access to the
returning crew either on land or in the water.

- The current iteration of the Dragon v2 design has close to double the propellant of the first proposal (similar to Cargo Dragon I assume)
- Crew consumables appear to be stored in the pressurized volume? (or in the unpressurized service ring?)
- Again a reference to the movable ballast sled

Quote
Precision propulsive land landing will be certified in parallel with parachute to water landing for Crew Dragon. This will allow the teams to stay on schedule and ensure U.S. crew transportation safely and reliably in 2017. Land landing will become the baseline for the early post-certification missions; in the meantime, precision water landing under parachutes has been proposed as the baseline return and recovery approach for the first few flights of Crew Dragon.

- For schedule reasons, the first few flights will do water landing.
- But propulsive land landings have not been abandoned :)


Pad 39A:
Quote
SpaceX is investing over $60 million in LC-39A to modernize the complex for Crew Dragon, Falcon 9
and Falcon Heavy. Construction on the hangar has begun and will be completed later this year. Taking advantage of the existing launch tower, SpaceX will add a crew gantry access arm and white room to allow for crew and cargo ingress to the vehicle. The existing Space Shuttle evacuation slide-wire basket system will also be re-purposed to provide a safe emergency egress for the Dragon crew in the event of an emergency on the pad that does not necessitate using the Crew Dragon’s launch abort system.

- Crew access arm will be added to the existing tower
- Shuttle slide-wire escape baskets will be used

Sensational new information support the far-fetched notion that SpaceX actually does analysis and ground testing :)

But, seriously now - any idea what this sled is?  "Movable ballast" - ballast against what?  Is this for changing the location of the cg under some test condition?

I tried googling it, but it's hard to wade through the references to fluorescent lighting and sailing boats.
Sometimes, you amaze me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 02/28/2015 02:44 am

But, seriously now - any idea what this sled is?  "Movable ballast" - ballast against what?  Is this for changing the location of the cg under some test condition?

I tried googling it, but it's hard to wade through the references to fluorescent lighting and sailing boats.

It's not ballast "against" anything, except gravity (well, acceleration). You put a mass (tungsten, probably, or possibly lead) on a system of rails and move it to move the center of gravity. The differential between center of gravity and center of pressure will directly affect the coefficient of lift and and hence the trajectory of the reentry. Apollo's CG was fixed and the reentry trajectory was "flown" by rotation in order to create wide but very shallow turns (smaller scale versions of the shuttle's well-known entry S-turns). Dragon will evidently do the same thing, but CG is adjustable with this ballast sled system.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 02/28/2015 02:47 am
But, seriously now - any idea what this sled is?  "Movable ballast" - ballast against what?  Is this for changing the location of the cg under some test condition?

I tried googling it, but it's hard to wade through the references to fluorescent lighting and sailing boats.

I bet it's for the newest SpaceX design -- a Dragon that can also function as a submersible boat.  ;)

Seriously, this is the first I've heard of the Dragon V2 having "active CG control" as a part of its entry control suite.  Good idea, but they'll need to make very sure the sled mass can't easily break free from restraints and move freely -- if there is enough play in its motion, that could result in an uncontrollable situation.

With the talk about moving crew provisioning from the trunk into the cabin (i.e., air supplies), I wonder if that, or other relatively massive supplies or devices, will be the mass (or part of it) attached to this sled?  I'd say that whatever the mass is, it ought to be something more than just dead weight.  I'd think it would be a waste of the payload capacity of the vehicle to take up a lot of its weight and mass margin with a big sled covered with simple lead weights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/28/2015 02:48 am

And where are you going to dispose of the trunk?  El Paso?

Drop it in the Pacific Ocean. Dragon can fly 10 minutes without it plus the time from atmospheric contact to landing.

How? The trunk has no propulsion on its own. You either do a deorbit burn with it or you leave in orbit.

You are right. They could leave it in orbit but then it would descend anywhere without control.

This is simple to solve. Just do 2 deorbit burns. The first one with the trunk attached and the second without. Trunk lands in the ocean (perhaps the Gulf... are we still talking landing in Texas?) and Dragon on land.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: darkenfast on 02/28/2015 03:01 am
Will be interesting to see what the interior of the Dragon 2 is like now compared to the original reveal. My guess is that it will be a lot more "cramped" with lots more equipment and systems installed.

It is interesting that there is a movable ballast system. Did/Does any other capsule have such a system?

There's a section that (as far as I know), we've never seen on V2.  Its the disk-shaped area under the deck of the "cabin".  It's about seven feet in diameter and about two feet deep.  A good look at that would answer a lot of questions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dglow on 02/28/2015 03:15 am
There's a section that (as far as I know), we've never seen on V2.  Its the disk-shaped area under the deck of the "cabin".  It's about seven feet in diameter and about two feet deep.  A good look at that would answer a lot of questions.

I can't wait for the artful cross-section digram of Dragon 2. I grew up with one of the Shuttle Orbiter taped to my bedroom wall. :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 02/28/2015 03:52 am

But, seriously now - any idea what this sled is?  "Movable ballast" - ballast against what?  Is this for changing the location of the cg under some test condition?

I tried googling it, but it's hard to wade through the references to fluorescent lighting and sailing boats.

It's not ballast "against" anything, except gravity (well, acceleration). You put a mass (tungsten, probably, or possibly lead) on a system of rails and move it to move the center of gravity. The differential between center of gravity and center of pressure will directly affect the coefficient of lift and and hence the trajectory of the reentry. Apollo's CG was fixed and the reentry trajectory was "flown" by rotation in order to create wide but very shallow turns (smaller scale versions of the shuttle's well-known entry S-turns). Dragon will evidently do the same thing, but CG is adjustable with this ballast sled system.

Oh - thanks.   I misread it...

Yes, I've heard of that, in military reentry vehicles.  Also, IIRC during MSL's "seven minutes of terror" video, there was a graphic that alluded to that, but I don't remember other information.

Good - it's elegant.

I suppose it also takes care of trim issues due to payload distribution - you can have some leeway if the system can correct for it.

DavidH - the trick is to lower the bar as much as possible, and then stumble over it.   Or just the second half.

EDIT:

In the first few seconds, it shows what I interpreted as the vehicle being moved inside the aeroshell.  No exactly how you'd do it in a Dragon, but still.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cosmicvoid on 02/28/2015 03:57 am
Is this "ballast" necessarily solid?  It could be a fluid system, perhaps to pump water to/from 1 of 4 quadrant tanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/28/2015 04:08 am

Is this "ballast" necessarily solid?  It could be a fluid system, perhaps to pump water to/from 1 of 4 quadrant tanks.

Calling it a ballast "sled" seems to imply it is solid.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bstrong on 02/28/2015 05:33 am
With the talk about moving crew provisioning from the trunk into the cabin (i.e., air supplies), I wonder if that, or other relatively massive supplies or devices, will be the mass (or part of it) attached to this sled?  I'd say that whatever the mass is, it ought to be something more than just dead weight.  I'd think it would be a waste of the payload capacity of the vehicle to take up a lot of its weight and mass margin with a big sled covered with simple lead weights.

How about a Li-ion battery pack? It seems to ballast a Model S nicely.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: somepitch on 02/28/2015 05:38 am

Is this "ballast" necessarily solid?  It could be a fluid system, perhaps to pump water to/from 1 of 4 quadrant tanks.

Calling it a ballast "sled" seems to imply it is solid.

Would seem a waste to use some solid, otherwise useless mass - I wonder if they'll do something fancy like have the batteries as a moveable mass on the sled. Would that be possible?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Nomadd on 02/28/2015 06:15 am
Is this "ballast" necessarily solid?  It could be a fluid system, perhaps to pump water to/from 1 of 4 quadrant tanks.

No chance. You definitely don't want ballast to be "moveable" as in partly filled tanks. That sort of moveable ballast is what capsizes ships and tips half full tanker trucks on ess curves. My wildass guess would be a weight on two jack screws, although, hydraulics would probably be faster.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: obi-wan on 02/28/2015 06:25 am
MSL/Curiosity had to have a CG on centerline because it was spin-stabilized during cruise. One ballast mass was ejected before entry to provide asymmetrical CG for lift, used to improve landing targeting. The second was ejected to allow the aeroshell to hang straight under the parachute for Skycrane separation.

There's really no reason to move the CG, as you can mitigate the effect of the lift by rolling around the velocity vector to produce zero net lift. (This is how Soyuz achieves a ballistic entry following a guidance failure.) A CG shift would move the stagnation point, and vary the ablation pattern on the heat shield. It also affects aft wake heating on the sides of the spacecraft. I wonder if the CG shift is necessary to reduce wake heating on the SuperDraco pods? It really looks like there would be wake impingement on the pod structure, particularly on the side closest to the CG...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 02/28/2015 06:36 am
There's really no reason to move the CG, as you can mitigate the effect of the lift by rolling around the velocity vector to produce zero net lift. (This is how Soyuz achieves a ballistic entry following a guidance failure.) A CG shift would move the stagnation point, and vary the ablation pattern on the heat shield. It also affects aft wake heating on the sides of the spacecraft. I wonder if the CG shift is necessary to reduce wake heating on the SuperDraco pods? It really looks like there would be wake impingement on the pod structure, particularly on the side closest to the CG...

I doubt it has anything to do with reducing heating on the SD pods. Besides, they have some pretty thick material on the edges, since they need to survive being blasted with SDs at full thrust.

Presumably it is there to provide stability with reduced propellant usage. It can also compensate for crews moving and/or not perhaps packing their stuff in the right spots.

Rolling around the velocity vector is not going to be a very pleasant experience for the crew, so if it can be avoided, it should be. As you wrote, Soyuz only does a roll if something goes wrong.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Nomadd on 02/28/2015 11:14 am
There's really no reason to move the CG, as you can mitigate the effect of the lift by rolling around the velocity vector to produce zero net lift. (This is how Soyuz achieves a ballistic entry following a guidance failure.) A CG shift would move the stagnation point, and vary the ablation pattern on the heat shield. It also affects aft wake heating on the sides of the spacecraft. I wonder if the CG shift is necessary to reduce wake heating on the SuperDraco pods? It really looks like there would be wake impingement on the pod structure, particularly on the side closest to the CG...

I doubt it has anything to do with reducing heating on the SD pods. Besides, they have some pretty thick material on the edges, since they need to survive being blasted with SDs at full thrust.

Presumably it is there to provide stability with reduced propellant usage. It can also compensate for crews moving and/or not perhaps packing their stuff in the right spots.

Rolling around the velocity vector is not going to be a very pleasant experience for the crew, so if it can be avoided, it should be. As you wrote, Soyuz only does a roll if something goes wrong.
Maybe not heating, but the aerodynamics of those pods might be a factor. I can see where they'd want to keep them oriented a certain way.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 02/28/2015 09:26 pm
Good internet etiquette considers truncating a 1/4 page long post before supplying a 6-word reply. Come on guys!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 03/01/2015 06:13 am
Can anyone wager a guess, what delta-v Dragon 2 will have with the extended fuel capacity?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: beancounter on 03/01/2015 10:24 am
Don't know how much but could this be used for boosting ISS altitude?  No need to add WAG  :)
Cheers
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rpapo on 03/01/2015 10:53 am
How about a simpler reason?  How much more does Dragon v2 weigh compared to Dragon v1?  With all the additional bells and whistles, I would expect it to weigh several tons more, thereby necessitating more fuel to obtain the same delta-v as before.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: friendly3 on 03/01/2015 10:37 pm
Hi,
Can anyone give me a link to the video that showed Dragon landing on land under parachutes with the superdracos only firing during the last seconds for a soft landing, since it seems that is the 2015 milestone named "Propulsive Land Landing Test Complete"?
Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 03/01/2015 10:51 pm
Hi,
Can anyone give me a link to the video that showed Dragon landing on land under parachutes with the superdracos only firing during the last seconds for a soft landing, since it seems that is the 2015 milestone named "Propulsive Land Landing Test Complete"?
Thanks.

Steve Jurvitson at NewSpace 2012

http://youtu.be/vW3K3TfQbSI
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: friendly3 on 03/01/2015 11:08 pm
OK, thank you very much !
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 03/02/2015 12:06 am
Hi,
Can anyone give me a link to the video that showed Dragon landing on land under parachutes with the superdracos only firing during the last seconds for a soft landing, since it seems that is the 2015 milestone named "Propulsive Land Landing Test Complete"?
Thanks.

It hasn't happened yet.  The video linked by docmordrid is a CG simulation.  The milestone is for when they have completed the propulsive land landing testing, not stating that they have already met the milestone.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 03/02/2015 07:13 am
How about a simpler reason?  How much more does Dragon v2 weigh compared to Dragon v1?  With all the additional bells and whistles, I would expect it to weigh several tons more, thereby necessitating more fuel to obtain the same delta-v as before.

More like several hundred kg. And that would have been known at the time of the CCtCap proposal and deemed sufficient. So it is a very significant upgrade of delta-v over that IMO.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: IRobot on 03/02/2015 08:07 am
That is the dry weight. I bet for most crewed missions it will weight less, as 4-7 humans and some extra cargo weight less than the maximum Dragon cargo payload, even with the capsule's and trunk mass increase.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Oersted on 03/02/2015 11:32 am
Batteries on a ballast sled sounds like a very elegant solution. Should be easy to connect them with a cable that spans the whole range of motion.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/02/2015 04:13 pm
Watching the politicians speak in this video is very difficult.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2015 09:01 pm
Via L2 (with L2 graphics) - here's Dragon 2's two demo missions:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/commercial-crew-demo-missions-dragon-cst-100/
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 03/05/2015 09:28 pm
I know these are very forward-looking dates here, but it seems unlikely that SpaceX 1st crewed mission and Boeing 1st uncrewed mission would both dock at the ISS in the same month.  I guess it is technically possible, however, since there will be two docking ports?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RanulfC on 03/05/2015 10:21 pm
Via L2 (with L2 graphics) - here's Dragon 2's two demo missions:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/commercial-crew-demo-missions-dragon-cst-100/

Looks like I missed another memo, when did it become "Dragon 2 V2?"
I thought it was just Dragon V2?

Randy
EDIT: Never mind found it :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/06/2015 01:10 am
I know these are very forward-looking dates here, but it seems unlikely that SpaceX 1st crewed mission and Boeing 1st uncrewed mission would both dock at the ISS in the same month.  I guess it is technically possible, however, since there will be two docking ports?

Two docking ports ahoy!

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/02/astronauts-spacewalk-re-wire-iss-commercial-crew/

Quote
This Shuttle-oriented arrangement is still the configuration of the ISS to this day. For commercial crew vehicles however, it will need to change, since the new crew vehicles will require two separate docking ports.

This is because NASA want to have one primary and one back-up docking port in case one port should fail. Additionally, having two docking ports will open up the possibility of having two commercial crew vehicles visit the ISS simultaneously under the “taxi” model, although at this time it is only planned to have one vehicle at the ISS at any one time, under the “rent-a-car” model.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mcoconnor on 03/11/2015 02:58 pm
From @jeff_foust on Twitter (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/575661446924746752):

Quote
SpaceX is showing off part of their Dragon crew interior at #goddard2015

with a picture of the 4-seat Dragon configuration presumably to be used in CC ISS flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 03/11/2015 03:33 pm
Looks pretty identical to the seats and control consoles from the Dragon V2 reveal.  Lots of opinions about those being "obviously not flight-like" at the time.  Not that this settles that question.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bennydtown on 03/11/2015 03:43 pm
Quote
with a picture of the 4-seat Dragon configuration presumably to be used in CC ISS flights.

Take a closer look.  That's not a 4 seat configuration.  It's two seats in front of a banner/booth.  The banner shows the 7 seat configuration from last year's unveil.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bennydtown on 03/11/2015 04:01 pm
Quote
Looks pretty identical to the seats and control consoles from the Dragon V2 reveal.  Lots of opinions about those being "obviously not flight-like" at the time.  Not that this settles that question.

Tough to say how far along the console is.  One thing that's certain: the seats can't be designed until the flight suits are.  So...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Sohl on 03/11/2015 04:08 pm
From @jeff_foust on Twitter (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/575661446924746752):

Quote
SpaceX is showing off part of their Dragon crew interior at #goddard2015

with a picture of the 4-seat Dragon configuration presumably to be used in CC ISS flights.

Are those gas struts connecting the upper frame to the frame member on the ground?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Kansan52 on 03/11/2015 04:25 pm
That does appear to be gas struts.

The console is in an up position (see joystick cebter top) that is pulled down and rotates to face the chairs' occupents.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 03/11/2015 04:36 pm
Tough to say how far along the console is.  One thing that's certain: the seats can't be designed until the flight suits are.

Why?  (This is an honest question.)

FWIW, there are numerous SpaceX suit-related milestones in the CCtCap documents.  It's certainly not unreasonable to expect that SpaceX knows roughly what they look like by now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lobo on 03/11/2015 05:13 pm
Quote
with a picture of the 4-seat Dragon configuration presumably to be used in CC ISS flights.

Take a closer look.  That's not a 4 seat configuration.  It's two seats in front of a banner/booth.  The banner shows the 7 seat configuration from last year's unveil.

Ha!  I thought there were 4 seats there too when I first looked at it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 03/11/2015 05:13 pm
Tough to say how far along the console is.  One thing that's certain: the seats can't be designed until the flight suits are.

Why?  (This is an honest question.)

FWIW, there are numerous SpaceX suit-related milestones in the CCtCap documents.  It's certainly not unreasonable to expect that SpaceX knows roughly what they look like by now.

Agreed...  Like any system, there's interfaces, and there's internal design.

As long as they know what the suit external parameters are, they can proceed with the seats.  If there's a change in the interfaces, there's a process to follow to propagate the changes.  The process can be as simple as updating a central document and notifying people on the change-notify-list that's in that document.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 03/11/2015 05:22 pm
I don't believe the Shuttle seats were significantly redesigned throughout their flight history, and there were several very different types of suits worn during Shuttle launches and entries -- from full pressure suits all the way down to plain flight suits.

The Apollo crew couches were designed well before the suits were designed and available, BTW.  And there was a hell of a note when the first ILC suits came out for evaluation and a crew of three could not fit into the command module wearing them -- they were too broad at the shoulder, it was simply not possible to fit all three guys into the seats while wearing them.  (Due to that fiasco and a subsequent cancellation and re-awarding of the Apollo suit and PLSS contracts, Apollo One would have flown with the crew wearing very slightly modified David Clark Co. Gemini suits.)

So, I really don't think the seats will need a whole lot of redesign once the final suit designs arrive; all that will likely be needful will be some specific accommodations for hoses and electrical connections.  It will be interesting to see what SpaceX will come up with in re the suits -- IIRC, they're doing the suits in-house and not contracting them out to either Clark or ILC, the two primary pressure suit manufacturers out there.  Boeing, on the other hand, seems to be getting Clark to design their CST-100 suits.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/11/2015 05:56 pm
I might be remembering this wrong, but don't they need armrests on those seats?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bennydtown on 03/11/2015 06:03 pm
Fair enough.  It is certainly possible that Spacex had enough visibility of the final flight suit specs last spring to finalize seats. 

We know that Orbital Outfitters had a contract to do initial designs since at least 2012, so presumably they have fairly well developed requirements at this point.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 03/11/2015 11:41 pm
I might be remembering this wrong, but don't they need armrests on those seats?
No. I'm pretty sure there aren't arm rests in the Soyuz.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/12/2015 12:50 am
I might be remembering this wrong, but don't they need armrests on those seats?
No. I'm pretty sure there aren't arm rests in the Soyuz.
"Where we're going, we don't need arm rests."
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Roy_H on 03/12/2015 10:25 am
I wondered if SpaceX was going to get away from custom seats (or seat liners) for each astronaut. ISTM that non-custom design would require much thicker padding, but would have advantages of simplifying sending people to orbit. Does anybody know if each seat is custom?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dorkmo on 03/12/2015 06:57 pm
I wondered if SpaceX was going to get away from custom seats (or seat liners) for each astronaut. ISTM that non-custom design would require much thicker padding, but would have advantages of simplifying sending people to orbit. Does anybody know if each seat is custom?

maybe instead of custom they just have small medium large etc
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 03/12/2015 09:09 pm

FWIW, there are numerous SpaceX suit-related milestones in the CCtCap documents.  It's certainly not unreasonable to expect that SpaceX knows roughly what they look like by now.

It's also reasonable to assume that the fundamental structural and shaping elements to the suits are finalised by now, if they want those suits to be ready in time for Dragon 2. Just because they're not telling doesn't mean they're not doing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 03/12/2015 10:19 pm

FWIW, there are numerous SpaceX suit-related milestones in the CCtCap documents.  It's certainly not unreasonable to expect that SpaceX knows roughly what they look like by now.

It's also reasonable to assume that the fundamental structural and shaping elements to the suits are finalised by now, if they want those suits to be ready in time for Dragon 2. Just because they're not telling doesn't mean they're not doing.

From Elon's reddit AMA:
Quote from: /u/ElonMuskOfficial
Our spacesuit design is finally coming together and will also be unveiled later this year. We are putting a lot of effort into design esthetics, not just utility. It needs to both look like a 21st century spacesuit and work well. Really difficult to achieve both.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: BobHk on 03/13/2015 12:16 am
I might be remembering this wrong, but don't they need armrests on those seats?

Why would you need armrests when you're doing a double fist pump all the way to orbit?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: lele on 03/13/2015 12:33 pm
I wondered if SpaceX was going to get away from custom seats (or seat liners) for each astronaut. ISTM that non-custom design would require much thicker padding, but would have advantages of simplifying sending people to orbit. Does anybody know if each seat is custom?
Aren't custom seats in Soyuz made because of the relatively high-G re-entry and landing? I suppose the Dragon crews will experience less G (at least for propulsive landing).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AstroBrewer on 03/14/2015 01:45 am
You can get by without arm rests just fine, but where are the cup holders?  Are they expecting crew to hold their lattes all the way up to LEO?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/14/2015 03:16 am
I wondered if SpaceX was going to get away from custom seats (or seat liners) for each astronaut. ISTM that non-custom design would require much thicker padding, but would have advantages of simplifying sending people to orbit. Does anybody know if each seat is custom?

maybe instead of custom they just have small medium large etc

Cars and ergonomic desk chairs do pretty well at fitting a range of body sizes and shapes by being adjustable in several degrees of freedom.  It's a little more mass and complexity, but if they're planning to really fly lots of people in these vehicles, it's a step in the right direction.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: NovaSilisko on 03/14/2015 03:21 am
This is simple to solve. Just do 2 deorbit burns. The first one with the trunk attached and the second without. Trunk lands in the ocean (perhaps the Gulf... are we still talking landing in Texas?) and Dragon on land.

Or detach it midway through a single burn.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rst on 03/14/2015 12:50 pm
I wondered if SpaceX was going to get away from custom seats (or seat liners) for each astronaut. ISTM that non-custom design would require much thicker padding, but would have advantages of simplifying sending people to orbit. Does anybody know if each seat is custom?

Custom seats are SOP for Formula 1 race cars, and (IIRC) aren't one of the major budget items there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: darkenfast on 03/15/2015 02:46 am
Our last capsule (Apollo), used fabric over frames, if I recall correctly.  I'm not sure that padding helps much with steady g-forces, just with shocks and comfort.  We need some expert to weigh in on this.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: M_Puckett on 03/15/2015 03:05 am
I wondered if SpaceX was going to get away from custom seats (or seat liners) for each astronaut. ISTM that non-custom design would require much thicker padding, but would have advantages of simplifying sending people to orbit. Does anybody know if each seat is custom?

maybe instead of custom they just have small medium large etc

With a series of standard interchangeable inserts, you could likely make a cheap and easy semi-customizable seat.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 03/15/2015 11:57 am
Custom seats aren't really necessary. They are a throwback to the early days when we were just learning how to do things. All that is required is a reasonable seat base, properly shaped (*not* a "frame") covered by an appropriate thickness of an stress-absorbing material. I suggest "Space-Age foam" (tempurpedic) material, covered by material like leather will do just fine. Think luxury car seat.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/15/2015 01:21 pm
All that is required is a reasonable seat base, properly shaped (*not* a "frame") covered by an appropriate thickness of an stress-absorbing material. I suggest "Space-Age foam" (tempurpedic) material, covered by material like leather will do just fine. Think luxury car seat.

Most closed-cell foam formulations are terrible from the standpoint of flammability and toxicity, as well as off-gassing and contaminants for the ECLSS to deal with for any length of time longer than several hours in a closed environment. Similarly, leather is flammable unless treated. I would be shocked if they didn't use actively flame-retardant synthetics instead.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 03/16/2015 02:52 am
Again, though, you don't need a foam-filled, custom-contoured seat to handle even fairly high G forces, especially for fairly short periods.  Apollo had fabric stretched across a frame for back and leg support with solid (and padded) headrests, armrests and foot stirrups, and was flown by crews in shirtsleeves during entry (during which you could reach a peak of seven G's when the computer decided to dump velocity).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JamesH on 03/16/2015 09:13 am
I wondered if SpaceX was going to get away from custom seats (or seat liners) for each astronaut. ISTM that non-custom design would require much thicker padding, but would have advantages of simplifying sending people to orbit. Does anybody know if each seat is custom?

Custom seats are SOP for Formula 1 race cars, and (IIRC) aren't one of the major budget items there.

Indeed, I made a custom race car seat with cans of expanding foam and bin bags - fill bags with foam, it in until set. Pulled some multiple G impacts in that with no issues. Rest of car was in a state though! Not expensive in time or money to make a custom insert on a standard frame.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Seer on 05/01/2015 01:11 am
I don't know whether this has been discussed before (I've tried looking on the site) but can Dragon V2 be lifted by F9 with the first stage reused (either barge or boost back landing).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/01/2015 01:20 am
I don't know whether this has been discussed before (I've tried looking on the site) but can Dragon V2 be lifted by F9 with the first stage reused (either barge or boost back landing).
Yes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Owlon on 05/01/2015 06:33 am
I don't know whether this has been discussed before (I've tried looking on the site) but can Dragon V2 be lifted by F9 with the first stage reused (either barge or boost back landing).
Yes.

And likely with several tons of margin, potentially allowing for second stage recovery in the future.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Seer on 05/01/2015 06:53 am
Several tonnes? I think Dragon V2 is likely to be 7 tonnes dry and perhaps 9 tonnes wet, so it seems marginal for first stage reusable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Rebel44 on 05/01/2015 07:24 am
F9 v1.2 will be able to lift around 16 tons to low orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Owlon on 05/01/2015 08:00 am
Several tonnes? I think Dragon V2 is likely to be 7 tonnes dry and perhaps 9 tonnes wet, so it seems marginal for first stage reusable.

SpaceX upper management have said the payload numbers on the SpaceX website include margin for reuse, so F9 is supposed to be able to lift 13,150 kg into LEO with first stage RTLS. Assuming Dragon V2 is 9 tons wet, that gives over 4 tons of margin. It's not entirely clear if the pending F9 upgrades (thrust increase, propellant subcooling, and second stage stretch) are needed to achieve those numbers, but it doesn't really matter as the upgrades will be debuting well before manned Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Seer on 05/01/2015 09:03 am
Ah, I've just looked at Wikipedia and see that Falcon 9 1.1 has a Glow of 505 tonnes. I was going on 450 tonnes for some reason.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: baldusi on 05/01/2015 07:19 pm
F9 v1.2 will be able to lift around 16 tons to low orbit.
That would be with first stage RTLS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Roy_H on 05/02/2015 01:51 am
F9 v1.2 will be able to lift around 16 tons to low orbit.
That would be with first stage RTLS.
As stated above, SpaceX web site says 13,150kg to LEO. I is unclear to me if that is V1.1 or V1.2. In any case I though the difference was closer to 4%.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: baldusi on 05/02/2015 03:12 am
F9 v1.2 will be able to lift around 16 tons to low orbit.
That would be with first stage RTLS.
As stated above, SpaceX web site says 13,150kg to LEO. I is unclear to me if that is V1.1 or V1.2. In any case I though the difference was closer to 4%.
Go to the NASA Launch Services Performance Website (http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Results.aspx). This is the official data that NASA's scientist use to estimate performance. Try the 200km circular LEO at 28.5deg. You should get 16,625kg. That's current v1.1. It might be a bit optimistic, but v1.1 sure isn't a 13.5tonne in expendable mode LV. 16tonnes should be realistic for v1.1. Plus 30% on v1.2 (or whatever they call it), should be 20 to 21tonnes in expendable mode, around 16tonnes with RTLS for the first stage. Eventually, the v1.2 numbers should be available on this same site. Hopefully by year's end.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: spacenut on 05/02/2015 01:28 pm
That is Saturn IB's territory in expendable mode. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: vt_hokie on 05/05/2015 05:21 pm
So with NASA likely being reluctant to sign off on propulsive landings, and given that the required hardware for it is inherent to the vehicle's design, is there any chance of incorporating the capability as a backup to parachute landings before it becomes a primary landing mode?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dglow on 05/05/2015 05:54 pm
So with NASA likely being reluctant to sign off on propulsive landings, and given that the required hardware for it is inherent to the vehicle's design, is there any chance of incorporating the capability as a backup to parachute landings before it becomes a primary landing mode?

Yes, but not as a 'backup' so much as an integral component of parachute landings onto land. AIUI the SuperDracos will provide a final thrust, Soyuz-like, to soften the touchdown.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 05/05/2015 06:24 pm
I think perceptions will shift very quickly once propulsive landings are demonstrated.  Seeing is believing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dglow on 05/05/2015 06:34 pm
I think perceptions will shift very quickly once propulsive landings are demonstrated.  Seeing is believing.

The prospect of returning astronauts directly to KSC will be seductive and reminiscent of Shuttle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 05/05/2015 06:52 pm
So with NASA likely being reluctant to sign off on propulsive landings, and given that the required hardware for it is inherent to the vehicle's design, is there any chance of incorporating the capability as a backup to parachute landings before it becomes a primary landing mode?
I don't know how likely using propulsion as a backup to the parachutes is.  It seems possible.  But given how well parachutes are understood, and how well they've worked historically, I don't know if they'd develop that capability.

As for NASA being reluctant to sign off on propulsive landings, I don't buy it.  I think that once propulsive landings are proven to be reliable, both NASA as an organization and the astronauts themselves will be all for it.  From a cost, complexity, and comfort standpoint, landing at a designated landing pad is way better than having to send out boats to be fished out of the sea.  I think that the decelerations experienced by the crew will be similar to those as with a parachutes, just time-shifted and more finally controlled.

This is the main reason I'm unsure of developing the propulsive landing as a backup system.  I think NASA will adopt propulsive landings fairly quickly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/05/2015 07:07 pm
So with NASA likely being reluctant to sign off on propulsive landings, and given that the required hardware for it is inherent to the vehicle's design, is there any chance of incorporating the capability as a backup to parachute landings before it becomes a primary landing mode?
I don't know how likely using propulsion as a backup to the parachutes is.  It seems possible.  But given how well parachutes are understood, and how well they've worked historically...
There have been about as many fatal spaceflight accidents with failed parachutes as with failed launch vehicles (though that depends on how you class Columbia). To deal with that, we spend dozens of millions of dollars MINIMUM on abort systems (probably over a billion for Orion's LAS, all-inclusive). Seems like a no-brainer to spend a pittance of that to find a way to deal with the parachute hazard.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jarnis on 05/05/2015 07:10 pm
I think perceptions will shift very quickly once propulsive landings are demonstrated.  Seeing is believing.

The prospect of returning astronauts directly to KSC will be seductive and reminiscent of Shuttle.

Why not directly to Houston? :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 05/05/2015 07:24 pm
So with NASA likely being reluctant to sign off on propulsive landings, and given that the required hardware for it is inherent to the vehicle's design, is there any chance of incorporating the capability as a backup to parachute landings before it becomes a primary landing mode?
I don't know how likely using propulsion as a backup to the parachutes is.  It seems possible.  But given how well parachutes are understood, and how well they've worked historically...
There have been about as many fatal spaceflight accidents with failed parachutes as with failed launch vehicles (though that depends on how you class Columbia). To deal with that, we spend dozens of millions of dollars MINIMUM on abort systems (probably over a billion for Orion's LAS, all-inclusive). Seems like a no-brainer to spend a pittance of that to find a way to deal with the parachute hazard.
I agree that if the primary mode of landing were going to remain parachutes for an extended period of time than the backup makes sense.

My point is that I think as soon as propulsive landings are reliable, parachutes will only be used on aborts and as a backup to propulsive landing.  It just seems like an extra step for a safety system that will be obsolete the moment it is reliable.  It's not so much about money, it's about the sequence of development.  Now if SpaceX believes that NASA will be reluctant to adopt propulsive landings, or NASA is unexpectedly so, then it absolutely makes sense to add in propulsive landing as a backup to parachutes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 05/05/2015 07:37 pm
So with NASA likely being reluctant to sign off on propulsive landings, and given that the required hardware for it is inherent to the vehicle's design, is there any chance of incorporating the capability as a backup to parachute landings before it becomes a primary landing mode?
I don't know how likely using propulsion as a backup to the parachutes is.  It seems possible.  But given how well parachutes are understood, and how well they've worked historically...
There have been about as many fatal spaceflight accidents with failed parachutes as with failed launch vehicles (though that depends on how you class Columbia). To deal with that, we spend dozens of millions of dollars MINIMUM on abort systems (probably over a billion for Orion's LAS, all-inclusive). Seems like a no-brainer to spend a pittance of that to find a way to deal with the parachute hazard.

Waste of time and money in my book.  How about spending time/money on safer at-sea recoveries, or on safer solid rocket boosters, or on precision dumping of expendible stages in the ocean, or on more advanced range tracking radars, or...  all great projects for the 60s.

Maybe on-orbit refueling, propulsive landing, reusable launchers, ISRU, ...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/05/2015 07:38 pm
I think there may be pretty good evidence that there could be propulsive-assist landings on land under parachutes. It's possible they may even start doing this for splashdowns to test it and to further cushion the splashdown.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 05/05/2015 08:08 pm
I think there may be pretty good evidence that there could be propulsive-assist landings on land under parachutes. It's possible they may even start doing this for splashdowns to test it and to further cushion the splashdown.
Are you referring to Dragon Fly?  Maybe you're right.  Maybe they'll extend the control loop parameters to include everything from a nominal descent rate through some level of deployment failure.  Seems like the decision tree gets complicated pretty quickly, but if it's limitted to orientation and vertical descent rate maybe it's not so bad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: NaN on 05/05/2015 10:22 pm
I think there may be pretty good evidence that there could be propulsive-assist landings on land under parachutes. It's possible they may even start doing this for splashdowns to test it and to further cushion the splashdown.
Are you referring to Dragon Fly?  Maybe you're right.  Maybe they'll extend the control loop parameters to include everything from a nominal descent rate through some level of deployment failure.  Seems like the decision tree gets complicated pretty quickly, but if it's limitted to orientation and vertical descent rate maybe it's not so bad.

The updated parachute system has the capsule (and SD's) canted over a fair bit - I am guessing roughly 30 degrees, from the pictures I can find. Any attempt to soften the landing would add some horizontal velocity. It's certainly possible, as differential throttle could allow them to level the capsule even under the offset chutes, but it would be non trivial differences from other flight regimes. They would still want to focus on plan A (full propulsive landings) first and just splashdown under chutes until then, IMO. Unless there is some unexpected long term delay with plan A.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/06/2015 12:06 am
Where is that one video of Dragon landing in a desert?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: NannerAirCraft on 05/06/2015 12:47 am
I don't believe they ever landed Dragon in the desert. At least I can't find any Dragon landing on land.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 05/06/2015 01:13 am
They landed dragon in the pacific ocean.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-commercial-crew-partner-spacex-tests-dragon-parachute-system/
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/06/2015 01:18 am
They landed dragon in the pacific ocean.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-commercial-crew-partner-spacex-tests-dragon-parachute-system/
I know that. I meant the computer-generated video that showed Dragon descending on parachutes in a desert and then using SuperDracos for the final touchdown.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dglow on 05/06/2015 02:54 am
They landed dragon in the pacific ocean.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-commercial-crew-partner-spacex-tests-dragon-parachute-system/
I know that. I meant the computer-generated video that showed Dragon descending on parachutes in a desert and then using SuperDracos for the final touchdown.

I recall this video, but a brief youtube search didn't turn it up. Surely it's buried in one of these threads.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: solartear on 05/06/2015 05:08 pm
They landed dragon in the pacific ocean.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-commercial-crew-partner-spacex-tests-dragon-parachute-system/
I know that. I meant the computer-generated video that showed Dragon descending on parachutes in a desert and then using SuperDracos for the final touchdown.

Here is a copy. NewSpace 2012.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW3K3TfQbSI
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/06/2015 05:17 pm
They landed dragon in the pacific ocean.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-commercial-crew-partner-spacex-tests-dragon-parachute-system/
I know that. I meant the computer-generated video that showed Dragon descending on parachutes in a desert and then using SuperDracos for the final touchdown.

Here is a copy. NewSpace 2012.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW3K3TfQbSI
Thanks!
So you see at 2:40 in the video, even when hanging from the parachutes with a slant, they still can use the Superdracos to soft land. Could allow safe landing perhaps even if parachutes fail.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: justineet on 05/07/2015 07:00 am
The lateral distance was off by about 50%, only achieved about 1,100 meters of the expected 2,200 meters. Don't believe that can be explained fully by only weather condition. Has to be thrust and/or navigation issue(s).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/07/2015 08:23 am
I reckon it's a thrust issue. The Super Dracos might not have been getting as much fuel as they expected.

There was a tweet from somewhere which seemed to point towards that. If I can find it, I'll link.

Oh yep, correct, covered in another thread; "off-nominal mixture ratio". Might not be the only problem though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 05/07/2015 09:01 am
On another front - a new question is; which comes first, the Dragon 2 flight abort test or its first orbital flight?

Space News.... (http://spacenews.com/spacex-successfully-tests-dragon-abort-system/#sthash.WbJm4Qc2.dpuf)

Quote
>
That [flight abort] launch is tentatively scheduled for this fall from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, but Musk suggested it could take place after an uncrewed orbital test flight that is part of the commercial crew contract it received last year. “It’s not clear which will precede the other,” Musk said....
>
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/07/2015 09:53 am
On another front - a new question is; which comes first, the Dragon 2 flight abort test or its first orbital flight?

Space News.... (http://spacenews.com/spacex-successfully-tests-dragon-abort-system/#sthash.WbJm4Qc2.dpuf)

Quote
>
That [flight abort] launch is tentatively scheduled for this fall from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, but Musk suggested it could take place after an uncrewed orbital test flight that is part of the commercial crew contract it received last year. “It’s not clear which will precede the other,” Musk said....
>

When you think about it, the two tests are intended to do totally different things: Dragon-1 is to qualify the vehicle for orbital ops, whilst Dragon-AA-1 is to qualify the LAS for max-q aborts. Because Dragon-1 is uncrewed, then arguably there is no need for the LAS to be qualified for aerial firing before that flight goes ahead.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 05/07/2015 02:17 pm
The lateral distance was off by about 50%, only achieved about 1,100 meters of the expected 2,200 meters. Don't believe that can be explained fully by only weather condition. Has to be thrust and/or navigation issue(s).
The wind speed math (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33423.msg1370773.msg#1370773) says your belief is incorrect.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 05/07/2015 02:31 pm
Not to muddy up the Pad Abort discussion thread any further, but wanted to share some thoughts.

* The test article's stability seemed spot-on aerodynamically. The trunk separation seemed almost like a computer render, it was so clean and sublime.
* D2's stability in the water is incredible. It seemed more like a buoy. Does anyone know if that thing can even go "stable 2" (inverted in the water) as Apollo CMs or Orion are allowed to do, uprighting with airbags? I don't recall if D1 has airbags in this sense.

And a fun note about the Crew Dragon Test Article: It may be the first Dragon to fly twice, unless someone else knows something I don't.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 05/07/2015 03:33 pm
* D2's stability in the water is incredible. It seemed more like a buoy. Does anyone know if that thing can even go "stable 2" (inverted in the water) as Apollo CMs or Orion are allowed to do, uprighting with airbags? I don't recall if D1 has airbags in this sense.
No airbags.  I don't remember it ever being reported as or viewed inverted.
Quote
And a fun note about the Crew Dragon Test Article: It may be the first Dragon to fly twice, unless someone else knows something I don't.
Apparently some parts have reflown, but I do not believe a pressure vessel has, let alone (basically) the whole thing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/07/2015 03:40 pm
Am I correct to understand that SpaceX now calls it "Crew Dragon" rather than "Dragon 2" (having already dropped the "V2" for obvious reasons).

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dorkmo on 05/07/2015 03:53 pm
The lateral distance was off by about 50%, only achieved about 1,100 meters of the expected 2,200 meters. Don't believe that can be explained fully by only weather condition. Has to be thrust and/or navigation issue(s).
The wind speed math (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33423.msg1370773.msg#1370773) says your belief is incorrect.

but we did see the rocket change its orientation after the first puff. i believe these split seconds of thrust after the puff changed the trajectory.

to me it appeared to change away from its more horizontal path to a more vertical one.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 05/07/2015 05:34 pm
The lateral distance was off by about 50%, only achieved about 1,100 meters of the expected 2,200 meters. Don't believe that can be explained fully by only weather condition. Has to be thrust and/or navigation issue(s).
The wind speed math (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33423.msg1370773.msg#1370773) says your belief is incorrect.

but we did see the rocket change its orientation after the first puff. i believe these split seconds of thrust after the puff changed the trajectory.

to me it appeared to change away from its more horizontal path to a more vertical one.
It may have.  But your belief was that it couldn't all be explained by weather.  If you run the numbers, you see that it could indeed all be explained by weather.

There may have been other things going on.  But strictly factually speaking, weather was sufficient to explain the downrange distance flown.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: philw1776 on 05/07/2015 08:05 pm
Am I correct to understand that SpaceX now calls it "Crew Dragon" rather than "Dragon 2" (having already dropped the "V2" for obvious reasons).

 - Ed Kyle

That earlier designation raised problems discussing potential crewed Dragon intercontinental trips FL to London
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 05/07/2015 08:41 pm
EdKyle99 and philw1776: I have not heard anyone assign the V2 designation as a pejorative except on this site. No one, nowhere else. ISTM that you've built yourselves a house of cards to knock down. I could be wrong, but - hey.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/07/2015 08:52 pm
SpaceX currently calls the Dragon vehicle that will be used to carry crew "Crew Dragon", and they are now calling the Dragon vehicle that carries cargo "Cargo Dragon".  Pretty straightforward naming.

When first unveiled, the Crew Dragon had been called "Dragon Version 2", and Wikipedia's article for that vehicle is called "Dragon V2".

Since the "version" moniker is pretty commonplace, I don't think anyone would think twice about a "V2" designation, especially 70 years after a memorable usage of it.  I'm quite familiar with the history of WWII, and it sure wasn't an obvious connection with me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/07/2015 09:12 pm
Heck, V2 was in the official unveiling.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kdhilliard on 05/07/2015 10:29 pm
but we did see the rocket change its orientation after the first puff. i believe these split seconds of thrust after the puff changed the trajectory.

to me it appeared to change away from its more horizontal path to a more vertical one.
It may have.  But your belief was that it couldn't all be explained by weather.  If you run the numbers, you see that it could indeed all be explained by weather.

There may have been other things going on.  But strictly factually speaking, weather was sufficient to explain the downrange distance flown.

I don't question Lourens's math (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33423.msg1370312#msg1370312), but doing the same calculation with the maximum allowed wind speed of 25 knots (12.86 m/s) and the expected 107 seconds flight time, you get a displacement of 1376 m from the 2200 expected range, or only 824 m from the launch pad.  Is that in the surf, on the sand, or in the shrub?

~Kirk
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sanman on 05/07/2015 11:36 pm
Just curious - once DragonV2/CrewedDragon is brought into service, will DragonV1 be fully retired? Or will it continue to be used for unmanned cargo flights to ISS?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 05/07/2015 11:48 pm
Just curious - once DragonV2/CrewedDragon is brought into service, will DragonV1 be fully retired? Or will it continue to be used for unmanned cargo flights to ISS?
No. Cargo Dragon and Crew Dragon will remain in parallel production for each of their specific mission types, at least for the foreseeable future. Not to say they will not gradually merge the lines where it makes sence but according to SpaceX, they will remain separate for a while.

I suppose it also depends on if SpaceX receives CR2 contracts as well. Which I 'm believe they will. I'm also thinking that NASA will continue to extend SpaceX's CRS-1 contract as CRS-2 gets up to speed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 05/08/2015 12:13 am
but we did see the rocket change its orientation after the first puff. i believe these split seconds of thrust after the puff changed the trajectory.

to me it appeared to change away from its more horizontal path to a more vertical one.
It may have.  But your belief was that it couldn't all be explained by weather.  If you run the numbers, you see that it could indeed all be explained by weather.

There may have been other things going on.  But strictly factually speaking, weather was sufficient to explain the downrange distance flown.

I don't question Lourens's math (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33423.msg1370312#msg1370312), but doing the same calculation with the maximum allowed wind speed of 25 knots (12.86 m/s) and the expected 107 seconds flight time, you get a displacement of 1376 m from the 2200 expected range, or only 824 m from the launch pad.  Is that in the surf, on the sand, or in the shrub?

~Kirk

Since we know they were at the low end of their targeted velocity (155 m/s in a 150 m/s - 180 m/s projected range), they didn't get 107 seconds of flight time.

Using the actual flight time (98 seconds: 2200-(98 * 12.86) = 939.72), it seems to put it right in the "it depends on the tides" zone.  Are you sure they use knots and not mph? ;)

I'm sure SpaceX will be crunching these numbers very seriously.  I doubt they'll do another test, they and NSA seem content with the results.  But I believe they will keep tweaking the Super Dracos and/or adjust the crewed LCC accordingly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bstrong on 05/08/2015 01:41 am
On another front - a new question is; which comes first, the Dragon 2 flight abort test or its first orbital flight?

Space News.... (http://spacenews.com/spacex-successfully-tests-dragon-abort-system/#sthash.WbJm4Qc2.dpuf)

Quote
>
That [flight abort] launch is tentatively scheduled for this fall from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, but Musk suggested it could take place after an uncrewed orbital test flight that is part of the commercial crew contract it received last year. “It’s not clear which will precede the other,” Musk said....
>

Will the uncrewed orbital test dragon have an ECLSS? If not, I have to wonder if it might actually be ready to fly soon. IIRC, the dragon from the unveiling was going to be used for this test, so they have had plenty of time to get it ready.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kdhilliard on 05/08/2015 02:07 am
Since we know they were at the low end of their targeted velocity (155 m/s in a 150 m/s - 180 m/s projected range), they didn't get 107 seconds of flight time.

Using the actual flight time (98 seconds: 2200-(98 * 12.86) = 939.72), it seems to put it right in the "it depends on the tides" zone.  Are you sure they use knots and not mph? ;)

I'm sure SpaceX will be crunching these numbers very seriously.  I doubt they'll do another test, they and NSA seem content with the results.  But I believe they will keep tweaking the Super Dracos and/or adjust the crewed LCC accordingly.

Thanks, Mark!.  That image was just what I was looking for.

Per your question: yes (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37475.msg1370024#msg1370024), knots not mph.

Up thread, it was suggested (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1371142;topic=35381.600;last_msg=1371485) that winds alone could have accounted for the shortfall in lateral distance, but I can't imagine that they would have set the maximum wind violation rule so high that if would have blown the capsule back from the 2200 m expected range to a landing in the brush some 75 m in from the high tide mark.  This suggests that there is something wrong with the assumptions which went into our calculations.  Is it possible that the 2.2 km planned lateral distance was not for a no wind condition, but instead for some moderate on-shore breeze?

~Kirk
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 05/08/2015 02:18 am
39a is also slightly closer to the water line.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 05/08/2015 02:18 am
I think you're assuming our calculations have more significant digits than they actually do (certainly not five significant digits of accuracy!).  Our math just puts "max wind" in the general ballpark of "water's edge".  There are obviously safety margins built in, but they are probably smaller than our margin of error (which is quite large!).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 05/08/2015 02:46 am
On another front - a new question is; which comes first, the Dragon 2 flight abort test or its first orbital flight?

Space News.... (http://spacenews.com/spacex-successfully-tests-dragon-abort-system/#sthash.WbJm4Qc2.dpuf)

Quote
>
That [flight abort] launch is tentatively scheduled for this fall from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, but Musk suggested it could take place after an uncrewed orbital test flight that is part of the commercial crew contract it received last year. “It’s not clear which will precede the other,” Musk said....
>

Will the uncrewed orbital test dragon have an ECLSS? If not, I have to wonder if it might actually be ready to fly soon. IIRC, the dragon from the unveiling was going to be used for this test, so they have had plenty of time to get it ready.

Paragon SDC completed their modular commercial crew ECLSS under CCDev, and unless something's changed SpaceX was to use it.

Paragon PDF.... (https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.paragonsdc.com/docs/Paragon%2520Completes%2520all%2520Major%2520Milestones%2520with%2520CCT-ARS.pdf&sa=U&ei=UiJMVdCUL8O4oQTB8YD4DQ&ved=0CCcQFjAC&sig2=P0VQlTLgLkb7d1hP-5bCUg&usg=AFQjCNGq2NQNfIRVSxNcqZ9kCz4RblLnIA)

http://www.paragonsdc.com/index.php?action=viewPost&postID=44
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bstrong on 05/08/2015 03:30 am
Will the uncrewed orbital test dragon have an ECLSS? If not, I have to wonder if it might actually be ready to fly soon. IIRC, the dragon from the unveiling was going to be used for this test, so they have had plenty of time to get it ready.

Paragon SDC completed their modular commercial crew ECLSS under CCDev, and unless something's changed SpaceX was to use it.

Paragon PDF.... (https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.paragonsdc.com/docs/Paragon%2520Completes%2520all%2520Major%2520Milestones%2520with%2520CCT-ARS.pdf&sa=U&ei=UiJMVdCUL8O4oQTB8YD4DQ&ved=0CCcQFjAC&sig2=P0VQlTLgLkb7d1hP-5bCUg&usg=AFQjCNGq2NQNfIRVSxNcqZ9kCz4RblLnIA)

http://www.paragonsdc.com/index.php?action=viewPost&postID=44

Do you mean you expect them to install one specifically on that test vehicle? It seems like it would be nice to have, but it may not be required for the test objectives (and I don't know where to look to find out what those are).

The reason for my question was that I can imagine getting the ECLSS integrated and the cabin interior in final form taking arbitrary amounts of time. But minus that, I have a hard time seeing why they would really need until mid-2016 to get the vehicle from the unveiling flight-ready.

Which opens up another interpretation of Elon's statement: that they're going to do the uncrewed orbital test very soon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 05/08/2015 04:14 am
I would think an orbital test D2 vehicle that'll dock at ISS will need an ECLSS, even if uncrewed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: darkenfast on 05/08/2015 05:05 am
IRT how far past the beach, one of the videos on youtube shows a quick view from an on-board camera just as the mains open.  The capsule is well out beyond the surf line.  it's the only non-telephoto lens view I've seen.  It may have drifted closer, but they were able to get a line on it and get it to the barge, so I doubt it got into the surf.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: joek on 05/08/2015 05:29 am
I would think an orbital test D2 vehicle that'll dock at ISS will need an ECLSS, even if uncrewed.
It will certainly need EC; maybe not so much LS for an uncrewed test flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 05/08/2015 05:31 am
Since we know they were at the low end of their targeted velocity (155 m/s in a 150 m/s - 180 m/s projected range), they didn't get 107 seconds of flight time.

Using the actual flight time (98 seconds: 2200-(98 * 12.86) = 939.72), it seems to put it right in the "it depends on the tides" zone.  Are you sure they use knots and not mph? ;)

I'm sure SpaceX will be crunching these numbers very seriously.  I doubt they'll do another test, they and NSA seem content with the results.  But I believe they will keep tweaking the Super Dracos and/or adjust the crewed LCC accordingly.

Thanks, Mark!.  That image was just what I was looking for.

Per your question: yes (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37475.msg1370024#msg1370024), knots not mph.

Up thread, it was suggested (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1371142;topic=35381.600;last_msg=1371485) that winds alone could have accounted for the shortfall in lateral distance, but I can't imagine that they would have set the maximum wind violation rule so high that if would have blown the capsule back from the 2200 m expected range to a landing in the brush some 75 m in from the high tide mark.  This suggests that there is something wrong with the assumptions which went into our calculations.  Is it possible that the 2.2 km planned lateral distance was not for a no wind condition, but instead for some moderate on-shore breeze?

~Kirk
I would think they would model for no wind as the "ideal" target and then add flight criteria around that (worst case effects of wind.)

But something to remember is that SpaceX gave a range of projected maximum velocities (150 - 180 m/s, I think).  Was that 2,200 m calculated from 150 m/s, 180 m/s, or somewhere in between?  We know that that maximum velocity was 155 m/s.  We know that one of the SDs had a suboptimal mixture, which means it was slightly underperforming and it ran out of propellent about .5s early.

I think that performing at the lower end of the projected range plus the wind probably explains everything.  Furthermore, the crude calculations don't account for the mass and drag coefficient of the capsule (among other things, I'm sure), which I think would reduce the effect of the wind.

Really this is all beyond my (lack of) modeling knowledge and I don't know what the assumptions were for the 2,200 meter flight.  I was just curious when you posted the question and was looking for a rough approximation. I actually assume a more accurate modeling of a 25 knot wind and the actual performance (which exceeded the 150 m/s minimum) would put it in the water.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: starsilk on 05/08/2015 03:29 pm
Since we know they were at the low end of their targeted velocity (155 m/s in a 150 m/s - 180 m/s projected range), they didn't get 107 seconds of flight time.

Using the actual flight time (98 seconds: 2200-(98 * 12.86) = 939.72), it seems to put it right in the "it depends on the tides" zone.  Are you sure they use knots and not mph? ;)

I'm sure SpaceX will be crunching these numbers very seriously.  I doubt they'll do another test, they and NSA seem content with the results.  But I believe they will keep tweaking the Super Dracos and/or adjust the crewed LCC accordingly.

Thanks, Mark!.  That image was just what I was looking for.

Per your question: yes (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37475.msg1370024#msg1370024), knots not mph.

Up thread, it was suggested (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1371142;topic=35381.600;last_msg=1371485) that winds alone could have accounted for the shortfall in lateral distance, but I can't imagine that they would have set the maximum wind violation rule so high that if would have blown the capsule back from the 2200 m expected range to a landing in the brush some 75 m in from the high tide mark.  This suggests that there is something wrong with the assumptions which went into our calculations.  Is it possible that the 2.2 km planned lateral distance was not for a no wind condition, but instead for some moderate on-shore breeze?

~Kirk
I would think they would model for no wind as the "ideal" target and then add flight criteria around that (worst case effects of wind.)

But something to remember is that SpaceX gave a range of projected maximum velocities (150 - 180 m/s, I think).  Was that 2,200 m calculated from 150 m/s, 180 m/s, or somewhere in between?  We know that that maximum velocity was 155 m/s.  We know that one of the SDs had a suboptimal mixture, which means it was slightly underperforming and it ran out of propellent about .5s early.

I think that performing at the lower end of the projected range plus the wind probably explains everything.  Furthermore, the crude calculations don't account for the mass and drag coefficient of the capsule (among other things, I'm sure), which I think would reduce the effect of the wind.

Really this is all beyond my (lack of) modeling knowledge and I don't know what the assumptions were for the 2,200 meter flight.  I was just curious when you posted the question and was looking for a rough approximation. I actually assume a more accurate modeling of a 25 knot wind and the actual performance (which exceeded the 150 m/s minimum) would put it in the water.

actual crewed capsule is going to be heaver, perhaps? with crew, 'carry on' cargo etc. should come down faster with the parachute so less time for wind drift. also it will be launched from higher up, although that probably makes things worse.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 05/08/2015 03:35 pm
I doubt that the crewed capsule will be heavier. 11t sounds very heavily ballasted.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: starsilk on 05/08/2015 04:12 pm
I doubt that the crewed capsule will be heavier. 11t sounds very heavily ballasted.

thinking about it, it's a trade off, presumably. more weight means it will fly less distance (or gain less altitude) under thrust, but drift less under parachute. lighter means more distance under thrust, more distance (back) from wind.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 05/08/2015 04:12 pm
actual crewed capsule is going to be heaver, perhaps? with crew, 'carry on' cargo etc. should come down faster with the parachute so less time for wind drift. also it will be launched from higher up, although that probably makes things worse.

Why would it be? It was ballasted to match expected flight weight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Joffan on 05/08/2015 04:14 pm
IRT how far past the beach, one of the videos on youtube shows a quick view from an on-board camera just as the mains open.  The capsule is well out beyond the surf line.  it's the only non-telephoto lens view I've seen.  It may have drifted closer, but they were able to get a line on it and get it to the barge, so I doubt it got into the surf.
And the boat was there within 2 minutes of splashdown, so they weren't that far off nominal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: gongora on 05/08/2015 04:54 pm
I would think an orbital test D2 vehicle that'll dock at ISS will need an ECLSS, even if uncrewed.
It will certainly need EC; maybe not so much LS for an uncrewed test flight.

It would be strange not to have the full ECLSS on the unmanned flight, wouldn't you want to send it up and test it before putting crew on board?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: starsilk on 05/08/2015 05:50 pm
actual crewed capsule is going to be heaver, perhaps? with crew, 'carry on' cargo etc. should come down faster with the parachute so less time for wind drift. also it will be launched from higher up, although that probably makes things worse.

Why would it be? It was ballasted to match expected flight weight.

do we know that? if they had any sense they would have kept it 'a bit light' to help deal with any engine issues, since this was the first time they had fired all eight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 05/08/2015 05:55 pm
actual crewed capsule is going to be heaver, perhaps? with crew, 'carry on' cargo etc. should come down faster with the parachute so less time for wind drift. also it will be launched from higher up, although that probably makes things worse.

Why would it be? It was ballasted to match expected flight weight.

do we know that? if they had any sense they would have kept it 'a bit light' to help deal with any engine issues, since this was the first time they had fired all eight.

 ::) No that would not make 'sense'... This is a test they only want to run once. They did give out weight information before the test, but I don't recall the exact figures. But significantly heavier than Dragon 1, I recall.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/08/2015 07:09 pm
EdKyle99 and philw1776: I have not heard anyone assign the V2 designation as a pejorative except on this site. No one, nowhere else. ISTM that you've built yourselves a house of cards to knock down. I could be wrong, but - hey.
It was SpaceX that renamed its crewed Dragon to side-step using "V2", not us.  I don't read "V2" (as a reminder of "V-2") as disparaging, only as something that a PR person might recommend avoiding in a model name.   

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 05/08/2015 08:14 pm
...to side-step using "V2",...

See? There's the assumption. How do you know that? SpaceX has never addressed it.
That's what I am talking about. Assumptions being presented as fact.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 05/08/2015 08:28 pm
actual crewed capsule is going to be heaver, perhaps? with crew, 'carry on' cargo etc. should come down faster with the parachute so less time for wind drift. also it will be launched from higher up, although that probably makes things worse.

Why would it be? It was ballasted to match expected flight weight.

do we know that? if they had any sense they would have kept it 'a bit light' to help deal with any engine issues, since this was the first time they had fired all eight.
But there's nothing to deal with, because there's nobody inside.  If there are engine issues, it will simply accelerate slower - no harm done.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Airhead50 on 05/09/2015 03:17 am
Does the lower than expected performance during PA have any effect on D2 propulsive landing? I'm thinking not but it's beyond my math skills.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rst on 05/09/2015 03:36 am
Does the lower than expected performance during PA have any effect on D2 propulsive landing? I'm thinking not but it's beyond my math skills.

The lower-than-expected performance was due in part to a fault in one of the engines (bad mixture ratio, quoth Elon on twitter).  Since the propulsive landing plans included tolerance for more severe faults, I doubt this changes their plans much -- except to emphasize that they're going to need a lot more testing and dress rehearsals to explore the envelope (already announced as part of the "Dragonfly" program) before trying it out in a live mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: pospa on 05/09/2015 07:39 am
They did give out weight information before the test, but I don't recall the exact figures. But significantly heavier than Dragon 1, I recall.

From the pre-test press conference:
... Dragon 2  PAT launch weight will be: 21000 lbs (9525 kg), propellant 3500 lbs (1588 kg).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 05/09/2015 09:02 am
Sounds like the post PAT teleconference also included talk of BEO, taking Red Dragon and amping it up.

Florida Today.... (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/05/08/spacexs-musk-dragon-planetary-science-platform/26994455/)

Quote
>
CEO Elon Musk said the test also showed the Dragon's potential to deliver science payloads to the moon, Mars, the Jovian moon Europa, or virtually anywhere across the solar system.

"When boosted on a Falcon Heavy (rocket), it can pretty much go anywhere," said Musk. "So we're kind of excited about exploring that possibility."
>
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Misha Vargas on 05/09/2015 12:01 pm
They did give out weight information before the test, but I don't recall the exact figures. But significantly heavier than Dragon 1, I recall.

From the pre-test press conference:
... Dragon 2  PAT launch weight will be: 21000 lbs (9525 kg), propellant 3500 lbs (1588 kg).

Here's the actual quote.

Quote from: Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now
What's the mass of [...] the vehicle you're going to be testing?
Quote from: Hans Koenigsmann
So, the whole stack is 21,000 pounds. And then there's 3,500 pounds propellant of that.

I interpreted that as 17,500 + 3,500.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bstrong on 05/09/2015 01:15 pm

It was SpaceX that renamed its crewed Dragon to side-step using "V2", not us.  I don't read "V2" (as a reminder of "V-2") as disparaging, only as something that a PR person might recommend avoiding in a model name.   

 - Ed Kyle

I bet they just concluded from all their certification travails that it is easier to sneak changes in if you don't put version numbers on everything.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 05/09/2015 01:53 pm
They did give out weight information before the test, but I don't recall the exact figures. But significantly heavier than Dragon 1, I recall.

From the pre-test press conference:
... Dragon 2  PAT launch weight will be: 21000 lbs (9525 kg), propellant 3500 lbs (1588 kg).

Here's the actual quote.

Quote from: Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now
What's the mass of [...] the vehicle you're going to be testing?
Quote from: Hans Koenigsmann
So, the whole stack is 21,000 pounds. And then there's 3,500 pounds propellant of that.

I interpreted that as 17,500 + 3,500.

Unfortunately Hans' statement was not entirely clear. He may have meant that the stack dry weight was 21,000 lbs, and then 3,500 lbs propellant is added.

In fact, that's the only interpretation that is consistent with the test data reported by SpaceX and their statement that the SD's were operating at max thrust, as the numbers show here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33423.msg1371696#msg1371696
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sanman on 05/09/2015 02:19 pm
Sounds like the post PAT teleconference also included talk of BEO, taking Red Dragon and amping it up.

Florida Today.... (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/05/08/spacexs-musk-dragon-planetary-science-platform/26994455/)

Quote
>
CEO Elon Musk said the test also showed the Dragon's potential to deliver science payloads to the moon, Mars, the Jovian moon Europa, or virtually anywhere across the solar system.

"When boosted on a Falcon Heavy (rocket), it can pretty much go anywhere," said Musk. "So we're kind of excited about exploring that possibility."
>

So is Musk opening the possibility that DragonV2 would be modified to carry enough propellant to land on the Moon, since it currently doesn't have the propellant capacity to land there?

Would the DragonFly be used to test out such modifications? I was wondering if DragonFly's "trunk" might be filled with propellant at some point.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: philw1776 on 05/09/2015 02:49 pm
Doesn't Elon know to Attempt No Landing Here on Europa? 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mr. mark on 05/09/2015 02:52 pm
As far as which test goes first. It does make sense to do the orbital test before the inflight abort. Dragon 2 uses a lot of the same systems as cargo dragon and SpaceX has quite a lot of orbital experience in the books. That way SpaceX can continue to evaluate the abort system based on info gleaned from the recent pad abort test.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 05/09/2015 07:33 pm
Sounds like the post PAT teleconference also included talk of BEO, taking Red Dragon and amping it up.

Florida Today.... (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/05/08/spacexs-musk-dragon-planetary-science-platform/26994455/)

Quote
>
CEO Elon Musk said the test also showed the Dragon's potential to deliver science payloads to the moon, Mars, the Jovian moon Europa, or virtually anywhere across the solar system.

"When boosted on a Falcon Heavy (rocket), it can pretty much go anywhere," said Musk. "So we're kind of excited about exploring that possibility."
>

So is Musk opening the possibility that DragonV2 would be modified to carry enough propellant to land on the Moon, since it currently doesn't have the propellant capacity to land there?

Would the DragonFly be used to test out such modifications? I was wondering if DragonFly's "trunk" might be filled with propellant at some point.

There's a bit of a problem with putting fuel in the trunk, since you can't land with the trunk attached.

However, there's plenty volume inside Dragon for fuel, and a science payload, and still have left over space when you run out of mass.

On unmanned missions, IMO the trunk can be a cruise stage / orbiter.  It supplies power during transit, and carries an orbital science payload.   Dragon, when it lands, needs to pop out its own surface solar panels, IMO from the nose cone.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: NovaSilisko on 05/09/2015 07:40 pm
I always had thought of using the trunk as a "crasher" stage, dumped after providing much of the delta-v for the landing maneuver, like was planned for the LK for example. It would of course require you to have new solar panels on the dragon, but you're going to be getting rid of the trunk anyway, so you need those regardless.

This of course doesn't work if you want to ascend again, but I don't think such a thing is even being considered. Dragon landings on planetary surfaces would most certainly be one-way.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sanman on 05/09/2015 07:44 pm
On unmanned missions, IMO the trunk can be a cruise stage / orbiter.  It supplies power during transit, and carries an orbital science payload.   Dragon, when it lands, needs to pop out its own surface solar panels, IMO from the nose cone.

I always had thought of using the trunk as a "crasher" stage, dumped after providing much of the delta-v for the landing maneuver, like was planned for the LK for example. It would of course require you to have new solar panels on the dragon, but you're going to be getting rid of the trunk anyway, so you need those regardless.

Could photovoltaics be put on the existing surface of Dragon? Like on the videos/images depicting the new trunk, it shows the photovoltaics right on the existing surface of that trunk, and not on some separate array structure. Wouldn't that save on mass?

(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--VMhsB2bu--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/v6wr96kznig7na8msfbs.jpg)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 05/09/2015 08:24 pm
They should just replace the Trunk with a real SM that has a SuperDraco, prop tanks, solar panels, radiators, batteries, etc, even Moon landing legs.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 05/09/2015 09:13 pm
On unmanned missions, IMO the trunk can be a cruise stage / orbiter.  It supplies power during transit, and carries an orbital science payload.   Dragon, when it lands, needs to pop out its own surface solar panels, IMO from the nose cone.

I always had thought of using the trunk as a "crasher" stage, dumped after providing much of the delta-v for the landing maneuver, like was planned for the LK for example. It would of course require you to have new solar panels on the dragon, but you're going to be getting rid of the trunk anyway, so you need those regardless.

Could photovoltaics be put on the existing surface of Dragon? Like on the videos/images depicting the new trunk, it shows the photovoltaics right on the existing surface of that trunk, and not on some separate array structure. Wouldn't that save on mass?

(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--VMhsB2bu--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/v6wr96kznig7na8msfbs.jpg)

If it's heading outwards (Mars or beyond), you need more power, especially if you want run science instruments while in orbit (and thus sometimes in shade) - so I vote for a deployed winged panel, deploying from the trunk, like in 1.0.

What will become "Research Dragon" is not a simple variant of crew dragon.   But if crew dragon was designed with this variation in mind, the modification would be a lot easier than the transition from Dragon 1.0 to crew dragon.

For example, they may not have designed the extra fuel tanks that go inside the dragon, but they built the system to be able to fire for the required duration, and know where the connections to the new tanks go.  They either already have BEO-capable avionics, or know what needs to be done to get there.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 05/09/2015 09:20 pm
If I recall correctly, an increase of fuel amount was announced in connection with CCtCap. Do we know that this increase was already part of the LES-Dragon?

If not the amount of fuel was already enough for abort before that increase. So Dragon 2 may have capabilities we don't know of, yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Okie_Steve on 05/09/2015 09:48 pm
So is Musk opening the possibility that DragonV2 would be modified to carry enough propellant to land on the Moon, since it currently doesn't have the propellant capacity to land there?
Hm, idle thought. Given the EM has not seemed excited about going back to the moon (on his own dime  at least) in the past, but appeared to have the attitude of "Sure, we could do that" - if someone wants to pay for it, I wonder if this might hint that there is some serious discussion with someone who actually has the money? Billionaires can have expensive hobbies and a number of them seem to be centred around spaceflight. I wonder if there's a bona fide 'lunatic' in the crowd.  ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sanman on 05/09/2015 10:18 pm
Hm, idle thought. Given the EM has not seemed excited about going back to the moon (on his own dime  at least) in the past, but appeared to have the attitude of "Sure, we could do that" - if someone wants to pay for it, I wonder if this might hint that there is some serious discussion with someone who actually has the money? Billionaires can have expensive hobbies and a number of them seem to be centred around spaceflight. I wonder if there's a bona fide 'lunatic' in the crowd.  ::)

I bet those Golden Spike people could dig up plenty of rich prospects, including even cash-rich Gulf states, who might like the prestige of such a mission. After the first such missions, the cost could go down significantly anyway, opening the doors for even more takers.

Since Musk is all about using other people's money to get to his goals (CCDEV, CRS, etc) then I don't see why he'd turn down any money for making Lunar Dragon, when that could help him test out technologies that could be useful for Red Dragon, etc.

If lunar opportunities come his way, I'm sure Musk will say, "Mars is important for humanity's long-term future! But the Moon isn't a bad place to visit"
The low-hanging fruit is easier to reach, and there'd be more near-term demand for it.

Besides, it sounds like MCT is a long way off. Meanwhile, perhaps Apollo-style missions using a Lunar Dragon could be feasible in the meantime. But is DragonV2 by itself enough living space for such a journey?

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/10/2015 02:15 am
...
Besides, it sounds like MCT is a long way off....
According to what? Musk mentioned like 5 years until test flights.

...not that I'd bet on a test flight in 2020 (I wouldn't), but 5 years is pretty near-term.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 05/10/2015 12:14 pm
They should just replace the Trunk with a real SM that has a SuperDraco, prop tanks, solar panels, radiators, batteries, etc, even Moon landing legs.

Exactly.  The BEO 'sport package' which could be tweaked for the specifics of the intended trip duration and destination.  Could include propulsion, BEO comms, solar panels and radiators, etc.  mix-n-match as needed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Bob Shaw on 05/10/2015 12:54 pm
On the subject of BEO spacecraft technologies, volume and resources: if specified today, would we consider the Apollo CSM to be capable of BEO flight?

240 cu ft habitable volume for three astronauts (up to six discussed)
No toilet
No airlock
Limited radiation protection
Almost experimental power supply
Poisonous fuel
'Dead Zone' during launch
Minimal on-board computing power
Small windows
One LOC event, one nearly

It sort of puts the discussions today into perspective, doesn't it?

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Semmel on 05/10/2015 02:47 pm
On the subject of BEO spacecraft technologies, volume and resources, if specified today, would we consider the Apollo CSM to be capable of BEO flight?

No, because we learn from history. I doubt that today, shuttle in its operational mode would be human rated. Because, again, we learn from history.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sanman on 05/10/2015 02:57 pm
Could DragonV2 be modified to include some of those things? Or would the extra propellant required for landing/liftoff take up too much space?
Others have noted that you don't need a heat shield for landing on the Moon, so there's no point lugging it along.

Maybe you could have your Lunar Dragon which would be customized to land and lift off from the Moon, and it could be mated to a regular Dragon-with-trunk which would act like the Command Module. They could be attached together at the nose-hatch, in a Double Dragon™ configuration.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 05/10/2015 02:58 pm
On the subject of BEO spacecraft technologies, volume and resources, if specified today, would we consider the Apollo CSM to be capable of BEO flight?

1.  240 cu ft habitable volume for three astronauts (up to six discussed)
No toilet
No airlock
Limited radiation protection
Almost experimental power supply
Poisonous fuel
'Dead Zone' during launch
Minimal on-board computing power
Small windows
One LOC event, one nearly


Semmel is wrong
It is a BEO spacecraft

1.  It was five and that was for rescue and therefore irrelevant.  Apollo was to be paired with other modules
2.  Apollo was to be paired with other modules and the airlock function could be there.
3.  Other module comment is applicable here too
4. Fuel cells were not experimental for Apollo
5.  Meaningless comment about the propellants
6. There were no dead zones
7.  computing power was not needed
8.  window size is irrelevant.

Apollo spacecraft could be easily adapted for longer duration missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Bob Shaw on 05/10/2015 03:01 pm
On the subject of BEO spacecraft technologies, volume and resources, if specified today, would we consider the Apollo CSM to be capable of BEO flight?

No, because we learn from history. I doubt that today, shuttle in its operational mode would be human rated. Because, again, we learn from history.

Not to mention Soyuz/Zond/LOK - and the always-in-the-wings Space Adventures flight to the Moon in a current Soyuz.

Are we too risk averse now?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 05/10/2015 06:32 pm
They should just replace the Trunk with a real SM that has a SuperDraco, prop tanks, solar panels, radiators, batteries, etc, even Moon landing legs.

Yes, all the talk about outfitting the trunk with this and that, is basically making it a SM.  The only difference is that they might not need a main propulsion unit on it, or that it might serve as an orbiter once on destination.  (Those two are mutually exclusive, hence "or")
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sanman on 05/10/2015 06:50 pm
For DragonV2 to go BEO, then does it need any special hardening of its electronics?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: BobHk on 05/10/2015 07:02 pm
For DragonV2 to go BEO, then does it need any special hardening of its electronics?

Mayyyybe...depends on how happy they are with its current performance, which they are, and whether or not they can simply scale up its redundancy to account for more rad hits or add shielding or something else:

http://aviationweek.com/blog/dragons-radiation-tolerant-design (http://aviationweek.com/blog/dragons-radiation-tolerant-design)

Very interesting article there.

Quote
AWST: So, NASA does not require SpaceX to use radiation-hardened computer systems on the Dragon?

John Muratore: No, as a matter of fact NASA doesn't require it on their own systems, either.

We've tested lots of our parts to very, very high radiation environments. So we test them as a total system, and by that I mean a unit with three processors in it, we test the entire unit. We take the cover off and we hit it really, really hard with radiation, and we do that so we understand how the parts react in the radiation environment.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Billium on 05/10/2015 07:08 pm
For DragonV2 to go BEO, then does it need any special hardening of its electronics?

When I asked Gwynne Shotwell on the Space Show about what changes would be required to Dragon for it to travel on a circumlunar trajectory all she indicated was that the communications system would have to be upgraded. She also confirmed that a Falcon Heavy had this launch capability.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/10/2015 07:27 pm
You can also put a little extra metal shielding on the electronics if you like.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/11/2015 09:59 am
For DragonV2 to go BEO, then does it need any special hardening of its electronics?

Mayyyybe...depends on how happy they are with its current performance, which they are, and whether or not they can simply scale up its redundancy to account for more rad hits or add shielding or something else:

Personally, I've always thought that the Falcon Heavy demo launch is a good opportunity for a 'might as well' DragonLab-1 flight around the Moon on a free-return trajectory. That way, you can stress-test the TPS, control systems and how the hull handles the radiation environment without having to set aside a special launch.

You could also earn a few brownie points with NASA by having a few high school experiments in the pressure vessel - "Encouraging STM in the next generation" and the like.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Bob Shaw on 05/11/2015 10:15 am
Personally, I've always thought that the Falcon Heavy demo launch is a good opportunity for a 'might as well' DragonLab-1 flight around the Moon on a free-return trajectory. That way, you can stress-test the TPS, control systems and how the hull handles the radiation environment without having to set aside a special launch.

You could also earn a few brownie points with NASA by having a few high school experiments in the pressure vessel - "Encouraging STM in the next generation" and the like.

Hopefully, there would be room for another large round of cheese, too! Presumably, from the cow that jumped over the Moon's milk
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: FishInferno on 05/11/2015 10:20 am


Are we too risk averse now?

Nope.  As long as its got a LAS, I don't care what rocket you put me on;)

in all seriousness, I kind of think we are. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: SoulWager on 05/11/2015 02:04 pm


Are we too risk averse now?

Nope.  As long as its got a LAS, I don't care what rocket you put me on;)

in all seriousness, I kind of think we are.
What if your pilot is named Jebediah? :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JasonAW3 on 05/11/2015 02:37 pm
On the subject of BEO spacecraft technologies, volume and resources, if specified today, would we consider the Apollo CSM to be capable of BEO flight?

1.  240 cu ft habitable volume for three astronauts (up to six discussed)
No toilet
No airlock
Limited radiation protection
Almost experimental power supply
Poisonous fuel
'Dead Zone' during launch
Minimal on-board computing power
Small windows
One LOC event, one nearly


Semmel is wrong
It is a BEO spacecraft

1.  It was five and that was for rescue and therefore irrelevant.  Apollo was to be paired with other modules
2.  Apollo was to be paired with other modules and the airlock function could be there.
3.  Other module comment is applicable here too
4. Fuel cells were not experimental for Apollo
5.  Meaningless comment about the propellants
6. There were no dead zones
7.  computing power was not needed
8.  window size is irrelevant.

Apollo spacecraft could be easily adapted for longer duration missions.

Jim,

     I know that there were designs for Big Gemini that would have had up to 7 crew people, but I do remember reading someplace that there was discussions of Block III Apollo capsules being able to bring back up to 6 crew.  I think that this was only to be a Space Station type craft as life support couldn't really cover 6 people for more than a couple days.  Essentially, the design would have been for a lifeboat system.  I don't think it got beyond the discussion stage, as I think this came as they were winding Apollo down anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 05/11/2015 03:08 pm
She also confirmed that a Falcon Heavy had this launch capability.

That makes sense. A fully loaded Dragon 2 + trunk is 11-12 mt and FH's TLI capability is somewhere around 13-16 mt. If NASA goes with a lunar orbiting station as the next step after ISS an unmanned Dragon 2 launched on FH would be perfect for a lunar COTS program. You wouldn't even have to spend money to develop it. It would already exist! 

If and when SpaceX man rates Falcon Heavy I can see them doing a couple manned lunar flybys. That would be all they could do manned wise though without a more powerful LV and a SM.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/11/2015 03:59 pm
The DV to return from an EML1 outpost to earth is about 700m/s. Add another 200m/s for safety making 900m/s.
With ISP of 235 the Dragon would need 3.5t fuel leaving 7.5t for dragon and payload. Because of LAS the all up weight can't exceed 11t for manned missions.

I don't know what DV is required to get Dragon from TLI to EML1.

NB the FH TLI maybe closer to 20t now with V1.2 upgrades.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AncientU on 05/11/2015 04:57 pm
The DV to return from an EML1 outpost to earth is about 700m/s. Add another 200m/s for safety making 900m/s.
With ISP of 235 the Dragon would need 3.5t fuel leaving 7.5t for dragon and payload. Because of LAS the all up weight can't exceed 11t for manned missions.

I don't know what DV is required to get Dragon from TLI to EML1.

NB the FH TLI maybe closer to 20t now with V1.2 upgrades.

Note also that there is a stretched trunk version of Dragon coming out (soon?).  Adding a super-draco Earth departure and/or crasher stage to the trunk as well as more propellant, larger solar arrays, etc. could kit out this Deep Space DragonTM for most anywhere.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sanman on 05/11/2015 06:23 pm
Tell me - when DragonV2 is docked at ISS, then is there any risk/hazard to the space station because of the SuperDraco propellant onboard the capsule? Does NASA consider this to be a non-issue, or do they have any requirement that propellant be vented/jettisoned before DragonV2 can dock with ISS?

Also, are any possibilities envisioned where DragonV2 can use its SuperDraco thrusters to perform a station-keeping maneuver while docked?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kch on 05/11/2015 06:30 pm
Tell me - when DragonV2 is docked at ISS, then is there any risk/hazard to the space station because of the SuperDraco propellant onboard the capsule? Does NASA consider this to be a non-issue, or do they have any requirement that propellant be vented/jettisoned before DragonV2 can dock with ISS?

If they did that, they wouldn't be able to use it for landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2015 06:32 pm
1.  Tell me - when DragonV2 is docked at ISS, then is there any risk/hazard to the space station because of the SuperDraco propellant onboard the capsule? Does NASA consider this to be a non-issue, or do they have any requirement that propellant be vented/jettisoned before DragonV2 can dock with ISS?

2.  Also, are any possibilities envisioned where DragonV2 can use its SuperDraco thrusters to perform a station-keeping maneuver while docked?


1.  Why?  How is this any different from the existing Dragon?  Or from Progress, Soyuz, HTV, Cygnus, ATV or even Shuttle?

2.  Station keeping  and a docked configuration are mutually exclusive.   Station keeping only occurs in free flight.

edit: Do you mean reboost?  No landing propellant then.    Also, there might be thrust and CG issues.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: BobHk on 05/11/2015 06:34 pm
Tell me - when DragonV2 is docked at ISS, then is there any risk/hazard to the space station because of the SuperDraco propellant onboard the capsule? Does NASA consider this to be a non-issue, or do they have any requirement that propellant be vented/jettisoned before DragonV2 can dock with ISS?

Also, are any possibilities envisioned where DragonV2 can use its SuperDraco thrusters to perform a station-keeping maneuver while docked?

The shuttle orbital maneuvering system and reaction control system burned monomethyl hydrazine as a fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as an oxidizer.  If NASA is satisfied with the Dragon design/safety systems/stored fuel probably no need to bother venting it to get close or dock.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/11/2015 07:05 pm
Everything that docks with ISS uses hypergol propellants (except for some thrusters on Soyuz running hydrogen peroxide). ISS itself uses hypergols. Non-issue.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rst on 05/11/2015 07:30 pm
If and when SpaceX man rates Falcon Heavy I can see them doing a couple manned lunar flybys. That would be all they could do manned wise though without a more powerful LV and a SM.

... or doing multiple launches for the mission, possibly with earth orbit rendezvous to assemble the whole stack (conceivably including both a Dragon for the return and a separate Dragon-derived lander).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: okan170 on 05/19/2015 12:20 am
Render of a Dragon during a night pass.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: baldusi on 05/19/2015 01:54 am
Render of a Dragon during a night pass.
I keep thinking that SpaceX will try to make their most amazing pictures by trying to replicate your renders. Congratulations again!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sanman on 05/19/2015 03:08 am
Render of a Dragon during a night pass.

Cool pic - any way we could see some of the nifty flashing lights on it, like during approach to ISS?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: beb on 05/19/2015 03:37 am
I like Narcissus, which comes from Greek mythology or Boondoggle which isn't from mythology but reflects my feeling about this launch system.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 05/19/2015 06:22 am
I like Narcissus, which comes from Greek mythology or Boondoggle which isn't from mythology but reflects my feeling about this launch system.
"Puff the magic dragon" wasn't enough of a nod to the haters?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 05/19/2015 06:37 am
"Puff the magic dragon" wasn't enough of a nod to the haters?

The name was more appropriate back when they intended the capsule to carry a single astronaut to space, launched on the Falcon 1.

BTW, if anyone still has that picture of the mini-Dragon, I'd love to have a copy.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kirghizstan on 05/19/2015 12:12 pm
Has there been any discussion on the forums or elsewhere of the initial tests of propulsive Dragon version 2 landings from orbit onto the barges?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 05/19/2015 12:52 pm
Has there been any discussion on the forums or elsewhere of the initial tests of propulsive Dragon version 2 landings from orbit onto the barges?
The initial propulsive landings are all on land.  (Two different programs: "DragonRider" testing is one, and propulsive-aided parachute landings of Dragon 2 on land is the other.) Nobody has ever mentioned anything about testing dragon landing on an ASDS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kirghizstan on 05/19/2015 12:54 pm
Has there been any discussion on the forums or elsewhere of the initial tests of propulsive Dragon version 2 landings from orbit onto the barges?
The initial propulsive landings are all on land.  (Two different programs: "DragonRider" testing is one, and propulsive-aided parachute landings of Dragon 2 on land is the other.) Nobody has ever mentioned anything about testing dragon landing on an ASDS.

Thank you.  I didn't think so but I wanted to ask in case I missed that conversation and wanted to read it if it was had.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: BobHk on 05/19/2015 01:18 pm
Render of a Dragon during a night pass.
I keep thinking that SpaceX will try to make their most amazing pictures by trying to replicate your renders. Congratulations again!

Now all Dragon v2 needs is a selfie arm.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: baldusi on 05/19/2015 04:08 pm
Render of a Dragon during a night pass.
I keep thinking that SpaceX will try to make their most amazing pictures by trying to replicate your renders. Congratulations again!

Now all Dragon v2 needs is a selfie arm.
I understand that they still keep the instrument's bay? That 0.1m³ (around 100L), could very well handle a very nice StickyBoom selfie arm. Or a Selfie Cubesat. There goes an idea!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 05/19/2015 05:25 pm
Render of a Dragon during a night pass.
I keep thinking that SpaceX will try to make their most amazing pictures by trying to replicate your renders. Congratulations again!

Now all Dragon v2 needs is a selfie arm.
I understand that they still keep the instrument's bay? That 0.1m³ (around 100L), could very well handle a very nice StickyBoom selfie arm. Or a Selfie Cubesat. There goes an idea!

No, the instrument bay is gone - that's where the main parachutes have moved to. The instruments there (such as star trackers and more) have been moved up top, under the nose cone.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Bob Shaw on 05/30/2015 01:22 am
Render of a Dragon during a night pass.
I keep thinking that SpaceX will try to make their most amazing pictures by trying to replicate your renders. Congratulations again!

Now all Dragon v2 needs is a selfie arm.
I understand that they still keep the instrument's bay? That 0.1m³ (around 100L), could very well handle a very nice StickyBoom selfie arm. Or a Selfie Cubesat. There goes an idea!

The Chinese have already done the sub-satellite thing! In fact, their manned spacecraft are flooded with cameras, few of which we see the output from.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: garidan on 05/30/2015 02:54 am
If on two fins of trunk they put 2 solid boosters, could it up the max weight of a manned mission, giving more power to superdracos for LAS (with no cosine loss) and a faster start usefull for departure from a Falcon Heavy at full speed ?
And could it be usefull to boost the trunk and Dragon, after second stage separation, as a sort of third stage, if not used for an abort of course ?
 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 05/30/2015 12:07 pm
If on two fins of trunk they put 2 solid boosters, could it up the max weight of a manned mission, giving more power to superdracos for LAS (with no cosine loss) and a faster start usefull for departure from a Falcon Heavy at full speed ?
And could it be usefull to boost the trunk and Dragon, after second stage separation, as a sort of third stage, if not used for an abort of course ?
 

No, Spacex purposely avoids solid rockets and their facilities are not designed to handle them.   And why would they want a very high acceleration third stage?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 06/01/2015 05:28 pm
@pbdes: SpaceX VP sales/bus devel Barry Matsumori, one of the co's principal public faces on commercial side in recent years, has left the company.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sojourner on 06/02/2015 01:53 am
Question. I'm not that familiar with the docking mechanism crew Dragon is using, so I wondered: can two crew Dragons dock nose to nose?  Would the hinged nose cones get in the way?  Would the orientation of the docking mechanisms in relation to the hinged nose cones preclude such a docking?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dcporter on 06/03/2015 05:07 am
Question. I'm not that familiar with the docking mechanism crew Dragon is using, so I wondered: can two crew Dragons dock nose to nose?  Would the hinged nose cones get in the way?  Would the orientation of the docking mechanisms in relation to the hinged nose cones preclude such a docking?

According to this (https://web.archive.org/web/20130215180627/http://dockingstandard.nasa.gov/Meetings/TIM_%28Nov-17-2010%29/NDS_TIM_presentation.pdf) (see page 12), the docking hardware is meant to be androgenous explicitly to enable your scenario. I don't know about the specifics of Dragon that might block it though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: manboy on 06/03/2015 11:06 am
Question. I'm not that familiar with the docking mechanism crew Dragon is using, so I wondered: can two crew Dragons dock nose to nose?  Would the hinged nose cones get in the way?  Would the orientation of the docking mechanisms in relation to the hinged nose cones preclude such a docking?
They're using a system that's compatible with the International Docking System Standard.

Question. I'm not that familiar with the docking mechanism crew Dragon is using, so I wondered: can two crew Dragons dock nose to nose?  Would the hinged nose cones get in the way?  Would the orientation of the docking mechanisms in relation to the hinged nose cones preclude such a docking?

According to this (https://web.archive.org/web/20130215180627/http://dockingstandard.nasa.gov/Meetings/TIM_%28Nov-17-2010%29/NDS_TIM_presentation.pdf) (see page 12), the docking hardware is meant to be androgenous explicitly to enable your scenario. I don't know about the specifics of Dragon that might block it though.
That document is incredibly out of date.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: eriblo on 06/03/2015 01:16 pm
Question. I'm not that familiar with the docking mechanism crew Dragon is using, so I wondered: can two crew Dragons dock nose to nose?  Would the hinged nose cones get in the way?  Would the orientation of the docking mechanisms in relation to the hinged nose cones preclude such a docking?
They're using a system that's compatible with the International Docking System Standard.
The specs of which can be found here (http://www.internationaldockingstandard.com/download/IDSSIDD-DCN-001_Revision_C.pdf). There is a lot of nice info in the VV at USOS thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28976.0), especially towards the end.

The IDSS is, as stated, fully androgynous meaning that any two such compatible ports can dock as long as one can play the active role. However, looking at the SpaceX Dragon V2 | Flight Animation it seems like the nose cone is attached along the axis of androgyny instead of the axis of symmetry. This means that if two Dragons were to dock the nose cones would be directly facing and have to hinge almost 180 degrees to clear each other instead of the 90 or so shown.

Anybody have more info on this? It has probably been discussed somewhere, but I couldn't find it at a quick glance. I previously just assumed that they would have designed it for capsule-capsule docking, as it seems such an easy fix - hinge further or just rotate the port 90 degrees. I there a requirement for the orientation when docking/docked to the ISS?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 06/03/2015 02:08 pm
This seems like one of those details the animators could easily get wrong by accident.  Can anyone dig up pictures from the dragon 2 reveal that might settle the orientation more definitively?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 07/30/2015 04:44 am
3 very interesting slides on Dragon2 and Falcon 9 version 1.2:
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/626099566840918016
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 07/30/2015 05:44 am
It seems to me two Dragons can easily dock with each other with the nosecaps in the position as shown in that new picture. The nose caps need be at opposite sides for the approach so they are not in the way.

Edited typo.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 07/30/2015 01:24 pm
3 very interesting slides on Dragon2 and Falcon 9 version 1.2:
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/626099566840918016

From the third slide: "stage separation center pusher"

What?  Are they pushing the stages apart right up the throat of the Merlin rather than having pushers on the sides?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 07/30/2015 01:42 pm

From the third slide: "stage separation center pusher"

What?  Are they pushing the stages apart right up the throat of the Merlin rather than having pushers on the sides?

Seems the vac nozzle is now so big that they have to guide it out of the interstage that way to make sure it does not touch the sides. That center pusher keeps it better aligned, I suppose. The changes seem bigger than anticipated.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DAZ on 07/30/2015 11:09 pm
Could it be that 1 is just simpler and cheaper than 4?  With 4 stages separators positioned on the edge of the stage all 4 separators must push at exactly the same time with the exact same amount of force as they are not aligned with the CG of the second stage.  If any 1 stage separator should not perform exactly as all the other states separators this could lead to loss of mission.  With just 1 center separator pushing through the center of mass its performance is not as critical and can thus be made simpler and cheaper.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ugordan on 07/30/2015 11:33 pm
Could it be that 1 is just simpler and cheaper than 4?

There are 3 pushers on v1.1 and the NASA presentation slide says "additional pusher" in reference to the center one.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 07/31/2015 12:07 am
On the first slide, it says:

Quote from: Phil McAlister
Launch Segment F9
[...]
F9 first stage w/ Falcon Heavy Strap-on booster

I am not sure what that means. Any ideas?
 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ugordan on 07/31/2015 12:11 am
It likely means that the core that will also be used for FH strap-ons will be identical to the single-stick core, whereas the FH center core will probably need to be beefed up structurally.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 07/31/2015 02:11 am
With just 1 center separator pushing through the center of mass its performance is not as critical and can thus be made simpler and cheaper.

Center of mass is not necessarily the same as the geometric center of the vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Semmel on 07/31/2015 07:46 am
Center of mass is not necessarily the same as the geometric center of the vehicle.

But it cant be significantly off either.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: NovaSilisko on 07/31/2015 08:34 am
Center of mass is not necessarily the same as the geometric center of the vehicle.

But it cant be significantly off either.

Even a slight tumble can be problematic, you don't want the broad engine bell to potentially contact the interstage. Also, propellant slosh makes it tough to know where the CoM is.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: TheSwiss on 07/31/2015 08:50 am
On the first slide, it says:

Quote from: Phil McAlister
Launch Segment F9
[...]
F9 first stage w/ Falcon Heavy Strap-on booster

I am not sure what that means. Any ideas?

Gwynne Shotwell stated during the "Satellite 2015" conference in D.C. this March that "Falcon Heavy is two different cores, the inner core and then the two side boosters, and the new single stick Falcon 9 will basically be a Falcon Heavy side booster" according to http://aviationweek.com/blog/spacexs-gwynne-shotwell-talks-raptor-falcon-9-crs-2-satellite-internet-and-more
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Mader Levap on 07/31/2015 09:00 am
Gwynne Shotwell stated during the "Satellite 2015" conference in D.C. this March that "Falcon Heavy is two different cores, the inner core and then the two side boosters, and the new single stick Falcon 9 will basically be a Falcon Heavy side booster" according to http://aviationweek.com/blog/spacexs-gwynne-shotwell-talks-raptor-falcon-9-crs-2-satellite-internet-and-more

I thought that any FH cores could be reused only for other FHs. This above suggests that FH side cores can be used as normal F9 and vice versa. Am I looking too much into it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 07/31/2015 09:06 am
I thought that any FH cores could be reused only for other FHs. This above suggests that FH side cores can be used as normal F9 and vice versa. Am I looking too much into it?

I have seen people claim they work on F9 in Hawthorne and they are not the same. Probably some minor differences.

Edit: Why is this discussion in the Dragon V2 thread?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 07/31/2015 04:02 pm
I thought that any FH cores could be reused only for other FHs. This above suggests that FH side cores can be used as normal F9 and vice versa. Am I looking too much into it?
Why is this discussion in the Dragon V2 thread?

Because the slides that I referenced above discuss Dragon 2 and the F9 core that will be use for commercial crew. It made more sense to include them in the Dragon2 discussion thread than elsewhere.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: The Roadie on 08/04/2015 06:40 pm
Center of mass is not necessarily the same as the geometric center of the vehicle.
I agree, and it may be more complex than the fixed hardware COM. At MECO, we've all seen the LOX blob up and rise asymmetrically off the bottom of the tank. Without ullage thrust, the propellants in both stages are floating around and might gather toward one side or the other depending on residual off-axis thrust. So the initial pushing force might result in a changing acceleration apart and rotationally as the second stage prop settles and the first stage residual hits the side.

As we also saw in the Falcon 1 Flight 2 video, MECO is accompanied by loss of attitude control. Firing the N2 thrusters should be suppressed during staging to not make the risk higher, unless they're just being used for ullage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: arachnitect on 08/05/2015 06:32 pm
From here: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/4-McAlister-Commerical-Crew-Program-Status.pdf
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jdeshetler on 08/05/2015 07:11 pm
From here: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/4-McAlister-Commerical-Crew-Program-Status.pdf

So it looks like "Crew Falcon Processing Facility" will be connecting to the rear of Pad 39A HIF where the outline of smaller reserved door is?

This future roll up doors may not need to be hurricane-rated since it will be internally located between two structures and the manned Dragon V2 is much smaller to go thru.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 08/05/2015 09:15 pm

So it looks like "Crew Falcon Processing Facility" will be connecting to the rear of Pad 39A HIF where the outline of smaller reserved door is?

This future roll up doors may not need to be hurricane-rated since it will be internally located between two structures and the manned Dragon V2 is much smaller to go thru.

No, I don't see that. 
A.  It is not labeled in the upper right picture
b.  It is called out separately and hence it is likely the existing facility that handles Dragon 1.
c.  This makes sense since Dragon ops will not affect launch ops and launch ops won't affect Dragon ops.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: anonymousgerbil on 08/06/2015 03:49 pm

So it looks like "Crew Falcon Processing Facility" will be connecting to the rear of Pad 39A HIF where the outline of smaller reserved door is?

This future roll up doors may not need to be hurricane-rated since it will be internally located between two structures and the manned Dragon V2 is much smaller to go thru.

No, I don't see that. 
A.  It is not labeled in the upper right picture
b.  It is called out separately and hence it is likely the existing facility that handles Dragon 1.
c.  This makes sense since Dragon ops will not affect launch ops and launch ops won't affect Dragon ops.

The CCP blog found here: https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/08/05/spacex-completes-road-to-launch-pad/ states "The rockets and Crew Dragon spacecraft will be processed in the hangar being built at the base of the pad.".  I thought that was a bit odd since they've been using the SPIF for dragon processing.  Do you think that maybe they will still do most of the prep at the SPIF and use the hangar only for final pre-flight prep?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: manboy on 08/08/2015 01:08 am
From here: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/4-McAlister-Commerical-Crew-Program-Status.pdf
A few more pictures
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Scylla on 08/11/2015 03:42 pm
Crew Dragon Simulated Flight Ensures Hardware, Software are Ready for Missions

SpaceX recently powered up its Crew Dragon avionics test bed at its facility in Hawthorne, California, by simulating a crew flight to the International Space Station. During the avionics functionality check, engineers were able to make sure the spacecraft’s hardware and software worked well together in a flight-like environment. The avionics are known as the brains of a spacecraft, controlling all the critical automated operations of a flight.

“It may not sound exciting, but it’s a really, really important tool. We can basically fly the Crew Dragon on the ground — flip the switches, touch the screens, test the algorithms and the batteries – all before testing the avionics system in flight,” said Hans Koenigsmann, vice president of mission assurance for SpaceX. “It’s important to get the avionics right before putting it into the capsule.”

The SpaceX avionics test bed is similar to the Shuttle Avionics Integration Lab, or SAIL, in Houston, which was used throughout NASA’s Space Shuttle Program to test the interaction of hardware and software before modifying code on the vehicles for flight.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/08/11/crew-dragon-simulated-flight-ensures-hardware-software-are-ready-for-missions/
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 08/11/2015 06:03 pm
Crew Dragon Simulated Flight Ensures Hardware, Software are Ready for Missions

SpaceX recently powered up its Crew Dragon avionics test bed at its facility in Hawthorne, California, by simulating a crew flight to the International Space Station. During the avionics functionality check, engineers were able to make sure the spacecraft’s hardware and software worked well together in a flight-like environment. The avionics are known as the brains of a spacecraft, controlling all the critical automated operations of a flight.

“It may not sound exciting, but it’s a really, really important tool. We can basically fly the Crew Dragon on the ground — flip the switches, touch the screens, test the algorithms and the batteries – all before testing the avionics system in flight,” said Hans Koenigsmann, vice president of mission assurance for SpaceX. “It’s important to get the avionics right before putting it into the capsule.”

The SpaceX avionics test bed is similar to the Shuttle Avionics Integration Lab, or SAIL, in Houston, which was used throughout NASA’s Space Shuttle Program to test the interaction of hardware and software before modifying code on the vehicles for flight.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/08/11/crew-dragon-simulated-flight-ensures-hardware-software-are-ready-for-missions/

With that good news, I'm looking forward to many illuminating stories from flown crews on how many times their SimSup "killed" them in the simulators based on the lab.

Given the very "glass cockpit" nature of Crew Dragon, I'm curious what faculties are built-in should there be a partial or total failure of the touch-panel controls. Anyone who has played with an unresponsive smartphone or computer touchscreen understands the challenge of keeping a unit operational when a digitizer stops communicating.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 08/11/2015 06:20 pm
Exciting news, thanks for posting. I suspect with this now in place, the 4 NASA Astronauts selected to participate in the initial CC test and certification programs will be making increasingly frequent trips out to Hawthorne. Their input and comfort level with these systems will be critical moving forward.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Scylla on 08/11/2015 06:23 pm
With that good news, I'm looking forward to many illuminating stories from flown crews on how many times their SimSup "killed" them in the simulators based on the lab.

Given the very "glass cockpit" nature of Crew Dragon, I'm curious what faculties are built-in should there be a partial or total failure of the touch-panel controls. Anyone who has played with an unresponsive smartphone or computer touchscreen understands the challenge of keeping a unit operational when a digitizer stops communicating.
Center panel has a physical joystick and physical buttons for critical functions. I would assume to guard against that potential problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 08/11/2015 10:51 pm
Crew Dragon Simulated Flight Ensures Hardware, Software are Ready for Missions

SpaceX recently powered up its Crew Dragon avionics test bed at its facility in Hawthorne, California, by simulating a crew flight to the International Space Station. During the avionics functionality check, engineers were able to make sure the spacecraft’s hardware and software worked well together in a flight-like environment. The avionics are known as the brains of a spacecraft, controlling all the critical automated operations of a flight.

“It may not sound exciting, but it’s a really, really important tool. We can basically fly the Crew Dragon on the ground — flip the switches, touch the screens, test the algorithms and the batteries – all before testing the avionics system in flight,” said Hans Koenigsmann, vice president of mission assurance for SpaceX. “It’s important to get the avionics right before putting it into the capsule.”

The SpaceX avionics test bed is similar to the Shuttle Avionics Integration Lab, or SAIL, in Houston, which was used throughout NASA’s Space Shuttle Program to test the interaction of hardware and software before modifying code on the vehicles for flight.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/08/11/crew-dragon-simulated-flight-ensures-hardware-software-are-ready-for-missions/

With that good news, I'm looking forward to many illuminating stories from flown crews on how many times their SimSup "killed" them in the simulators based on the lab.

Given the very "glass cockpit" nature of Crew Dragon, I'm curious what faculties are built-in should there be a partial or total failure of the touch-panel controls. Anyone who has played with an unresponsive smartphone or computer touchscreen understands the challenge of keeping a unit operational when a digitizer stops communicating.

I'm looking for those hand-cranked landing gear.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 08/12/2015 12:27 am
With that good news, I'm looking forward to many illuminating stories from flown crews on how many times their SimSup "killed" them in the simulators based on the lab.

Given the very "glass cockpit" nature of Crew Dragon, I'm curious what faculties are built-in should there be a partial or total failure of the touch-panel controls. Anyone who has played with an unresponsive smartphone or computer touchscreen understands the challenge of keeping a unit operational when a digitizer stops communicating.
Center panel has a physical joystick and physical buttons for critical functions. I would assume to guard against that potential problem.

Don't be surprised if the final cockpit is VERY different than the "glass cockpit" at the unveiling. Other than seat placement, everything should look very different.
(and no, I don't have any SpaceX sources, but it is just common sense)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 08/12/2015 12:57 am
I wouldn't be surprised to see changes.  I also wouldn't be surprised not to see any "significant" changes.  The design will probably remain very post-mechanical, although the details about exactly which functions get "backup" or "shortcut" controls (&etc) should be strongly influenced by the results of the man-in-the-loop testing which they are starting.  Probably the first draft isn't perfect.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 08/12/2015 01:44 pm
With that good news, I'm looking forward to many illuminating stories from flown crews on how many times their SimSup "killed" them in the simulators based on the lab.

Given the very "glass cockpit" nature of Crew Dragon, I'm curious what faculties are built-in should there be a partial or total failure of the touch-panel controls. Anyone who has played with an unresponsive smartphone or computer touchscreen understands the challenge of keeping a unit operational when a digitizer stops communicating.
Center panel has a physical joystick and physical buttons for critical functions. I would assume to guard against that potential problem.

Don't be surprised if the final cockpit is VERY different than the "glass cockpit" at the unveiling. Other than seat placement, everything should look very different.
(and no, I don't have any SpaceX sources, but it is just common sense)

I'm hoping for a more Apollo-level command-and-control arrangement. The touchscreen seemed too clean and simple. Besides, it didn't look "spacey" enough. In fact, it reminded me of what I saw inside a Tesla car at a showroom at a mall recently. After I stopped my drooling, I realized the wholly-touchscreen and display consoles inside that demo car seemed awfully familiar.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: woods170 on 08/12/2015 02:03 pm
With that good news, I'm looking forward to many illuminating stories from flown crews on how many times their SimSup "killed" them in the simulators based on the lab.

Given the very "glass cockpit" nature of Crew Dragon, I'm curious what faculties are built-in should there be a partial or total failure of the touch-panel controls. Anyone who has played with an unresponsive smartphone or computer touchscreen understands the challenge of keeping a unit operational when a digitizer stops communicating.
Center panel has a physical joystick and physical buttons for critical functions. I would assume to guard against that potential problem.

Don't be surprised if the final cockpit is VERY different than the "glass cockpit" at the unveiling. Other than seat placement, everything should look very different.
(and no, I don't have any SpaceX sources, but it is just common sense)

You can drop the 'very'. The cockpit will be different but not nearly as much as you are suggesting.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DanseMacabre on 08/12/2015 02:06 pm
With that good news, I'm looking forward to many illuminating stories from flown crews on how many times their SimSup "killed" them in the simulators based on the lab.

Given the very "glass cockpit" nature of Crew Dragon, I'm curious what faculties are built-in should there be a partial or total failure of the touch-panel controls. Anyone who has played with an unresponsive smartphone or computer touchscreen understands the challenge of keeping a unit operational when a digitizer stops communicating.
Center panel has a physical joystick and physical buttons for critical functions. I would assume to guard against that potential problem.

Don't be surprised if the final cockpit is VERY different than the "glass cockpit" at the unveiling. Other than seat placement, everything should look very different.
(and no, I don't have any SpaceX sources, but it is just common sense)

I'm hoping for a more Apollo-level command-and-control arrangement. The touchscreen seemed too clean and simple. Besides, it didn't look "spacey" enough. In fact, it reminded me of what I saw inside a Tesla car at a showroom at a mall recently. After I stopped my drooling, I realized the wholly-touchscreen and display consoles inside that demo car seemed awfully familiar.

Doesn't look too different from a modern high assurance glass cockpit design to me.

Only differences seem to be that planes actually need to be manually flown whereas the F9/Dragon is fully autonomous therefore explaining the utter lack of controls.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: The_Ronin on 08/12/2015 04:03 pm
Considering how much glass cockpits are evolving, I wouldn't be surprised if there is not that much change from the presentation to the final product.  Probably a few more mechanical switches and gate guards, but that's about it.

Look at what the F-35 cockpit looks like with its twin 8"x10" touch screen MFDs.  If they can make a MILSPEC hardened display for a combat aircraft, they can make one for a crewed capsule.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/12/2015 05:38 pm
The largest obvious difference between the SpaceX glass cockpit (as it has been prototyped) and past American spacecraft is the lack of abundant manual circuit breaker and other electrical switching capabilities.

American spacecraft, from Mercury through Shuttle, had a proliferation of circuit breakers and electrical switching capabilities, along with multiple, redundant AC and DC power buses, such that electrical issues in either the power sources or the equipment using the power could be quickly and easily isolated.  This has not only saved the lives of crews, it has allowed fairly serious electrical issues, up to and including fully short-circuited systems, to be isolated and bypassed and allow the nominal mission to continue.

I understand that it's been more than 50 years since Apollo was designed, and nearly 50 years since Shuttle was designed.  But the operational concept -- easy and safe electrical isolation of critical systems -- has a lot going for it.

You just can't accomplish that kind of capability with three or four touchscreens.  It requires physical source switching and physical rerouting (via circuit breaker manipulation) of electrical power pathways.

I am aware that the Russians and Chinese seem to have done fine without the kind of extensive manual electrical isolation capability that American crewed spacecraft have provided -- though it looks like there is more of such capability in the modern Soyuz configuration than what we've seen in the Dragon crew interface concepts that have been released thus far.  I guess I'm just curious if y'all think it's a good idea for Dragon to follow the Russian paradigm (or simpler), rather than the American?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sghill on 08/12/2015 05:48 pm
The largest obvious difference between the SpaceX glass cockpit (as it has been prototyped) and past American spacecraft is the lack of abundant manual circuit breaker and other electrical switching capabilities.

That's mistaken.  10 of the 27 analog switches on the mockup console are labeled as circuit breaker switches.  Isn't 37% abundant enough? :) 

Here, read the labels for yourself.

And EM himself said that most of the switches would be circuit breakers or emergency switches that had to be analog.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 08/12/2015 06:05 pm

You just can't accomplish that kind of capability with three or four touchscreens.  It requires physical source switching and physical rerouting (via circuit breaker manipulation) of electrical power pathways.


Yes, it can be done, the circuit breakers can be computer controlled.  No different than an unmanned spacecraft.

As for the Dragon, the crew are more like passengers than operators
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: woods170 on 08/12/2015 06:10 pm

You just can't accomplish that kind of capability with three or four touchscreens.  It requires physical source switching and physical rerouting (via circuit breaker manipulation) of electrical power pathways.


Yes, it can be done, the circuit breakers can be computer controlled.  No different than an unmanned spacecraft.
And also no different from most of today's state-of-the-art airliners and combat aircraft.
The folks here that expect a spacecraft control panel to look like Apollo's or Shuttle's are completely overlooking four decades of advances in man-machine interfaces.

Boeing may have been trying very hard to make the control panel of CST-100 resemble that of STS but it still sports just a fraction of the number of circuit breakers, dials and switches compared to STS.
SpaceX has clearly been inspired by recent fighter jets. Both approaches have their pros and cons but the overall trend is very clear: less-and-less circuit breakers/switches and more-and-more computer-controlled functionality and more/bigger (touch)displays.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: russianhalo117 on 08/13/2015 04:41 am
The largest obvious difference between the SpaceX glass cockpit (as it has been prototyped) and past American spacecraft is the lack of abundant manual circuit breaker and other electrical switching capabilities.

That's mistaken.  10 of the 27 analog switches on the mockup console are labeled as circuit breaker switches.  Isn't 37% abundant enough? :) 

Here, read the labels for yourself.

And EM himself said that most of the switches would be circuit breakers or emergency switches that had to be analog.


they better throw in the famous Apollo SCE to AUX switch. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: woods170 on 08/13/2015 08:32 am
The largest obvious difference between the SpaceX glass cockpit (as it has been prototyped) and past American spacecraft is the lack of abundant manual circuit breaker and other electrical switching capabilities.

That's mistaken.  10 of the 27 analog switches on the mockup console are labeled as circuit breaker switches.  Isn't 37% abundant enough? :) 

Here, read the labels for yourself.

And EM himself said that most of the switches would be circuit breakers or emergency switches that had to be analog.


they better throw in the famous Apollo SCE to AUX switch. :)
Unnecessary. Switching between redundant electronics, in case of failure or degradation (as was the case with 'SCE to AUX'), is done fully automatic these days. For example: that's wat got rid of the third cockpit-crew-member on modern airliners: the high level of computerization and automation has done away with the need to have a flight-engineer and a shovel-load of circuit breakers, dials and switches.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 08/13/2015 12:13 pm
The largest obvious difference between the SpaceX glass cockpit (as it has been prototyped) and past American spacecraft is the lack of abundant manual circuit breaker and other electrical switching capabilities.

That's mistaken.  10 of the 27 analog switches on the mockup console are labeled as circuit breaker switches.  Isn't 37% abundant enough? :) 

Here, read the labels for yourself.

And EM himself said that most of the switches would be circuit breakers or emergency switches that had to be analog.


they better throw in the famous Apollo SCE to AUX switch. :)
Unnecessary. Switching between redundant electronics, in case of failure or degradation (as was the case with 'SCE to AUX'), is done fully automatic these days. For example: that's wat got rid of the third cockpit-crew-member on modern airliners: the high level of computerization and automation has done away with the need to have a flight-engineer and a shovel-load of circuit breakers, dials and switches.

Insightful perspective. My only concern is a "who watches the watchman" concern on the reliability of automatic systems in human spaceflight. But then, we already had a lot of that in STS systems, correct? As well as instrument units in early manned rockets that had to compensate rapidly during such issues. Guess you've sold me there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: woods170 on 08/13/2015 01:17 pm
The largest obvious difference between the SpaceX glass cockpit (as it has been prototyped) and past American spacecraft is the lack of abundant manual circuit breaker and other electrical switching capabilities.

That's mistaken.  10 of the 27 analog switches on the mockup console are labeled as circuit breaker switches.  Isn't 37% abundant enough? :) 

Here, read the labels for yourself.

And EM himself said that most of the switches would be circuit breakers or emergency switches that had to be analog.


they better throw in the famous Apollo SCE to AUX switch. :)
Unnecessary. Switching between redundant electronics, in case of failure or degradation (as was the case with 'SCE to AUX'), is done fully automatic these days. For example: that's wat got rid of the third cockpit-crew-member on modern airliners: the high level of computerization and automation has done away with the need to have a flight-engineer and a shovel-load of circuit breakers, dials and switches.

Insightful perspective. My only concern is a "who watches the watchman" concern on the reliability of automatic systems in human spaceflight. But then, we already had a lot of that in STS systems, correct? As well as instrument units in early manned rockets that had to compensate rapidly during such issues. Guess you've sold me there.

There was a significant amount of computerization involved in STS with regards to "who watches the watchman". For example: multiple computers (five if I remember correctly) taking a decision based on majority voting.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 08/13/2015 01:27 pm
Insightful perspective. My only concern is a "who watches the watchman" concern on the reliability of automatic systems in human spaceflight. But then, we already had a lot of that in STS systems, correct? As well as instrument units in early manned rockets that had to compensate rapidly during such issues. Guess you've sold me there.

The ground does.  That is what telemetry is for. 
As for "instrument units compensating rapidly", that is not accurate.  They were guidance systems following simple programs.   Lower stages flew open loop i.es at this altitude, fly this attitude and keep firing engines until propellant depletion, then stage.  Upperstage flew close loop, burn engines and target to this velocity and altitude and then shutdown. (if propellant depletion occurs, then stage and let next stage take over).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 08/27/2015 01:58 am
I snagged this from the SpaceX Facebook page. That's Rick Rivera standing in front of the Dragon 2 Pad Abort test vehicle. This photo was cleared for public posting by SpaceX Security.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 08/27/2015 01:28 pm
I snagged this from the SpaceX Facebook page. That's Rick Rivera standing in front of the Dragon 2 Pad Abort test vehicle. This photo was cleared for public posting by SpaceX Security.

I'm surprised there is not some sort of cover over the umbilical connection next to the parachute bay.  Considering the stains on dragons which have gone through reentry I'd think that would be a pain to clean out of the connectors.  A simple spring hinge cover wouldn't be too difficult as it would just pop up when the trunk umbilical swings away.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 08/27/2015 01:43 pm
I snagged this from the SpaceX Facebook page. That's Rick Rivera standing in front of the Dragon 2 Pad Abort test vehicle. This photo was cleared for public posting by SpaceX Security.

I'm surprised there is not some sort of cover over the umbilical connection next to the parachute bay.  Considering the stains on dragons which have gone through reentry I'd think that would be a pain to clean out of the connectors.  A simple spring hinge cover wouldn't be too difficult as it would just pop up when the trunk umbilical swings away.
As others have pointed out, this was a flight prototype, missing windows, perhaps some thrusters and more. SpaceX has decided to use a different flight article, I believe, for the in-flight abort, as more design changes were done since this was built.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/27/2015 01:48 pm

I snagged this from the SpaceX Facebook page. That's Rick Rivera standing in front of the Dragon 2 Pad Abort test vehicle. This photo was cleared for public posting by SpaceX Security.

I'm surprised there is not some sort of cover over the umbilical connection next to the parachute bay.  Considering the stains on dragons which have gone through reentry I'd think that would be a pain to clean out of the connectors.  A simple spring hinge cover wouldn't be too difficult as it would just pop up when the trunk umbilical swings away.

One more failure mode and could interfere with trunk umbilical separation. Much easier to simply design for cleaning or removal/replacement of the interface panel if necessary, and avoid mechanical complexity and thus the need for a full FMEA for another mechanism.

Also, the interface panel is almost certainly on the leeward side of the vehicle (i.e., it will be oriented up toward the nadir of the trajectory aside from rolling maneuvers to steer the entry). That will limit nominal exposure to the worst entry heating and deposition effects.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Nomadd on 08/27/2015 02:59 pm

I snagged this from the SpaceX Facebook page. That's Rick Rivera standing in front of the Dragon 2 Pad Abort test vehicle. This photo was cleared for public posting by SpaceX Security.

I'm surprised there is not some sort of cover over the umbilical connection next to the parachute bay.  Considering the stains on dragons which have gone through reentry I'd think that would be a pain to clean out of the connectors.  A simple spring hinge cover wouldn't be too difficult as it would just pop up when the trunk umbilical swings away.

One more failure mode and could interfere with trunk umbilical separation. Much easier to simply design for cleaning or removal/replacement of the interface panel if necessary, and avoid mechanical complexity and thus the need for a full FMEA for another mechanism.

Also, the interface panel is almost certainly on the leeward side of the vehicle (i.e., it will be oriented up toward the nadir of the trajectory aside from rolling maneuvers to steer the entry). That will limit nominal exposure to the worst entry heating and deposition effects.
Since the panel would probably be designed for practical change out in any case, that's possible, but it just seems unlikely they'd leave those connectors open on re-entry. Leaving a path into the electronics with all that plasma and crap doesn't seem like a good idea.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/27/2015 03:16 pm
Plasma won't leak in through the side like that - wake effects shield the sides of the spacecraft from the flow. That's why the shape is a truncated cone. There will be some turbulent flow (look at photos of recovered spacecraft) but most of the visible markings on the sides are due to thermal effects (radiative) not plasma impingement.

More to the point, SpaceX has recovered a number of Dragon capsules, you know. They undoubtedly have a very good idea what conditions the interface panel will experience and how to design it for reusability. If they believed they will need a complicated door or cover mechanism, they would have implemented one.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JamesH on 08/27/2015 03:21 pm
Looking at it purely from a cost perspective, it's, at this launch cadence, almost certainly cheaper to clean the panel, or even replace it, than design, implement and test a cover for it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 08/27/2015 03:51 pm

I snagged this from the SpaceX Facebook page. That's Rick Rivera standing in front of the Dragon 2 Pad Abort test vehicle. This photo was cleared for public posting by SpaceX Security.

I'm surprised there is not some sort of cover over the umbilical connection next to the parachute bay.  Considering the stains on dragons which have gone through reentry I'd think that would be a pain to clean out of the connectors.  A simple spring hinge cover wouldn't be too difficult as it would just pop up when the trunk umbilical swings away.

One more failure mode and could interfere with trunk umbilical separation. Much easier to simply design for cleaning or removal/replacement of the interface panel if necessary, and avoid mechanical complexity and thus the need for a full FMEA for another mechanism.

Also, the interface panel is almost certainly on the leeward side of the vehicle (i.e., it will be oriented up toward the nadir of the trajectory aside from rolling maneuvers to steer the entry). That will limit nominal exposure to the worst entry heating and deposition effects.
Since the panel would probably be designed for practical change out in any case, that's possible, but it just seems unlikely they'd leave those connectors open on re-entry. Leaving a path into the electronics with all that plasma and crap doesn't seem like a good idea.

They will probably be left uncovered. Exactly what do you fear will happen if they are exposed to heat and plasma during re-entry? In reality, not much - if anything.

Do you want to see how the connector panel looks on the Soyuz descent module after landing? Check this out.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Nomadd on 08/27/2015 10:06 pm
Plasma won't leak in through the side like that - wake effects shield the sides of the spacecraft from the flow. That's why the shape is a truncated cone. There will be some turbulent flow (look at photos of recovered spacecraft) but most of the visible markings on the sides are due to thermal effects (radiative) not plasma impingement.

More to the point, SpaceX has recovered a number of Dragon capsules, you know. They undoubtedly have a very good idea what conditions the interface panel will experience and how to design it for reusability. If they believed they will need a complicated door or cover mechanism, they would have implemented one.
Bad wording on my part. I meant an electrical path.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/28/2015 12:31 am
Bad wording on my part. I meant an electrical path.

Did you not see the photo Lars posted? Interface panels have been "exposed" like that on spacecraft since the dawn of spaceflight. Check out similar post-flight photos of the current Dragon. This is not a real concern.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/28/2015 03:44 pm
So you know more about spacecraft interface panel design and hypersonic fluid dynamics of atmospheric entry than the people who do this for a living. Noted.

People on this forum who can't defer to others who do this stuff professionally is undoubtedly why most industry vets prefer to drop tidbits to others than post themselves.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AS-503 on 08/28/2015 04:04 pm
Sorry if this is OT but wrt the issue of protected/covered interface panels.....
The Space Shuttle Orbiter (reusable/refurbishable) flew with an exposed electrical interface panel.
As Herb mentioned, the engineers who made this decision were capable and informed (to say the least) so its probably a safe armchair assumption that flying with an exposed interface is a reasoned engineering decision.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 09/09/2015 02:10 pm
This post is relevant to this thread:

Also on Monday 31 August 2015, David Livingston of The Space Show interviewed Kathy Lueders (NASA's Commercial Crew Program Manager). 

A few technical tidbits from this interview:

- Orbital demonstration test from Boeing CST-100 will carry two people: one from Boeing and one from NASA.
- Demonstration mission from SpaceX Dragon 2 will carry two people: both from NASA
- LIDAR's are constantly being re-used on current SpaceX CRS missions, so the (flight) history of the LIDAR hardware is well known.
- Boeing proposed and plans to re-use it's CST-100 spacecraft on CCP missions.
- SpaceX proposed new Dragon 2 for each mission, with re-use of specific components being discussed.
- SpaceX proposed propulsive landing for CCP missions but NASA declined. Kathy expects not to see propulsive landings on CCP missions for the foreseeable future.

About that last point: that means that for the foreseeable future the Dragon 2 CCP missions will end in a water landing. That's probably also the reason why SpaceX proposed new vehicles for each CCP mission. Re-use of Dragon 2 vehicles will probably only be done with land-landed vehicles given the destructive effects of immersion in salt-water on structures and electronics.

Correction. I just listened to the part about propulsive landing. NASA never said that they were opposed to it. Lueders said that SpaceX is looking at propulsive landing in the future and she said that she could see that happenning in the future. It's at the 49-50 minute mark of the show.

It not perfectly clear, but I agree with you, yg.  Starting at 49:30 I hear her say:
Quote
You know, we'd had a little bit of a discussion at the beginning, because they were, SpaceX was really looking at, and they would still like to go eventually to a capsule that does a propulsive landing.  Instead of the landing, the water landing under parachutes, they would like to move toward a propulsive land landing.  And when you do that then, guess what, it kind of opens up some options from a reusability standpoint, and so I wouldn't -- I would see that happening in our future.  But that will be something we'll work through.

I can't swear that second one was a "would" and not a "wouldn't", but it sounds like "would" to me, and I think that fits the sentence better.  I suspect that she started to say something like "and so I wouldn't rule that out" and stopped after the "wouldn't" and changed that to a more affirmative "I would see that happening in our future."

~Kirk
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: chalz on 09/10/2015 01:45 am
They make it sound very far in future, a decade or more. It must be because people would be in it that it would require more reliability information before it is trusted. More than for the booster, say. Would the successes and failures of the booster reuse program reflect on the trust in capsule reuse? I mean would many successful returns of a booster reassure them that the principal is sound or are the two craft too different?

There are lots of other reasons it could take so long but the risk to life seems the biggest.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/10/2015 09:28 pm
Short new video alert!

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/642085795138957312

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1EB5BQpm7w
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 09/10/2015 09:34 pm
Top link moved to YouTube

2 for the price of 1!!

https://youtu.be/xjSb_b4TtxI

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/10/2015 09:37 pm
Short new video alert!

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/642085795138957312


Wow! Cannot wait until this happens for real!

The callsign for Dragon in this video is Dragon. I wonder if SpaceX is planning on doing that in real life instead of naming each capsule.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Maciej Olesinski on 09/10/2015 09:44 pm
http://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon

Some pictures
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JBF on 09/10/2015 09:44 pm
Center console has gone though some major changes. Looks like they had problems with the bigger screens.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Helodriver on 09/10/2015 09:45 pm
Significant differences over the interior hardware that was revealed with Dragon 2 in May 2014. Interior paneling, the instrument panel/controls, seat design and mounts even the color scheme are different. Id expect further changes as the design continues to mature and first flight approaches.

Interesting that as of now SpaceX is still going with the "Daft Punk" spacesuit. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 09/10/2015 09:49 pm
Top link moved to YouTube

2 for the price of 1!!

So much for the interior walls being bare metal...  ::) (yes, I got a lot of flack at the time for even suggesting that what we saw at the Dragon 2 unveiling was not the final interior)

And this - in the video - isn't the final interior either. It is closer, but expect the final interior to me packed with more equipment.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: UberNobody on 09/10/2015 09:49 pm
We finally get a glimpse of the flight suits!  I was still hoping for black and gold, but at least they match the interior! ;D

SpaceX definitely earned some extra style points today  8)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 09/10/2015 09:53 pm
SpaceX images:
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 09/10/2015 09:54 pm
"deorbit now" button!  :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/10/2015 09:54 pm
We finally get a glimpse of the flight suits!  I was still hoping for black and gold, but at least they match the interior! ;D

SpaceX definitely earned some extra style points today  8)

Was hoping for scarlet & gold spacesuits. Just like the suit in the Hawthorne lobby.

(http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get2/I0000nXKAi_35p5E/fit=1000x750/IsaacHH-SpaceX-8285.jpg)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 09/10/2015 10:10 pm
Top link moved to YouTube

2 for the price of 1!!

https://youtu.be/xjSb_b4TtxI

I was amused by the "Battlestar Galactica" camera zooming.

But what caught my eye was the redesigned control panel. It appears very different from the debut, which isn't surprising.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Darga on 09/10/2015 10:14 pm
Looks like the suit image that was floating around L2 turned out to be the real deal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: nadreck on 09/10/2015 10:39 pm
Significant differences over the interior hardware that was revealed with Dragon 2 in May 2014. Interior paneling, the instrument panel/controls, seat design and mounts even the color scheme are different. Id expect further changes as the design continues to mature and first flight approaches.

Interesting that as of now SpaceX is still going with the "Daft Punk" spacesuit. ;)

Where do you see a spacesuit in all of this?

EDIT: ok, I had seen the banner in on the SpaceX web site and the other video and thought the banner was it didn't see the video through to the end obviously.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 09/10/2015 10:45 pm
In the video below:

Short new video alert!

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/642085795138957312

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1EB5BQpm7w
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Joaosg on 09/10/2015 11:52 pm
I'm in love...

Those interiors are beautiful, and they aren't just a render anymore!!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 09/11/2015 12:52 am

I'm in love...

Those interiors are beautiful, and they aren't just a render anymore!!

The videos and still images all look like renderings to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Joaosg on 09/11/2015 12:56 am

I'm in love...

Those interiors are beautiful, and they aren't just a render anymore!!

The videos and still images all look like renderings to me.

Some images from the video of the interior don't look renders to me (those close ups on the carbon fiber in the seats). They probably have built a mock-up for testing/training.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: xpete on 09/11/2015 12:57 am
Quote
Garrett Reisman ‏@astro_g_dogg 2h2 hours ago
Check this out!  The interior shots are real - not computer graphics!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 09/11/2015 01:47 am

Quote
Garrett Reisman ‏@astro_g_dogg 2h2 hours ago
Check this out!  The interior shots are real - not computer graphics!

Thanks!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 09/11/2015 02:43 am
I'm wondering about the seat struts.....if you're underneath the upper seats and the upper seat struts fail, perhaps on a hard landing due to a chute failure, don't you get "squished" by the body and seat above you...??

....hmmmmm, maybe I shouldn't be bringing up failed struts in this discussion ...😄
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: enzo on 09/11/2015 02:44 am
"deorbit now" button!  :D
Given the seemingly urgent nature of this button, could SuperDracos be used for this deorbit burn, in theory?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mlindner on 09/11/2015 02:59 am

I'm in love...

Those interiors are beautiful, and they aren't just a render anymore!!

The videos and still images all look like renderings to me.

They aren't. You can pull down the EXIF data and some people on reddit did and listed the camera type and focal length etc used to take the images.

Quote
The images on the website were taken on the 27th August this year so exactly two weeks ago. The used a Canon EOS 5D to shoot them and all the lighting is natural interior light, not a flash burst.

They also used a Red Epic-X camera.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 09/11/2015 01:55 pm
"deorbit now" button!  :D

I'm sure that button has a fail-safe, since there's also the "Cabin Depress" button right next to it. I wouldn't want to be in that seat, taking off my suit or reaching for a sammich and then vent the cabin or send us home prematurely...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: nadreck on 09/11/2015 02:15 pm
"deorbit now" button!  :D

I'm sure that button has a fail-safe, since there's also the "Cabin Depress" button right next to it. I wouldn't want to be in that seat, taking off my suit or reaching for a sammich and then vent the cabin or send us home prematurely...

Notice the "execute" button
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 09/11/2015 02:42 pm
As someone else suggested earlier, I bet this is a training simulator... presumably they will need to have one of those.  And it'd make sense to work up the cabin in a non-flight capacity first.

Looks gorgeous, if a bit sterile.

I had a laugh at the on-orbit video, it always sounds funny to me with simulated astronaut chatter, and the second astro sounded a little like she was trying not to throw up (maybe just to me :D).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sghill on 09/11/2015 03:10 pm
Top link moved to YouTube

2 for the price of 1!!

So much for the interior walls being bare metal...  ::) (yes, I got a lot of flack at the time for even suggesting that what we saw at the Dragon 2 unveiling was not the final interior)

And this - in the video - isn't the final interior either. It is closer, but expect the final interior to me packed with more equipment.

And a whole lot of tie-down points.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JBF on 09/11/2015 03:13 pm
And a whole lot of tie-down points.

Unless NASA demands it I bet you won't see a bunch of tie-downs.  They have that cargo pallet with tie downs already, you can see it under the left hand seats, and weight distribution will be an issue.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 09/11/2015 03:17 pm
It is interesting that NASA was just the other day touting the capability for CST-100 to swap cargo and crew. Wouldnt Crew Dragon have this same capability? The video seems to show the standard ISS config with 4 seats and 2 cargo pallets. I imagine they could easily remove seat 4 and have the whole lower portion for cargo.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 09/11/2015 03:21 pm
Top link moved to YouTube

2 for the price of 1!!

So much for the interior walls being bare metal...  ::) (yes, I got a lot of flack at the time for even suggesting that what we saw at the Dragon 2 unveiling was not the final interior)

And this - in the video - isn't the final interior either. It is closer, but expect the final interior to me packed with more equipment.

And a whole lot of tie-down points.

And velcro
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Fr4nK on 09/11/2015 04:55 pm
It is interesting that NASA was just the other day touting the capability for CST-100 to swap cargo and crew. Wouldnt Crew Dragon have this same capability? The video seems to show the standard ISS config with 4 seats and 2 cargo pallets. I imagine they could easily remove seat 4 and have the whole lower portion for cargo.

I see 5 seats
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/11/2015 05:03 pm
Remember to roll your "r"'s when you say it...

Alcantarrrra
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JamesH on 09/11/2015 05:22 pm
Top link moved to YouTube

2 for the price of 1!!

So much for the interior walls being bare metal...  ::) (yes, I got a lot of flack at the time for even suggesting that what we saw at the Dragon 2 unveiling was not the final interior)

And this - in the video - isn't the final interior either. It is closer, but expect the final interior to me packed with more equipment.

And a whole lot of tie-down points.

And velcro

White velco, then it won't disturb the pretty.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: jabe on 09/11/2015 06:29 pm
Remember to roll your "r"'s when you say it...

Alcantarrrra
beat me too it..was going to do same thing :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: geza on 09/11/2015 07:21 pm
Center console has gone though some major changes. Looks like they had problems with the bigger screens.

With the central console, (almost?) all physical buttons have gone. We discussed their importance before. It seems that a single manual rotary switch has remained in both consols. What are they? Most surprisingly, also the joystick has gone. Did they give up the possibility for flying this bird manually? 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Prober on 09/11/2015 07:58 pm
I snagged this from the SpaceX Facebook page. That's Rick Rivera standing in front of the Dragon 2 Pad Abort test vehicle. This photo was cleared for public posting by SpaceX Security.

I'm surprised there is not some sort of cover over the umbilical connection next to the parachute bay.  Considering the stains on dragons which have gone through reentry I'd think that would be a pain to clean out of the connectors.  A simple spring hinge cover wouldn't be too difficult as it would just pop up when the trunk umbilical swings away.

Hope the location of the parachute bay has been moved.  If everything works as planned fine.  However in its current location if the cute cables fail to work as planned, then its possible to block exit via the capsule door.   It's bothersome looking at that picture.  :o
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sghill on 09/11/2015 08:28 pm
Center console has gone though some major changes. Looks like they had problems with the bigger screens.

With the central console, (almost?) all physical buttons have gone. We discussed their importance before. It seems that a single manual rotary switch has remained in both consoles. What are they? Most surprisingly, also the joystick has gone. Did they give up the possibility for flying this bird manually?

I'm betting that with the ridiculously small level of acceptable attitude changes this thing is engineered for, a joystick was simply macho overkill that added weight, complexity, and additional failure modes, when a touch screen button in each direction works better.  They probably got well into the joystick development cycle, and said to themselves, "why are we really doing this?"

Each tap on the direction arrow gets a puff of corresponding ACS.  Hold your finger down and get lots of puffs.

No different- and probably lots easier- than playing around in the Google Earth flight simulator mode with a keypad IMHO.

Hope the location of the parachute bay has been moved.  If everything works as planned fine.  However in its current location if the cute cables fail to work as planned, then its possible to block exit via the capsule door.   It's bothersome looking at that picture.  :o

The current parachute bay location allows the capsule occupants to land supine and be supported by their seats- not on their sides or face- a far bigger concern than where the lines go after they are safely on the ground.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 09/11/2015 08:40 pm
If you were designing the console would you have a lot of  buttons, switches, etc, or just make them virtual buttons, switches, etc?  Is the touch screen and lack of buttons a safety step too far? 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: SoulWager on 09/11/2015 09:12 pm

I'm betting that with the ridiculously small level of acceptable attitude changes this thing is engineered for, a joystick was simply macho overkill that added weight, complexity, and additional failure modes, when a touch screen button in each direction works better.  They probably got well into the joystick development cycle, and said to themselves, "why are we really doing this?"

Each tap on the direction arrow gets a puff of corresponding ACS.  Hold your finger down and get lots of puffs.

No different- and probably lots easier- than playing around in the Google Earth flight simulator mode with a keypad IMHO.

They could use a 6 axis mouse. You'd still want the touchscreen control as a backup though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 09/11/2015 09:18 pm

I'm betting that with the ridiculously small level of acceptable attitude changes this thing is engineered for, a joystick was simply macho overkill that added weight, complexity, and additional failure modes, when a touch screen button in each direction works better.  They probably got well into the joystick development cycle, and said to themselves, "why are we really doing this?"

Each tap on the direction arrow gets a puff of corresponding ACS.  Hold your finger down and get lots of puffs.



Attitude changes are not done in discreet directions.  Also, it doesn't work for reentry or tumbling
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: llanitedave on 09/11/2015 09:46 pm

Looks gorgeous, if a bit sterile.



I dunno. A little paint, a few flowers, couple of throw pillows...

(https://morganrlewis.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/youngfrankenstein-0472.jpg?w=640)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DecoLV on 09/12/2015 02:52 pm
I wouldn't read too much into the detail of controls and interface at this point. I suspect this may be a red herring for ITAR reasons, and the interface is likely still being designed anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: obi-wan on 09/12/2015 03:10 pm
The historical data on spacecraft would indicate that habitable volume (accessible volume for crew) is 40-50% of the pressurized volume. When the crew Dragon flies, it will seem like a cramped little space with the couches and not much else, thanks to life support systems, stowage, consumables, and a thousand other little things that you don't think about but can't live without.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Scylla on 09/12/2015 03:33 pm
I wonder if a few controlls, including a joystick, won't end up mounted on the armrests of the command couches.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 09/12/2015 07:12 pm
Beautiful and simple. A 21st century looking capsule.

As for the control systems design and UI, they now have their full mission simulation with hardware-in-the-loop, up and running. They've got a shuttle veteran (Garett) and now 4 NASA Astronauts integrating into the training program. They'll simulate hundreds of different emergency mission permutations and will iterate on the screen UI design accordingly as well as any hardwired switches and controls. But Dragon is first and foremost meant to be a fully autonomous vehicle with minimum human interaction needed. But the right balance will be struck. Great progress though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sanman on 09/13/2015 10:03 pm
So I want to say "AHA!" here, because I remember commenting about the safety of the interior way back, as it seemed rather bare and exposed with those isogrid hexagons posing a potential injury hazard for any free-floating astronaut who bonked into them.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36738.msg1361949#msg1361949

Some of you disagreed with me, but now with the new interior shots we can all see the improvements. This is what the interior of a manned space capsule should look like, and not have any exposed jagged or sharp edges that can injure someone. Even though you may be strapped in most of the time, there will be times (embarkation/disembarkation) when you are not, and that's when that softer/smoother interior can help to avoid unnecessary bruises.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: andrewsdanj on 09/14/2015 11:14 am
Just as a small aside, am I the only one getting visions of the starship Heart of Gold?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: renclod on 09/14/2015 01:33 pm
I wonder if a few controlls, including a joystick, won't end up mounted on the armrests of the command couches.

Or use gesture recognition.

Or even Electromyographic signals (EMG) which "are noninvasively sensed from the muscles used to perform these
gestures".

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: renclod on 09/14/2015 01:36 pm
It is interesting that NASA was just the other day touting the capability for CST-100 to swap cargo and crew. Wouldnt Crew Dragon have this same capability? The video seems to show the standard ISS config with 4 seats and 2 cargo pallets. I imagine they could easily remove seat 4 and have the whole lower portion for cargo.

I see 5 seats

I see 5 seats too, but the lower one misses the legs' rest.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jarnis on 09/14/2015 01:51 pm
It is interesting that NASA was just the other day touting the capability for CST-100 to swap cargo and crew. Wouldnt Crew Dragon have this same capability? The video seems to show the standard ISS config with 4 seats and 2 cargo pallets. I imagine they could easily remove seat 4 and have the whole lower portion for cargo.

I see 5 seats

I see 5 seats too, but the lower one misses the legs' rest.

The tourist seat!

ISS crew rotation = 4 seats.

5th seat to be sold to aspiring space tourists :)

More realistically, the "lower slots" for the remaining 3 seats are demonstrating the configuration options - one is a seat, two others show (I guess) some kind of attachment points for cargo.

Now all we need is a SpaceX website where you can kit out your own Dragon 2 configuration and specify the number of seats, if you want leather seats (optional extra), in-flight entertainment system and... On the upside, satnav is at least a standard option! :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 09/14/2015 02:15 pm
So I want to say "AHA!" here, because I remember commenting about the safety of the interior way back, as it seemed rather bare and exposed with those isogrid hexagons posing a potential injury hazard for any free-floating astronaut who bonked into them.

Some of you disagreed with me, but now with the new interior shots we can all see the improvements. This is what the interior of a manned space capsule should look like, and not have any exposed jagged or sharp edges that can injure someone. Even though you may be strapped in most of the time, there will be times (embarkation/disembarkation) when you are not, and that's when that softer/smoother interior can help to avoid unnecessary bruises.

They aren't 'improvements".  It is unnecessary. The isogrid hexagons are not  potential injury hazard, many spacecraft have flown that way.    So PR and look is more important than function to you?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 09/14/2015 02:21 pm

That's what macros are for. 

This thing is supposed to fly itself. Active control is a backup mode.


Meh.   macros are not cure all.  Punching a touch screen will not work.  A 2d surface does not translate into 3 axis.  Crew will have to take eyes off target to reposition hand.  There will be a joystick for backup
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: philw1776 on 09/14/2015 04:28 pm
I wonder if a few controlls, including a joystick, won't end up mounted on the armrests of the command couches.

Or use gesture recognition.

Or even Electromyographic signals (EMG) which "are noninvasively sensed from the muscles used to perform these
gestures".

So, maybe sensing sudden loss of sphincter control could automatically trigger an abort?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: chipguy on 09/14/2015 04:51 pm

They aren't 'improvements".  It is unnecessary. The isogrid hexagons are not  potential injury hazard, many spacecraft have flown that way.    So PR and look is more important than function to you?

Is there potential for excessively hot or cold surface hazard from accidentally touching the bare metal pressure
vessel with exposed skin after being on orbit for a while?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: joncz on 09/14/2015 06:40 pm
Now all we need is a SpaceX website where you can kit out your own Dragon 2 configuration and specify the number of seats, if you want leather seats (optional extra), in-flight entertainment system and... On the upside, satnav is at least a standard option! :D

I want the executive seating option and maximum plaid upgrade.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bocephus419 on 09/23/2015 07:21 am
A little late to the game here, but I'm surprised no one has mentioned the apparent removal of the center window.

Quote from: http://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon
Crew Dragon was designed to be an enjoyable ride. With four windows, passengers can take in views of Earth, the Moon, and the wider Solar System right from their seats, which are made from the highest-grade carbon fiber and Alcantara cloth.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: leaflion on 09/23/2015 07:46 am
"deorbit now" button!  :D
Given the seemingly urgent nature of this button, could SuperDracos be used for this deorbit burn, in theory?

Deorbit now button right next to the depressurize button.  Hopefully the buttons are a little bit bigger than the keys on my iPhone...

Using any of those controls during the high-gee portions of launch and reentry would be quite a workout.  Hopefully you don't need them.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MP99 on 09/23/2015 08:26 am
"deorbit now" button!  :D
Hopefully with "Are you sure? Y/N".

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Bob Shaw on 09/23/2015 09:44 am
They need a red, glowing eye in the middle of the control panel, and some rotating 3D status displays with big three-letter IDs, like ATM, PWR, NUC and so forth. And the crew should be in airline uniforms, with hats, and the stewardess should have a huge soft white egg on her head. And she should hand out a souvenir pen to the bored, sleepy passenger, subtly slipping it into his top pocket. Hey, don't disagree - this is the commercial flight to a space station we've been waiting for!

Just ignore any warnings about defective AE35 units and nothing could possibly go wornggggg...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Dante80 on 09/23/2015 10:04 am
They need a red, glowing eye in the middle of the control panel, and some rotating 3D status displays with big three-letter IDs, like ATM, PWR, NUC and so forth. And the crew should be in airline uniforms, with hats, and the stewardess should have a huge soft white egg on her head. And she should hand out a souvenir pen to the bored, sleepy passenger, subtly slipping it into his top pocket. Hey, don't disagree - this is the commercial flight to a space station we've been waiting for!

Just ignore any warnings about defective AE35 units and nothing could possibly go wornggggg...

I'm pretty sure btw that SpaceX will try to have easter eggs on the control panel. Something like a button combination brings out a huge SCE to AUX button on the screen.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: nadreck on 09/23/2015 02:12 pm
"deorbit now" button!  :D
Hopefully with "Are you sure? Y/N".

Cheers, Martin
The big "execute" is the confirmation
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bocephus419 on 09/23/2015 08:19 pm
Just to reiterate for those who are making Dragon 2 graphics out there, the center window is gone.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 09/23/2015 10:36 pm
A little late to the game here, but I'm surprised no one has mentioned the apparent removal of the center window.

Quote from: http://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon
Crew Dragon was designed to be an enjoyable ride. With four windows, passengers can take in views of Earth, the Moon, and the wider Solar System right from their seats, which are made from the highest-grade carbon fiber and Alcantara cloth.

Sure looks like a window in that picture, though. We'll have to wait and see if that "four windows" comment was an oversight, or if it is indeed the new situation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Kansan52 on 09/23/2015 11:15 pm
So, maybe sensing sudden loss of sphincter control could automatically trigger an abort?

Anything that causes a sudden loss of sphincter control (with exceptions of convenience store sushi and such) will probably require use of an abort!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: okan170 on 09/24/2015 12:01 am
A little late to the game here, but I'm surprised no one has mentioned the apparent removal of the center window.

Quote from: http://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon
Crew Dragon was designed to be an enjoyable ride. With four windows, passengers can take in views of Earth, the Moon, and the wider Solar System right from their seats, which are made from the highest-grade carbon fiber and Alcantara cloth.

Sure looks like a window in that picture, though. We'll have to wait and see if that "four windows" comment was an oversight, or if it is indeed the new situation.

Does a porthole on the hatch count as a legit window?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 09/25/2015 01:23 am
Does a porthole on the hatch count as a legit window?

It always has.  On Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle it did.  I don't see why a hatch window is any the less a window.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/25/2015 01:49 am
They need a red, glowing eye in the middle of the control panel, and some rotating 3D status displays with big three-letter IDs, like ATM, PWR, NUC and so forth. And the crew should be in airline uniforms, with hats, and the stewardess should have a huge soft white egg on her head. And she should hand out a souvenir pen to the bored, sleepy passenger, subtly slipping it into his top pocket. Hey, don't disagree - this is the commercial flight to a space station we've been waiting for!

Just ignore any warnings about defective AE35 units and nothing could possibly go wornggggg...

I'm pretty sure btw that SpaceX will try to have easter eggs on the control panel. Something like a button combination brings out a huge SCE to AUX button on the screen.

I really doubt it.  Easter eggs that make a mission-critical system more complex are a really bad idea.  More complexity means more chances of bugs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 09/25/2015 07:11 am
They need a red, glowing eye in the middle of the control panel, and some rotating 3D status displays with big three-letter IDs, like ATM, PWR, NUC and so forth. And the crew should be in airline uniforms, with hats, and the stewardess should have a huge soft white egg on her head. And she should hand out a souvenir pen to the bored, sleepy passenger, subtly slipping it into his top pocket. Hey, don't disagree - this is the commercial flight to a space station we've been waiting for!

Just ignore any warnings about defective AE35 units and nothing could possibly go wornggggg...

I'm pretty sure btw that SpaceX will try to have easter eggs on the control panel. Something like a button combination brings out a huge SCE to AUX button on the screen.

I really doubt it.  Easter eggs that make a mission-critical system more complex are a really bad idea.  More complexity means more chances of bugs.

Pressing "Abort", "Depressurize Cabin", "Open hatch" and "Manual FTS" in a specific order makes the cabin lights do the lighting sequence from Close Encounters.

Of course if you get the order wrong then there's going to be some explaining to do.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: coypu76 on 09/27/2015 11:03 pm
I'm not a scientist or engineer, just a space geek since I was a toddler back in 1961, so forgive any ignorance.  I'd like to ask if Crew Dragon's LES would have helped in the scenario of the CRS-7 loss.  It looks like when LOX tank overpressure blew out the end cap of the tank, O2 pressurized the trunk, destroying it.
Since the Crew Dragon depends on the trunk for passive aerodynamic stabilization (the reason for the lengthened trunk and its fins if I am correctly apprised), would the LES work in a similar scenario? 
Thanks for engaging the question.
coypu
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/27/2015 11:31 pm
Good question.  Elon Musk stated that the Dragon Cargo that was riding on CRS-7 did not have the software to perform an escape from a failing launch vehicle, but that if it did that the capsule would have survived.  There are images showing the Dragon Cargo vehicle tumbling away from the debris, so it did survive intact, but the software to stabilize the vehicle and then deploy the parachutes was not loaded up.  Musk stated they will add that feature to the next launch so that this situation does not result in the loss of a Dragon.

The Dragon Crew, which will carry humans to space, is specifically designed to detect failures like the CRS-7 one, and the Dragon Crew vehicle has even better engines for moving the vehicle away from any conflagration.

How that helps.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 09/27/2015 11:50 pm
To add to Coastal Ron's answer:

The Crew Dragon has the SuperDraco engines to pull itself from a wayward Falcon, but the cargo Dragon would only have weak thrusters to separate mostly in a non-propulsive way. So, in CRS-7, if the parachute software were present, the Dragon (which was popped off the ship) would have survived. But cargo Dragon has no true LES. The passive separation it can do may not be enough to survive if the launch vehicle's destruction caused damage or serious tumbling to the Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 09/28/2015 03:02 am
One more point to add. Dragon was really mostly intact. They received telemetry from it until it was under the horizon and contact was lost for that reason.

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: PreferToLurk on 09/28/2015 03:30 am
Thanks for the replies but no one has really answered the OP, and I think the question is a pretty good one that I hadn't considered before. 

Could/would the crew dragon initiate an abort before the tank dome ruptures? 

If not, would a crew dragon with a damaged/destroyed trunk be able to abort safely?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/28/2015 03:39 am
Thanks for the replies but no one has really answered the OP, and I think the question is a pretty good one that I hadn't considered before. 

Could/would the crew dragon initiate an abort before the tank dome ruptures? 

If not, would a crew dragon with a damaged/destroyed trunk be able to abort safely?

The point of some of the replies above was that even if the abort engines weren't used, if a crew Dragon had been on the CRS-7 booster instead of a cargo Dragon it very likely would have survived and saved the crew just with its parachutes.  It didn't need the full abort system in this case.

As to whether this particular emergency would have been detected in time to trigger the abort system before it destroyed the trunk, I don't think anyone outside SpaceX has enough information to know that right now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/28/2015 03:41 am
Could/would the crew dragon initiate an abort before the tank dome ruptures?

Depends on what sensors they have.  They may be adding in them in now to detect this specific condition now that they know it can happen and what the effects are.

Quote
If not, would a crew dragon with a damaged/destroyed trunk be able to abort safely?

The Draco and SuperDraco engines that would be used to move the vehicle away from the damaged launch vehicle are part of the Dragon, not the trunk, so the engines would not be affected by a damaged trunk.  For Dragon Cargo it would jettison the trunk right away, but with the Dragon Crew the trunk is needed for directional control.  See this NSF thread on the Dragon Pad Abort Test (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37475.80).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: PreferToLurk on 09/28/2015 04:10 am

The Draco and SuperDraco engines that would be used to move the vehicle away from the damaged launch vehicle are part of the Dragon, not the trunk, so the engines would not be affected by a damaged trunk.  For Dragon Cargo it would jettison the trunk right away, but with the Dragon Crew the trunk is needed for directional control.  See this NSF thread on the Dragon Pad Abort Test (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37475.80).

Exactly, the trunk is needed for abort stability, so in a situation where the trunk is damaged/destroyed before the abort initiates...  will the crew still be safe?  A corkscrewing/tumbling dragon under full abort acceleration seems like a pretty dicey situation.  Much different than the cargo dragon passively falling away.  You can't say "cargo dragon just needed software to survive, so crew dragon will also survive" because a crew dragon isn't going to just passively fall off to one side. CRS-7 presented a scenario where the trunk could possibly be destroyed in the initial moments of a launch failure.

I doubt there is a good answer to this question at the moment, as it would likely require detailed systems knowledge of the crew dragon LAS.  But add this to the list of questions I would love to have Elon answer in his investigation wrap-up presser.  FYI, the other question I would love to ask is: Can the FTS system fire autonomously in the event of a failure, did it fire, and/or why not?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: darkenfast on 09/28/2015 04:39 am
I'm going to guess that the trunk's aerodynamic features help Dragon in aborts from the pad and up past max-Q, after which, the advantages slowly taper off as the altitude increase.  The question becomes: at the altitude of the disintegration, were the aerodynamic forces on the capsule strong enough to overcome the Dragon's ability to control its flight?  Just how strong is that slipstream?  Of course, an abort system might have detected the rupture in the second stage fast enough to get the capsule/trunk combination away before the stage crumpled enough to make the trunk useless.  I don't know. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cdleonard on 09/28/2015 10:26 am
Exactly, the trunk is needed for abort stability, so in a situation where the trunk is damaged/destroyed before the abort initiates...  will the crew still be safe?  A corkscrewing/tumbling dragon under full abort acceleration seems like a pretty dicey situation.

But if you watch the video of CRS-7 disintegrating there are several seconds between the first signs of malfunction (a leaking second stage) and the dragon falling away. For the crewed version I assume that the abort engines would have fired based on the abnormal pressure readings from the second stage.

If the top of the second stage blows up into the trunk without warning then it probably won't help much. It's not clear that this is what happened on CRS-7.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rocx on 09/28/2015 03:41 pm
Exactly, the trunk is needed for abort stability, so in a situation where the trunk is damaged/destroyed before the abort initiates...  will the crew still be safe?  A corkscrewing/tumbling dragon under full abort acceleration seems like a pretty dicey situation.

The trunk isn't the only thing stabilising the crew dragon during abort. While the SuperDraco engines are still running, they are actively throttled to steer the capsule:
Quote from: http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/05/06/crew-dragon-completes-pad-abort-test
After half a second of vertical flight, Crew Dragon pitched toward the ocean and continued its controlled burn. The SuperDraco engines throttled to control the trajectory based on real-time measurements from the vehicle’s sensors.
So it's only after the escape burn that a damaged trunk may cause the capsule to tumble.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 11/05/2015 06:28 pm
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/662325113816133632

@syephenclark1
SpaceX’s Reed: New plan is to use four parachutes for Crew Dragon water landings, not three chutes.

Hmmmm....softer splashdown?

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/662320752247500801

@SpaceX says it remains on time for a demo flight of crew capsule to ISS at the end of 2016.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/662321591674499072

@SpaceX says it is looking at March 2017 for first crewed flight of its Dragon spacecraft, with NASA astronauts.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 11/06/2015 02:13 am
A bit more from the NAC meeting on Dragon 2:

Quote
Reed: finished CDR for crew dragon spacecraft last week; in final review at NASA now. Went “very well.”
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/662323434379067392

Quote
SpaceX’s Reed: Wrapped up Crew Dragon CDR last week, currently under review by NASA. Delta CDR in December.
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/662323730111029248
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/06/2015 04:00 am
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/662325113816133632

@syephenclark1
SpaceX’s Reed: New plan is to use four parachutes for Crew Dragon water landings, not three chutes.

Hmmmm....softer splashdown?

<snip>

Maybe redundancy in case one of the chute doesn't deployed properly.

Or four smaller chutes is easier to installed and deployed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Semmel on 11/06/2015 06:16 am
Wouldn't that invalidate the parachute drop test that they already did?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 11/06/2015 06:44 am
Wouldn't that invalidate the parachute drop test that they already did?

No - it's probably due to data received from the parachute drop test. They may be wanting to increase downmass, along with simply being nice to the astronaut (and the world) by giving them some redundancy. They're not mass limited on ascent so it only makes sense to strap more chutes to it if they can do so without making design compromises.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: woods170 on 11/06/2015 06:44 am
A bit more from the NAC meeting on Dragon 2:

Quote
Reed: finished CDR for crew dragon spacecraft last week; in final review at NASA now. Went “very well.”
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/662323434379067392 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/662323434379067392)

Quote
SpaceX’s Reed: Wrapped up Crew Dragon CDR last week, currently under review by NASA. Delta CDR in December.
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/662323730111029248 (https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/662323730111029248)
Emphasis mine.
Much telling tweet. It basically confirms the earlier news that a fourth parachute will be added to crew Dragon. Since CDR is complete and a design change is coming the crew Dragon needs a delta CDR.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/06/2015 07:23 am
Wouldn't that invalidate the parachute drop test that they already did?

No - it's probably due to data received from the parachute drop test. They may be wanting to increase downmass, along with simply being nice to the astronaut (and the world) by giving them some redundancy. They're not mass limited on ascent so it only makes sense to strap more chutes to it if they can do so without making design compromises.

Yes, it may be due to the data from the original parachute drop test, but it still means they're going to a configuration they haven't tested.

Fortunately, the in-flight abort test still hasn't happened yet.  They can add the fourth parachute for that test and then they'll be able to get in an even better test of the parachutes than the original drop test.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: hrissan on 11/06/2015 08:34 am
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/662325113816133632

@syephenclark1
SpaceX’s Reed: New plan is to use four parachutes for Crew Dragon water landings, not three chutes.

Hmmmm....softer splashdown?

<snip>

Maybe redundancy in case one of the chute doesn't deployed properly.

Or four smaller chutes is easier to installed and deployed.
May be the idea is to have 2 identical independent redundant (drogue+2 chutes+some sensors+battery+etc) packages separately installed symmetrically?

Edit: Could this be QA changes from the "failed strut" experience? They could assemble those packages, then (destructively) test some of them to get idea of statistical variations as discussed in "RTF to flight" thread. Installing 2 redundant identical packages with estimated fail rate of 99% each might improve fail rate to 99.99%?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 11/06/2015 12:49 pm
It could be due to lots of things.  Better computational modeling of aero loads during the in-flight abort.  An unrelated change that happened to free up some additional space under the aeroshell and they'd always preferred four but didn't think they'd fit.  Likewise to some new smaller deployment hardware from a vendor that made four chutes newly possible.  We don't have any way to know.

But we can infer that because the delta review is following quickly after the CDR, that SpaceX considers the change no big deal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 11/06/2015 01:03 pm
It could be due to lots of things.  Better computational modeling of aero loads during the in-flight abort.  An unrelated change that happened to free up some additional space under the aeroshell and they'd always preferred four but didn't think they'd fit.  Likewise to some new smaller deployment hardware from a vendor that made four chutes newly possible.  We don't have any way to know.

But we can infer that because the delta review is following quickly after the CDR, that SpaceX consists the change no big deal.

Extra canopy area to reduce prop needed to land on Mars? ;)

Has any other capsule or even military air drop used a 4 chute configuration?
How stable is that aerodynamically compared to 3 chute config?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 11/06/2015 01:18 pm
Fortunately, the in-flight abort test still hasn't happened yet.  They can add the fourth parachute for that test and then they'll be able to get in an even better test of the parachutes than the original drop test.
Latest word is the unmanned orbital test will be happening first, so the new parachute configuration will presumably get tested there first.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 11/06/2015 01:21 pm
Or on DragonFly, even though it's on land?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: getitdoneinspace on 11/06/2015 02:32 pm
The fact that SpaceX has multiple opportunities to test the change to 4 parachutes with no incremental testing events has just high-lighted to me the strength of the SpaceX path. The synergy between DragonFly testing, the inflight abort test, and the uncrewed Dragon test is quite amazing in allowing SpaceX to effectively and efficiently innovate and improve even at this stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 11/06/2015 03:54 pm
The fact that SpaceX has multiple opportunities to test the change to 4 parachutes with no incremental testing events has just high-lighted to me the strength of the SpaceX path. The synergy between DragonFly testing, the inflight abort test, and the uncrewed Dragon test is quite amazing in allowing SpaceX to effectively and efficiently innovate and improve even at this stage.
Eh, both Boeing and SpaceX are doing uncrewed tests that will test the parachute system, and we haven't seen or heard anything about DragonFly in a while, so I don't think that's likely to be relevant in this regard.  I don't think it's a big deal that they're altering the parachute system since it will get tested, but I wouldn't point to this as some great SpaceX thing either.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 11/06/2015 04:01 pm
A bit more from the NAC meeting on Dragon 2:

Quote
Reed: finished CDR for crew dragon spacecraft last week; in final review at NASA now. Went “very well.”
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/662323434379067392 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/662323434379067392)

Quote
SpaceX’s Reed: Wrapped up Crew Dragon CDR last week, currently under review by NASA. Delta CDR in December.
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/662323730111029248 (https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/662323730111029248)
Emphasis mine.
Much telling tweet. It basically confirms the earlier news that a fourth parachute will be added to crew Dragon. Since CDR is complete and a design change is coming the crew Dragon needs a delta CDR.

On this issue. CDR was part of the CCiCap milestones. So SpaceX is behind Boeing by more than a year when it comes to acheiving CDR. Because of this, I am little skeptical about the December 2016 launch date for the SpaceX uncrewed mission. However, I am really hoping to be wrong. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 11/06/2015 08:06 pm
SpaceX likes to build, then review; Boeing likes to review, then build.  Different planning strategies, but not necessarily a reason to doubt their schedules.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/06/2015 08:54 pm
Fortunately, the in-flight abort test still hasn't happened yet.  They can add the fourth parachute for that test and then they'll be able to get in an even better test of the parachutes than the original drop test.
Latest word is the unmanned orbital test will be happening first, so the new parachute configuration will presumably get tested there first.

Have we heard whether the unmanned orbital test will land in the water under parachutes or on land with propulsive landing?  If they do go with propulsive landing, the first test of the 4-chute configuration might still be the in-flight abort test.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RonM on 11/06/2015 10:54 pm
Fortunately, the in-flight abort test still hasn't happened yet.  They can add the fourth parachute for that test and then they'll be able to get in an even better test of the parachutes than the original drop test.
Latest word is the unmanned orbital test will be happening first, so the new parachute configuration will presumably get tested there first.

Have we heard whether the unmanned orbital test will land in the water under parachutes or on land with propulsive landing?  If they do go with propulsive landing, the first test of the 4-chute configuration might still be the in-flight abort test.

Why would they test propulsive landing when NASA isn't looking for that? It's a test of the Dragon 2 per its mission to ISS. Of course it will land in the water under parachutes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/06/2015 11:01 pm
Fortunately, the in-flight abort test still hasn't happened yet.  They can add the fourth parachute for that test and then they'll be able to get in an even better test of the parachutes than the original drop test.
Latest word is the unmanned orbital test will be happening first, so the new parachute configuration will presumably get tested there first.

Have we heard whether the unmanned orbital test will land in the water under parachutes or on land with propulsive landing?  If they do go with propulsive landing, the first test of the 4-chute configuration might still be the in-flight abort test.

Why would they test propulsive landing when NASA isn't looking for that? It's a test of the Dragon 2 per its mission to ISS. Of course it will land in the water under parachutes.

We don't really know.  There has been speculation that SpaceX baselined its proposal to use water landing because NASA wasn't comfortable with propulsive landing based on the data available at the time of the CCtCap bids, but that SpaceX hopes to convince NASA to allow them to switch to propulsive landing at least for later flights after gathering more evidence with DragonFly.  If SpaceX is hoping to convince NASA, a propulsive landing on the first unmanned test flight might go a long way to helping that cause.

On the other hand, NASA might want the unmanned orbital flight test to be representative of the water landings they are currently comfortable with.

Bottom line is that we really don't know for sure either way until we hear from a source with actual knowledge of the plans.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jcc on 11/06/2015 11:19 pm
Or on DragonFly, even though it's on land?

Maybe 4 chutes will allow adjusting the trim to land on all 4 legs on land or tilted to reduce splashing in water.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: drzerg on 11/07/2015 12:25 am
SX could test unmanned dragon in the ocean in the same way they tested first stage. for example in cargo variant.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AnalogMan on 11/07/2015 01:24 am
Fortunately, the in-flight abort test still hasn't happened yet.  They can add the fourth parachute for that test and then they'll be able to get in an even better test of the parachutes than the original drop test.
Latest word is the unmanned orbital test will be happening first, so the new parachute configuration will presumably get tested there first.

Have we heard whether the unmanned orbital test will land in the water under parachutes or on land with propulsive landing?  If they do go with propulsive landing, the first test of the 4-chute configuration might still be the in-flight abort test.

Why would they test propulsive landing when NASA isn't looking for that? It's a test of the Dragon 2 per its mission to ISS. Of course it will land in the water under parachutes.

We don't really know.  There has been speculation that SpaceX baselined its proposal to use water landing because NASA wasn't comfortable with propulsive landing based on the data available at the time of the CCtCap bids, but that SpaceX hopes to convince NASA to allow them to switch to propulsive landing at least for later flights after gathering more evidence with DragonFly.  If SpaceX is hoping to convince NASA, a propulsive landing on the first unmanned test flight might go a long way to helping that cause.

On the other hand, NASA might want the unmanned orbital flight test to be representative of the water landings they are currently comfortable with.

Bottom line is that we really don't know for sure either way until we hear from a source with actual knowledge of the plans.


The CCtCap Contract (dated September 16, 2014) says this about the landing method on the first demonstration flight to the ISS (page 205-6)

Design Certification Review (DCR) Interim Payment Milestone
Flight to ISS without Crew

Amount: $■■■

Planned Start Date and Completion Date (mo/yr): March 2016

Data/Data Requirement Deliverables (DRDs) to be provided: DRD 109 Flight to ISS without Crew Final Test Plan, DRD 209 Postflight Assessment Report

Delivery of Data/DRDs (mo/yr): NLT 30 days before milestone (except as noted below)

Objective: SpaceX will conduct a flight test of the Dragon-Falcon 9 Crew Vehicle without crew after completion of ISS Integration and before Crew Dragon certification. The mission configuration will closely match that of the subsequent Flight to ISS with Crew milestone, which will be the first crewed mission to the ISS. The purpose of this test flight without crew is to provide an early demonstration and risk reduction of the Dragon-Falcon 9, ground segment, and mission operations elements. We will use the data from this flight test to support Crew System certification products, providing mature deliverables informed by flight data.

The key risks mitigated by objectives of this flight test are related to the following:
[…]
• Design validation.
[…]
  o Demonstrate propulsive-assisted land landing concept of operations.
  o Demonstrate nosecone mechanism.

------------------------------------------------

And and earlier milestone is listed as follows (page 196)

Design Certification Review (DCR) Interim Payment Milestone
Propulsive Land Landing Test Complete

Amount: $■■■

Planned Start Date and Completion Date (mo/yr): September 2015

Data/Data Requirement Deliverables (DRDs) to be provided: Final Propulsive Land Landing Test Plan, test operation procedures, quick-look test report

Delivery of Data/DRDs (mo/yr): NLT 30 days prior before milestone (except as noted below)

Objective: SpaceX will conduct a propulsive landing test of Dragon under nominal hardware conditions. The vehicle will be dropped from an altitude sufficient to deploy parachutes and approach the landing burn under flight-like conditions. The intent of the test is to integrate the parachute, navigation, and propulsion systems into Dragon to demonstrate landing with command and control, as well as data acquisition. The test article will closely match the flight configuration’s mechanical properties, such as the outer mold line for aerodynamic accuracy, maximum gross mass, moment of inertia, and center of mass location. The purpose for conducting the propulsive landing test is to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the Dragon propulsive landing system on flight-like hardware—including the altimeter—and to validate dynamic models for the vehicle under main parachutes. The SuperDraco assisted propulsive landing provides a fault tolerant low impact landing although Dragon can land safely under parachutes only.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCtCap_SpaceX_508.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCtCap_SpaceX_508.pdf)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RonM on 11/07/2015 04:24 am
Propulsive-assisted land landing in the CCtCap contract shows that water landings are not a requirement. The Russians have been doing it with Soyuz for decades, so why not.

Both milestone tests are parachute with propulsive assist. That's not the same thing as a full propulsive landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 11/07/2015 06:38 am
But it will be needed for Mars, both for a Red/Blue Dragon and the MCT lander. Easier to test at the subscale v MCT. SpaceX is all about the path to Mars.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/07/2015 02:20 pm
The fact that SpaceX has multiple opportunities to test the change to 4 parachutes with no incremental testing events has just high-lighted to me the strength of the SpaceX path. The synergy between DragonFly testing, the inflight abort test, and the uncrewed Dragon test is quite amazing in allowing SpaceX to effectively and efficiently innovate and improve even at this stage.
Eh, both Boeing and SpaceX are doing uncrewed tests that will test the parachute system, and we haven't seen or heard anything about DragonFly in a while, so I don't think that's likely to be relevant in this regard.  I don't think it's a big deal that they're altering the parachute system since it will get tested, but I wouldn't point to this as some great SpaceX thing either.
We have heard of Dragonfly fairly recently. It's definitely still a thing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 11/07/2015 04:00 pm
A bit more from the NAC meeting on Dragon 2:

Quote
Reed: finished CDR for crew dragon spacecraft last week; in final review at NASA now. Went “very well.”
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/662323434379067392 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/662323434379067392)

Quote
SpaceX’s Reed: Wrapped up Crew Dragon CDR last week, currently under review by NASA. Delta CDR in December.
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/662323730111029248 (https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/662323730111029248)
Emphasis mine.
Much telling tweet. It basically confirms the earlier news that a fourth parachute will be added to crew Dragon. Since CDR is complete and a design change is coming the crew Dragon needs a delta CDR.

The Delta CDR has been planned for a while, see slide 4:

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/McAlister_Commerical_Crew_Program_Status_TAGGED.pdf
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RonM on 11/07/2015 04:04 pm
But it will be needed for Mars, both for a Red/Blue Dragon and the MCT lander. Easier to test at the subscale v MCT. SpaceX is all about the path to Mars.

Yes, full propulsive landing will be needed in the future, even on Earth. We're just not going to see it used on ISS commercial crew flights in the next couple of years. After Dragonfly testing, NASA may change their minds.

SpaceX's plan for full propulsive landing is pretty safe. The engines will be started at a high enough altitude that if something is wrong they can shut them down and deploy the parachutes. With eight engines successfully started the odds of multiple engine failure during landing is very low. While all that sounds good, NASA wants to see it repeatedly tested before risking a crew. Dragonfly testing should clear up any doubts (assuming SpaceX gets it to work).

Parachutes at the last minute won't be an option on Mars, but NASA lander designs have the same issue. Time for more clever engineering.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 11/07/2015 04:48 pm
The extra parachute may have been added simply because of the baseline weight gain. 8 SDs, more fuel, four legs and associated sub-assemblies, larger mold lines/more insulated surface area, retractable NoseCone and sub assemblies, ECLS, waste management, wiring, monitors, seats, internal pressure vessel panels, etc..

I always wondered whether the initial parachute design was going to remain.

As for Propulsive Assisted landing...it seems reasonable, as has been posted, that they will incorporate this from the outset, just initially over water as opposed to land. Minus perhaps the leg extensions for water landing.

I suspect propulsive landing is a significant attribute for their CRS-2 contract as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 11/07/2015 07:57 pm
Could the new parachute configuration be related to Red Dragon in any way?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 11/07/2015 08:09 pm
Could the new parachute configuration be related to Red Dragon in any way?

No, not at all. Red Dragon does not involve parachutes. It is directly from interplanetary entry using the heat shield to supersonic retropropulsion. Dragon is still too fast for parachutes when it needs propulsion to land.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/07/2015 10:23 pm
The extra parachute may have been added simply because of the baseline weight gain. 8 SDs, more fuel, four legs and associated sub-assemblies, larger mold lines/more insulated surface area, retractable NoseCone and sub assemblies, ECLS, waste management, wiring, monitors, seats, internal pressure vessel panels, etc..

I always wondered whether the initial parachute design was going to remain.

They already changed the parachute design from the Dragon 1 design.  That's why they did the first parachute drop test, using a used Dragon 1 reconfigured for the Dragon 2 parachute design.  That design had to have taken into account the mass from all the things you mentioned in Dragon 2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 11/09/2015 01:32 am
The extra parachute may have been added simply because of the baseline weight gain. 8 SDs, more fuel, four legs and associated sub-assemblies, larger mold lines/more insulated surface area, retractable NoseCone and sub assemblies, ECLS, waste management, wiring, monitors, seats, internal pressure vessel panels, etc..

I always wondered whether the initial parachute design was going to remain.

They already changed the parachute design from the Dragon 1 design.  That's why they did the first parachute drop test, using a used Dragon 1 reconfigured for the Dragon 2 parachute design.  That design had to have taken into account the mass from all the things you mentioned in Dragon 2.
Not really. They changed the placement of the shoots to under the door and the way in which they are deployed. Dragon 2, at this point, as they themselves have stated, has moved well beyond the overall design they tested those chutes on. Remember, they will not be using the Pad Abort vehicle either for the in-flight abort as it is no longer close enough to the latest design iteration. And we do not know the results of the Pad Abort test and subsequent SD changes that may have impacted weight as well as what else they have altered as they lock down their final designs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/09/2015 04:46 am
The extra parachute may have been added simply because of the baseline weight gain. 8 SDs, more fuel, four legs and associated sub-assemblies, larger mold lines/more insulated surface area, retractable NoseCone and sub assemblies, ECLS, waste management, wiring, monitors, seats, internal pressure vessel panels, etc..

I always wondered whether the initial parachute design was going to remain.

They already changed the parachute design from the Dragon 1 design.  That's why they did the first parachute drop test, using a used Dragon 1 reconfigured for the Dragon 2 parachute design.  That design had to have taken into account the mass from all the things you mentioned in Dragon 2.
Not really. They changed the placement of the shoots to under the door and the way in which they are deployed. Dragon 2, at this point, as they themselves have stated, has moved well beyond the overall design they tested those chutes on. Remember, they will not be using the Pad Abort vehicle either for the in-flight abort as it is no longer close enough to the latest design iteration. And we do not know the results of the Pad Abort test and subsequent SD changes that may have impacted weight as well as what else they have altered as they lock down their final designs.

Sure, there might have been more recent changes that caused them to change the chute design.

But you listed a bunch of specific changes: "8 SDs, more fuel, four legs and associated sub-assemblies, larger mold lines/more insulated surface area, retractable NoseCone and sub assemblies, ECLS, waste management, wiring, monitors, seats, internal pressure vessel panels".  I believe all of those are changes from Cargo Dragon to Dragon 2 that were already decided upon by the time of the original parachute drop test, and that is what I said.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: xpete on 11/10/2015 06:37 pm
Crew Dragon Propulsion System Completes Development Testing
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/11/10/crew-dragon-propulsion-system-completes-development-testing/

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zOzk0keqU8
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Dante80 on 11/10/2015 06:43 pm
Those things can throttle pretty fast!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mvpel on 11/10/2015 07:09 pm
I wonder if the liquid dripping from the left engine after shutdown is indicative of any sort of issue.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: drzerg on 11/10/2015 08:43 pm
what the products of    NTO + MMH reaction? i cant find this on wiki :(
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 11/10/2015 09:36 pm
I wonder if the liquid dripping from the left engine after shutdown is indicative of any sort of issue.

I must be blind, because I don't see an issue.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 11/10/2015 09:59 pm
Seemed to be much longer than the pad abort burn, I'd say around 11s versus maybe 5s?  The pad abort burn was probably a little short but probably no more than 6s or so nominally.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Craftyatom on 11/10/2015 10:49 pm
what the products of    NTO + MMH reaction? i cant find this on wiki :(

Dinitrogen Tetroxide is N2O4
Monomethyl Hydrazine is CH3(NH)NH

4CH3(NH)NH2 + 5N2O4 => 9N2 + 4CO2 + 12H2O

When in doubt regarding combustion, mix and match your reactants until you get carbon dioxide and water, and in this case leftover nitrogen.

Edit: I misspelled Hydrazine, what a scrub.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mikes on 11/10/2015 10:59 pm
There are also various residues

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/698329.pdf
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mvpel on 11/11/2015 02:13 pm
I must be blind, because I don't see an issue.

Indeed - the dripping could just be a result of the different throttle profile that the left engine ran.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: VulcanCafe on 11/11/2015 02:37 pm
I wonder if the liquid dripping from the left engine after shutdown is indicative of any sort of issue.

I wonder if the jet of fire shooting out is indicative of any sort of issue.

/snark :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/11/2015 02:41 pm
There are also various residues

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/698329.pdf

This paper describes several combustion byproducts, one of which is a liquid residue that's yellow in color (the color is difficult to see in the video / frame grab, but I think it's safe to assume what we see is this), composed of water, un-reacted MMH, and reacted MMH which has formed various nitrate salts of MMH and CH3NH2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mvpel on 11/11/2015 07:33 pm
This paper describes several combustion byproducts, one of which is a liquid residue that's yellow in color (the color is difficult to see in the video / frame grab, but I think it's safe to assume what we see is this), composed of water, un-reacted MMH, and reacted MMH which has formed various nitrate salts of MMH and CH3NH2.

The thing that caught my attention was not so much the dripping itself as the chemistry you describe illustrates, but rather that the left engine was dripping quite freely but the right engine was not dripping at all.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: jacqmans on 11/15/2015 12:34 pm
SuperDraco Test Fire Mosaic

SuperDracos will power the Crew Dragon spacecraft's revolutionary launch escape system, the first of its kind. Should an emergency occur during launch, eight SuperDraco engines built into Dragon's side walls will produce up to 120,000 pounds of axial thrust to carry astronauts to safety.
 
SpaceX has test-fired this Crew Dragon Propulsion Module 27 times, in addition to test-firing SuperDraco engines individually over 300 times, to refine the design for the demands of operational missions carrying astronauts to the International Space Station.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: gongora on 11/15/2015 01:43 pm
Parachute qualification is a separate milestone and is scheduled for 2017.

I seem to recall a shift from propulsive-assisted to water landing fairly late, maybe even after the original contract signing?  The original contracts have been amended by now, you can't really rely on them too much unless you can find the updates.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: woods170 on 11/16/2015 09:23 am
Parachute qualification is a separate milestone and is scheduled for 2017.

I seem to recall a shift from propulsive-assisted to water landing fairly late, maybe even after the original contract signing?  The original contracts have been amended by now, you can't really rely on them too much unless you can find the updates.
What happened is that NASA got the jitters about the SpaceX proposed primary landing method (propulsive landing on land). Therefore, for the early CCP mission, the backup landing method (parachute landing on water) was promoted to primary landing method.
But SpaceX is still actively working to have the later CCP missions land propulsively on terra firma.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 11/16/2015 10:10 am
What happened is that NASA got the jitters about the SpaceX proposed primary landing method (propulsive landing on land). Therefore, for the early CCP mission, the backup landing method (parachute landing on water) was promoted to primary landing method.
But SpaceX is still actively working to have the later CCP missions land propulsively on terra firma.

I am hoping for the intermediate solution very soon. Land landing under parachutes with SuperDraco firing for a soft landing. According to SpaceX landing under parachutes without SuperDraco assist is harsh but survivable without injuries. Landing with assist would be very soft. This should be as safe as the landing by Sojus is and NASA should accept it after some Dragonfly demos.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rpapo on 11/16/2015 10:27 am
I am hoping for the intermediate solution very soon. Land landing under parachutes with SuperDraco firing for a soft landing. According to SpaceX landing under parachutes without SuperDraco assist is harsh but survivable without injuries. Landing with assist would be very soft. This should be as safe as the landing by Sojus is and NASA should accept it after some Dragonfly demos.
The only real problem with parachute landing with assist is that a relatively large target area (some miles across) would be required.  Supposedly, propulsive landing alone would be much more precise, though I myself have my own reservations on that.  After all, with a propulsive landing alone, you're still pretty much at the mercy of the winds until the very last few seconds.  If the Dragon had significant body lift and control surfaces (though not needing as much as Dream Chaser has) it would be different.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 11/16/2015 12:09 pm
The only real problem with parachute landing with assist is that a relatively large target area (some miles across) would be required.  Supposedly, propulsive landing alone would be much more precise, though I myself have my own reservations on that.  After all, with a propulsive landing alone, you're still pretty much at the mercy of the winds until the very last few seconds.  If the Dragon had significant body lift and control surfaces (though not needing as much as Dream Chaser has) it would be different.

It would be the same problem as the CST-100 has and it is accepted by NASA. CST-100 does parachute land landing with airbags which has the same landing range variability.

Capsules have some lift. With pure powered landing Dragon has some ability of steering by shifting the center of gravity.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Craftyatom on 11/16/2015 02:18 pm
I am hoping for the intermediate solution very soon. Land landing under parachutes with SuperDraco firing for a soft landing. According to SpaceX landing under parachutes without SuperDraco assist is harsh but survivable without injuries. Landing with assist would be very soft.

I felt as though this wording needs some clarification: Landing under parachutes without SuperDraco assist on land is harsh but survivable without injuries.  In water, it's perfectly acceptable, so it's not like the first few Dv2 astronauts are getting a rough deal, they're just going to be floating around waiting for recovery teams rather than sitting there waiting for recovery teams.

This much is obvious when I go back and re-read your post, but the first time through there was enough ambiguity that some extra text was needed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Brovane on 11/16/2015 03:04 pm
I am hoping for the intermediate solution very soon. Land landing under parachutes with SuperDraco firing for a soft landing. According to SpaceX landing under parachutes without SuperDraco assist is harsh but survivable without injuries. Landing with assist would be very soft. This should be as safe as the landing by Sojus is and NASA should accept it after some Dragonfly demos.
The only real problem with parachute landing with assist is that a relatively large target area (some miles across) would be required.  Supposedly, propulsive landing alone would be much more precise, though I myself have my own reservations on that.  After all, with a propulsive landing alone, you're still pretty much at the mercy of the winds until the very last few seconds.  If the Dragon had significant body lift and control surfaces (though not needing as much as Dream Chaser has) it would be different.

How is a large target area of several miles a problem?  It isn't like the US is short on land. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rpapo on 11/16/2015 03:07 pm
How is a large target area of several miles a problem?  It isn't like the US is short on land.
Only because, as I understand it, Musk wants the thing to land on a helicopter pad somewhere close to one of his plants.

For present purposes, though, landing it at Edward's AFB will work just fine, if all you're after for the time being is not getting a salt-water bath.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 11/16/2015 03:12 pm
For present purposes, though, landing it at Edward's AFB will work just fine, though, if all you're after for the time being is not getting a salt-water bath.

Yes, that is the big and costwise important point. Also I understand CST-100 is rated operationally superior because of land landing. So SpaceX will want to be at least equal in that point as soon as possible. Power assisted parachute landing will do both.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/16/2015 03:42 pm
The only real problem with parachute landing with assist is that a relatively large target area (some miles across) would be required.  Supposedly, propulsive landing alone would be much more precise, though I myself have my own reservations on that.  After all, with a propulsive landing alone, you're still pretty much at the mercy of the winds until the very last few seconds.  If the Dragon had significant body lift and control surfaces (though not needing as much as Dream Chaser has) it would be different.

It would be the same problem as the CST-100 has and it is accepted by NASA. CST-100 does parachute land landing with airbags which has the same landing range variability.

Capsules have some lift. With pure powered landing Dragon has some ability of steering by shifting the center of gravity.

They could be a bit more precise if they used a parasail.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: eriblo on 11/16/2015 05:06 pm
The only real problem with parachute landing with assist is that a relatively large target area (some miles across) would be required.  Supposedly, propulsive landing alone would be much more precise, though I myself have my own reservations on that.  After all, with a propulsive landing alone, you're still pretty much at the mercy of the winds until the very last few seconds.  If the Dragon had significant body lift and control surfaces (though not needing as much as Dream Chaser has) it would be different.

It would be the same problem as the CST-100 has and it is accepted by NASA. CST-100 does parachute land landing with airbags which has the same landing range variability.

Capsules have some lift. With pure powered landing Dragon has some ability of steering by shifting the center of gravity.

They could be a bit more precise if they used a parasail.
They are always going to need a sufficiently large target area as the parachutes will serve as backup. Powered landings just mean that you can land on a specific point inside (or close to, depending on divert capability)...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DecoLV on 11/16/2015 05:22 pm
Re: parasail

Has any research been done into controlling multiple parasails with actuators ➕ GPS & landing radar? If possible, I imagine the LZ footprint could be reduced, before propulsive use.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Brovane on 11/16/2015 05:25 pm
How is a large target area of several miles a problem?  It isn't like the US is short on land.
Only because, as I understand it, Musk wants the thing to land on a helicopter pad somewhere close to one of his plants.

For present purposes, though, landing it at Edward's AFB will work just fine, if all you're after for the time being is not getting a salt-water bath.

A helicopter sized pad isn't going to happen because the parachutes are backup.  They will always need a large space for landing, even if just to act as a buffer.  If it was up to Musk he would love to have the Dragon coming into land at Hawthorne airport with AC/DC playing.  Landing it on land and then lifting it up on a truck and transporting back to the factory doesn't add the same cost as dispatching a ship and the Dragon taking a saltwater bath. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/16/2015 06:23 pm
Also, don't the commercial crew contracts state that both Dragon and CST-100 will land in water for the first several manned flights?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 11/16/2015 06:41 pm
Parachute qualification is a separate milestone and is scheduled for 2017.

I seem to recall a shift from propulsive-assisted to water landing fairly late, maybe even after the original contract signing?  The original contracts have been amended by now, you can't really rely on them too much unless you can find the updates.
What happened is that NASA got the jitters about the SpaceX proposed primary landing method (propulsive landing on land). Therefore, for the early CCP mission, the backup landing method (parachute landing on water) was promoted to primary landing method.
But SpaceX is still actively working to have the later CCP missions land propulsively on terra firma.

I think that it has more to do with the time to get propulsive landing certified which will take more time and testing than parachute water landings.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: arachnitect on 11/16/2015 06:48 pm
Also, don't the commercial crew contracts state that both Dragon and CST-100 will land in water for the first several manned flights?

As recently as September, Boeing said they were going to the desert.

Quote
Boeing wants to narrow down the roster of landing sites for the CST-100 Starliner’s first two test flights in 2017.

“We’re focusing on White Sands and Dugway as our target sites for those flights,” Ferguson said. He declined to rank which location would be the prime landing site, saying that decision could be made much closer to the mission.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/22/boeing-identifies-cst-100-prime-landing-sites/

It's possible they've changed, but I haven't seen anything to that effect.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 11/16/2015 08:22 pm
...
Capsules have some lift. With pure powered landing Dragon has some ability of steering by shifting the center of gravity.

They could be a bit more precise if they used a parasail.
My bet is that propulsive landing will come online before such a system could be developed and proven so I don't think it's worth the effort.

The added complexity of a parasail adds risk for use as a backup to propulsive landings.  Simple parachutes on capsules are really well understood.  Parasails have additional failure modes and would require a lot of development and probably will be as difficult to qualify as propulsive landing and parasails don't advance SpaceX's goals.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 11/16/2015 08:39 pm

Also, don't the commercial crew contracts state that both Dragon and CST-100 will land in water for the first several manned flights?

As recently as September, Boeing said they were going to the desert.

Quote
Boeing wants to narrow down the roster of landing sites for the CST-100 Starliner’s first two test flights in 2017.

“We’re focusing on White Sands and Dugway as our target sites for those flights,” Ferguson said. He declined to rank which location would be the prime landing site, saying that decision could be made much closer to the mission.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/22/boeing-identifies-cst-100-prime-landing-sites/

It's possible they've changed, but I haven't seen anything to that effect.

I've always wondered how they plan on solving the service module disposal issue when landing that far inland. It might be a concern for Dragon's trunk as well, but the CST-100 service module is far denser (with sturdy tanks) and has a much higher chance of causing impact damage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/16/2015 09:00 pm

Also, don't the commercial crew contracts state that both Dragon and CST-100 will land in water for the first several manned flights?

As recently as September, Boeing said they were going to the desert.

Quote
Boeing wants to narrow down the roster of landing sites for the CST-100 Starliner’s first two test flights in 2017.

“We’re focusing on White Sands and Dugway as our target sites for those flights,” Ferguson said. He declined to rank which location would be the prime landing site, saying that decision could be made much closer to the mission.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/22/boeing-identifies-cst-100-prime-landing-sites/

It's possible they've changed, but I haven't seen anything to that effect.

I've always wondered how they plan on solving the service module disposal issue when landing that far inland. It might be a concern for Dragon's trunk as well, but the CST-100 service module is far denser (with sturdy tanks) and has a much higher chance of causing impact damage.

I take it you're talking about after an emergency pad abort?  They release the servoce module prior to reentry so it burns up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 11/16/2015 09:15 pm
I've always wondered how they plan on solving the service module disposal issue when landing that far inland. It might be a concern for Dragon's trunk as well, but the CST-100 service module is far denser (with sturdy tanks) and has a much higher chance of causing impact damage.
I take it you're talking about after an emergency pad abort?  They release the servoce module prior to reentry so it burns up.
Pretty sure he's talking about re-entering from orbit.  The service module has the thrusters so it's going to come down pretty close to where the capsule comes down, unless the capsule has some thrusting capability, or control authority it can exercise on re-entry, itself.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Dante80 on 11/16/2015 09:43 pm
A theoretical question.

For an interim approach, and given the fact that Dragon 2 carries the engines to orbit and back, is it feasible to make a smooth land landing with parachutes and the engines? Smooth, as in not what Soyuz does (insane sub second deceleration), but using the engines for the last ten seconds or so to have Dragon hover just above the ground, and land smoothly on its legs.

That way you still use the parachutes until you perfect powered landing (what NASA wants), and come down smoothly without a salt bath. Also, extreme accuracy is not needed (since you can land in a large area, like a desert), but I think that you do need somewhat level and firm ground (Boeing uses airbags for landing, SX would have to go on legs, or bare shield).

Doe something like this make sense for an interim approach (with the desired end state being full propulsive pin-point landing on a pad, with parachute landing on the shore as backup), or is it still too risky for NASA?

Also, another question. Given the fact Dragon 2 has 8 SDs, that can be throttled deeply, will Dragon 2 have the opportunity to do more than the hoverslam F9 first stage does? I mean, can the capsule TWR go below 1 and above it?
 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 11/16/2015 09:51 pm
A theoretical question.

For an interim approach, and given the fact that Dragon 2 carries the engines to orbit and back, is it feasible to make a smooth land landing with parachutes and the engines? Smooth, as in not what Soyuz does (insane sub second deceleration), but using the engines for the last ten seconds or so to have Dragon hover just above the ground, and land smoothly on its legs.

Yes, that's the plan as an intermediate solution. But 10 seconds is way too long, maybe 1 second or less for a soft landing. The Soyuz burst I am sure is much shorter than that. 10 seconds could be a fully propulsive landing. If you fire that early the parachutes will collapse and if the burn is not successful the hit will be much harder than with parachutes only.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 11/16/2015 09:54 pm
I've always wondered how they plan on solving the service module disposal issue when landing that far inland. It might be a concern for Dragon's trunk as well, but the CST-100 service module is far denser (with sturdy tanks) and has a much higher chance of causing impact damage.
I take it you're talking about after an emergency pad abort?  They release the servoce module prior to reentry so it burns up.
Pretty sure he's talking about re-entering from orbit.  The service module has the thrusters so it's going to come down pretty close to where the capsule comes down, unless the capsule has some thrusting capability, or control authority it can exercise on re-entry, itself.

Exactly. For CST-100 the service module does the de-orbit burn, and could therefor impact not far from the landing zone.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Dante80 on 11/16/2015 09:58 pm

Exactly. For CST-100 the service module does the de-orbit burn, and could therefor impact not far from the landing zone.

Two things could alleviate that.

1. (and most probable) Starliner finishes the de-orbit burn using the capsules RCS thrusters.
2. The SM burns a little after separation for a second time.

A minute change in dv can result in a big difference on the capsule/SM landing trajectories I think.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Comga on 11/16/2015 11:43 pm
I've always wondered how they plan on solving the service module disposal issue when landing that far inland. It might be a concern for Dragon's trunk as well, but the CST-100 service module is far denser (with sturdy tanks) and has a much higher chance of causing impact damage.
I take it you're talking about after an emergency pad abort?  They release the servoce module prior to reentry so it burns up.
Pretty sure he's talking about re-entering from orbit.  The service module has the thrusters so it's going to come down pretty close to where the capsule comes down, unless the capsule has some thrusting capability, or control authority it can exercise on re-entry, itself.

Exactly. For CST-100 the service module does the de-orbit burn, and could therefor impact not far from the landing zone.

Capsules generate lift, and so "carry themselves" downrange.
Think of how much harder the Soyuz capsules decelerate when doing an anomalous "ballistic reentry" than the nominal reentry.  That means they hold more velocity for longer, traveling farther, and every minute at fractions of orbital velocities covers appreciable distances.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: joek on 11/17/2015 04:09 am
Also, don't the commercial crew contracts state that both Dragon and CST-100 will land in water for the first several manned flights?

CCtCap does not specify.  What is in each of the actual contracts is provider-specific and not public.  All we have to go on are statements from Boeing and SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DaveH62 on 11/18/2015 05:22 am
Any chance SpaceX would use an unmanned drone barge to test landing the Dragon 2? Seems like the barges could be used for propulsive landing of Dragon more easily than Falcon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/18/2015 05:40 am
Any chance SpaceX would use an unmanned drone barge to test landing the Dragon 2? Seems like the barges could be used for propulsive landing of Dragon more easily than Falcon.

My guess would be no.  With the stages they don't have much choice for where they can come down, but the Dragon does have a lot of choices.

I don't recall if I've heard anything specifically about their plans, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did some test landings in the California desert.  However they have been pretty good at guiding the Dragon Cargo vehicles to pinpoint landings in the ocean, so who knows - maybe they will try landing at their landing pads at KSC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 11/18/2015 06:34 pm
I would imagine they would try for the Vandenberg pads before the KSC pads.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Kansan52 on 11/19/2015 10:57 pm
My understanding that you separate from the trunk or SM and they burn up. Probably they are set to reenter to an ocean point just in case.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jcc on 11/20/2015 12:43 am
My understanding that you separate from the trunk or SM and they burn up. Probably they are set to reenter to an ocean point just in case.

No TPS on the trunk or SM, they are not going to last long during reentry.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/20/2015 02:50 am
My understanding that you separate from the trunk or SM and they burn up. Probably they are set to reenter to an ocean point just in case.

No TPS on the trunk or SM, they are not going to last long during reentry.

Well -- yeah, not intact.  But some pieces, especially tankage, can survive entry and hit the ground.  Otherwise, there would not be COPV's being found with intact plumbing connections in fields in Spain... ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: woods170 on 11/20/2015 08:29 am
My understanding that you separate from the trunk or SM and they burn up. Probably they are set to reenter to an ocean point just in case.

No TPS on the trunk or SM, they are not going to last long during reentry.

Well -- yeah, not intact.  But some pieces, especially tankage, can survive entry and hit the ground.  Otherwise, there would not be COPV's being found with intact plumbing connections in fields in Spain... ;)
Standard Dragon trunk (current model) has few components that can actually make it to the ground. The cargo 'spider' in the back and the solar array rotary joints come to mind as they are sturdy, high density components. The rest is fairly lightweight construction that will burn up very quickly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 11/20/2015 12:51 pm
My understanding that you separate from the trunk or SM and they burn up. Probably they are set to reenter to an ocean point just in case.

No TPS on the trunk or SM, they are not going to last long during reentry.

Well -- yeah, not intact.  But some pieces, especially tankage, can survive entry and hit the ground.  Otherwise, there would not be COPV's being found with intact plumbing connections in fields in Spain... ;)
Standard Dragon trunk (current model) has few components that can actually make it to the ground. The cargo 'spider' in the back and the solar array rotary joints come to mind as they are sturdy, high density components. The rest is fairly lightweight construction that will burn up very quickly.

That raises the question about the Crew Dragon's trunk contents. Seems reasonable that the Crew Dragon's trunk would contain consumable tanks needed for the ECLSS or perhaps RCS for even a "simple" ISS flight. I don't presume they'd work in the 6-hour rendezvous trick that Soyuz can do when the "wind is right," so they'd have to have a reasonably fair load for 2-4 days plus reserves as they make their way to the station, and spend time from departure to re-entry.

I haven't seen any information on this configuration and can't find any in searches. Anybody smarter than me on this one?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: woods170 on 11/20/2015 02:17 pm
My understanding that you separate from the trunk or SM and they burn up. Probably they are set to reenter to an ocean point just in case.

No TPS on the trunk or SM, they are not going to last long during reentry.

Well -- yeah, not intact.  But some pieces, especially tankage, can survive entry and hit the ground.  Otherwise, there would not be COPV's being found with intact plumbing connections in fields in Spain... ;)
Standard Dragon trunk (current model) has few components that can actually make it to the ground. The cargo 'spider' in the back and the solar array rotary joints come to mind as they are sturdy, high density components. The rest is fairly lightweight construction that will burn up very quickly.

That raises the question about the Crew Dragon's trunk contents. Seems reasonable that the Crew Dragon's trunk would contain consumable tanks needed for the ECLSS or perhaps RCS for even a "simple" ISS flight. I don't presume they'd work in the 6-hour rendezvous trick that Soyuz can do when the "wind is right," so they'd have to have a reasonably fair load for 2-4 days plus reserves as they make their way to the station, and spend time from departure to re-entry.

I haven't seen any information on this configuration and can't find any in searches. Anybody smarter than me on this one?
Consumable tanks for ECLSS in Crew Dragon are on the capsule itself, not in the trunk. The trunk is there for unpressurized cargo, it holds the solar arrays and contains the radiators. That's it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 11/20/2015 04:19 pm
My understanding that you separate from the trunk or SM and they burn up. Probably they are set to reenter to an ocean point just in case.

No TPS on the trunk or SM, they are not going to last long during reentry.

Well -- yeah, not intact.  But some pieces, especially tankage, can survive entry and hit the ground.  Otherwise, there would not be COPV's being found with intact plumbing connections in fields in Spain... ;)
Standard Dragon trunk (current model) has few components that can actually make it to the ground. The cargo 'spider' in the back and the solar array rotary joints come to mind as they are sturdy, high density components. The rest is fairly lightweight construction that will burn up very quickly.

That raises the question about the Crew Dragon's trunk contents. Seems reasonable that the Crew Dragon's trunk would contain consumable tanks needed for the ECLSS or perhaps RCS for even a "simple" ISS flight. I don't presume they'd work in the 6-hour rendezvous trick that Soyuz can do when the "wind is right," so they'd have to have a reasonably fair load for 2-4 days plus reserves as they make their way to the station, and spend time from departure to re-entry.

I haven't seen any information on this configuration and can't find any in searches. Anybody smarter than me on this one?
Consumable tanks for ECLSS in Crew Dragon are on the capsule itself, not in the trunk. The trunk is there for unpressurized cargo, it holds the solar arrays and contains the radiators. That's it.

So C-D's trunk will be identical to Cargo Dragon's current function (though not the structural specifics) at present. Thanks for that info; I'll take your word for it until the Hayne's guide comes out. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 11/20/2015 08:39 pm
NASA Orders SpaceX Crew Mission to International Space Station
NASA took a significant step Friday toward expanding research opportunities aboard the International Space Station with its first mission order from Hawthorne, California based-company SpaceX to launch astronauts from U.S. soil.

This is the second in a series of four guaranteed orders NASA will make under the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts. The Boeing Company of Houston received its first crew mission order in May.

"It’s really exciting to see SpaceX and Boeing with hardware in flow for their first crew rotation missions," said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. "It is important to have at least two healthy and robust capabilities from U.S. companies to deliver crew and critical scientific experiments from American soil to the space station throughout its lifespan."

Determination of which company will fly its mission to the station first will be made at a later time. The contracts call for orders to take place prior to certification to support the lead time necessary for missions in late 2017, provided the contractors meet readiness conditions.

Commercial crew missions to the space station, on the Boeing CST-100 Starliner and SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft, will restore America’s human spaceflight capabilities and increase the amount of time dedicated to scientific research aboard the orbiting laboratory.

SpaceX’s crew transportation system, including the Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket, has advanced through several development and certification phases. The company recently performed a critical design review, which demonstrated the transportation system has reached a sufficient level of design maturity to work toward fabrication, assembly, integration and test activities.

"The authority to proceed with Dragon's first operational crew mission is a significant milestone in the Commercial Crew Program and a great source of pride for the entire SpaceX team," said Gwynne Shotwell, president and chief operating office of SpaceX. “When Crew Dragon takes NASA astronauts to the space station in 2017, they will be riding in one of the safest, most reliable spacecraft ever flown. We're honored to be developing this capability for NASA and our country.”

Commercial crew launches will reduce the cost, per seat, of transporting NASA astronauts to the space station compared to what the agency must pay the Russian Federal Space Agency for the same service. If, however, NASA does not receive the full requested funding for CCtCap contracts in fiscal year 2016 and beyond, the agency will be forced to delay future milestones for both U.S. companies and continue its sole reliance on Russia to transport American astronauts to the space station.

Orders under the CCtCap contracts are made two to three years prior to actual mission dates in order to provide time for each company to manufacture and assemble the launch vehicle and spacecraft. Each company also must successfully complete a certification process before NASA will give the final approval for flight. Each contract includes a minimum of two and a maximum potential of six missions.

A standard commercial crew mission to the station will carry up to four NASA or NASA-sponsored crew members and about 220 pounds of pressurized cargo. The spacecraft will remain at the station for up to 210 days, available as an emergency lifeboat during that time.

“Commercial crew launches are really important for helping us meet the demand for research on the space station because it allows us to increase the crew to seven,” said Julie Robinson, International Space Station chief scientist. “Over the long term, it also sets the foundation for scientific access to future commercial research platforms in low- Earth orbit.”

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program manages the CCtCap contracts and is working with each company to ensure commercial transportation system designs and post-certification missions will meet the agency’s safety requirements. Activities that follow the award of missions include a series of mission-related reviews and approvals leading to launch. The program also will be involved in all operational phases of missions to ensure crew safety.

For the latest on Commercial Crew progress, bookmark the program’s blog at:

http://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 11/20/2015 09:35 pm
Nice.

 I wonder why they dropped "Dragon Rider".  It sounds so much better than "SpaceX Crew Dragon".
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 11/20/2015 11:30 pm
The press release:

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-orders-spacex-crew-mission-to-international-space-station
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 11/21/2015 12:16 am
Nice.

 I wonder why they dropped "Dragon Rider".  It sounds so much better than "SpaceX Crew Dragon".

While the name rolls off the tongue nicely, attorneys with the estate of Anne McCaffrey, of the "Dragonriders of Pern" series, and even perhaps DreamWorks SDK, who made the animated CG film "How to Train Your Dragon" might have something to say about it. NASA, being a government body, probably suggested against the use of the name.

Bet ya that, internally, most SpaceX people still like the name. I know I do. At least we still have the "DragonFly" project.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 11/21/2015 12:27 am
Minority opinion - I never liked the name.   The crew would be Dragon Riders.  They should get Dragon Rider wings.
But the vehicle is Crew Dragon, seems right to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 11/21/2015 05:07 am
Nice.

 I wonder why they dropped "Dragon Rider".  It sounds so much better than "SpaceX Crew Dragon".

There was some confusion about this. But Dragon rider refers to the crewed Dragon program, not the capsule itself.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Req on 11/24/2015 05:39 am
Random musing:  If the Red Dragon is Mars, then which bodies would the other colors be?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: NovaSilisko on 11/24/2015 06:11 am
Random musing:  If the Red Dragon is Mars, then which bodies would the other colors be?

Europa: Frost Dragon
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meekGee on 11/24/2015 10:20 pm
Random musing:  If the Red Dragon is Mars, then which bodies would the other colors be?

Europa: Frost Dragon

EuroDragon?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: CraigLieb on 11/25/2015 02:27 pm
Random musing:  If the Red Dragon is Mars, then which bodies would the other colors be?

Europa: Frost Dragon

EuroDragon?

Ropa Dragon?    ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: baldusi on 11/25/2015 05:07 pm
For the record, Blue Dragon was a mission to equip a Dragon with a drill and take samples of the polar ice caps. They expected to find water ice sample.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Vultur on 11/26/2015 02:23 am
Random musing:  If the Red Dragon is Mars, then which bodies would the other colors be?


Orange = Titan
Yellow = Venus
Green = Earth or Uranus
Blue = Earth or Neptune
White = Europa, Enceladus, or other ice moons
Gray = Moon or asteroids
Black and White = Iapetus  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bunker9603 on 11/26/2015 08:37 pm
I saw this video on Youtube earlier today and thought some of you may enjoy it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmfxqSseakM

Nothing that hasn't been seen before, but a nice compilation video showing Dragon and Starliner.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 11/28/2015 03:45 pm
Update by Garrett Reisman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLITpaHwqUk
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 11/28/2015 05:12 pm
Not much news but here is a recent NAC presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/7-SpaceX_Commercial_Crew.pdf
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 01/08/2016 05:42 pm
I don't think that this is news but SpaceX confirmed that the crewed demo flight of Dragon2 would be two NASA astronauts:

Quote from: NAC November 2015 meeting minutes
Demo-2 will have two NASA crew on board. In response to a question from Dr. Condon, Mr. Reed stated that the projected date for Demo-2 is March 2017.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/HEOC_Minutes_November_4-5_2015_final_121815.pdf

See also the slides related to this presentation:

Not much news but here is a recent NAC presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/7-SpaceX_Commercial_Crew.pdf
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: LaunchedIn68 on 01/08/2016 11:54 pm
What are they talking about for the un-crewed Demo 1?  Fall 2016?  And then I imagine they'll need the MaxQ abort test flight done before as well?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Zannanza on 01/09/2016 01:26 am
I just wonder why they don't use curved OLED screen for displaying flight info (which is super thin and consumes less power than LCD screens). In space power, weight and size matters more than anywhere on Earth.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/09/2016 01:55 am
I just wonder why they don't use curved OLED screen for displaying flight info (which is super thin and consumes less power than LCD screens). In space power, weight and size matters more than anywhere on Earth.

Because reliability and power consumption matter more in space too. ;)

Less-snarkily, spaceflight is very unforgiving. Mission-critical human interface and control systems don't require the absolute latest cutting edge gee-whiz tech to get the job done in an economical and cost-effective manner.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: nadreck on 01/09/2016 05:29 am
What are they talking about for the un-crewed Demo 1?  Fall 2016?  And then I imagine they'll need the MaxQ abort test flight done before as well?

No the unmanned test flight does not require that the inflight abort has flown yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Craftyatom on 01/09/2016 06:33 am
What are they talking about for the un-crewed Demo 1?  Fall 2016?  And then I imagine they'll need the MaxQ abort test flight done before as well?

No the unmanned test flight does not require that the inflight abort has flown yet.

Which feels a bit strange (I know I'd feel safer going up in something that had been in-flight abort tested), but then, note that we're quietly waiting for an Orion in-flight abort test that's supposed to happen in 2018/19, and that the CST-100 won't be performing any physical abort tests at all.  Not a huge deal, just pointing out that the test isn't as critical as it might seem, due to extremely accurate modeling software and mature design philosophies.

... inb4 that's also why STS-1 had people on it.

EDIT: Whoops!  Mis-read, thought it read manned test flight.  My bad, sorry for being all whingy.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: arachnitect on 01/09/2016 06:51 am
What are they talking about for the un-crewed Demo 1?  Fall 2016?  And then I imagine they'll need the MaxQ abort test flight done before as well?

No the unmanned test flight does not require that the inflight abort has flown yet.

Which feels a bit strange (I know I'd feel safer going up in something that had been in-flight abort tested), but then, note that we're quietly waiting for an Orion in-flight abort test that's supposed to happen in 2018/19, and that the CST-100 won't be performing any physical abort tests at all.  Not a huge deal, just pointing out that the test isn't as critical as it might seem, due to extremely accurate modeling software and mature design philosophies.

... inb4 that's also why STS-1 had people on it.

CST-100 will do pad abort but not inflight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Hauerg on 01/09/2016 07:02 am
What are they talking about for the un-crewed Demo 1?  Fall 2016?  And then I imagine they'll need the MaxQ abort test flight done before as well?

No the unmanned test flight does not require that the inflight abort has flown yet.

Which feels a bit strange (I know I'd feel safer going up in something that had been in-flight abort tested), but then, note that we're quietly waiting for an Orion in-flight abort test that's supposed to happen in 2018/19, and that the CST-100 won't be performing any physical abort tests at all.  Not a huge deal, just pointing out that the test isn't as critical as it might seem, due to extremely accurate modeling software and mature design philosophies.

... inb4 that's also why STS-1 had people on it.

It is NOT strange: The UNmanned flight does not need the inflight abort test, in fact, the Dragon 2 used in the UNmanned testflight will be reused for the inflight abort test. IIRC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 01/09/2016 03:09 pm
I just wonder why they don't use curved OLED screen for displaying flight info (which is super thin and consumes less power than LCD screens). In space power, weight and size matters more than anywhere on Earth.

Because reliability and power consumption matter more in space too. ;)

Less-snarkily, spaceflight is very unforgiving. Mission-critical human interface and control systems don't require the absolute latest cutting edge gee-whiz tech to get the job done in an economical and cost-effective manner.

OLED is very thin, which means it requires more support than an LCD screen - you don't want it collapsing under g-forces or moving away from the astronaut's finger - which you have to factor into the mass requirement. Size is determined by ergonomic and functional considerations, so the same for both. You do have a point about lower power consumption though, which would presumably translate into lighter batteries (or more endurance). But how much of a benefit is that in practice? Still, a potential future upgrade.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Craftyatom on 01/09/2016 08:19 pm
What are they talking about for the un-crewed Demo 1?  Fall 2016?  And then I imagine they'll need the MaxQ abort test flight done before as well?

No the unmanned test flight does not require that the inflight abort has flown yet.

Which feels a bit strange (I know I'd feel safer going up in something that had been in-flight abort tested), but then, note that we're quietly waiting for an Orion in-flight abort test that's supposed to happen in 2018/19, and that the CST-100 won't be performing any physical abort tests at all.  Not a huge deal, just pointing out that the test isn't as critical as it might seem, due to extremely accurate modeling software and mature design philosophies.

... inb4 that's also why STS-1 had people on it.

CST-100 will do pad abort but not inflight.

First off, sorry, my original post was misinformed and is, in retrospect, poor quality.  However, can you provide details on the CST-100 pad abort?  I don't doubt that it's going to happen, but I've looked on google and the CST-100 forum section and can't see anything obvious.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: arachnitect on 01/09/2016 09:20 pm
What are they talking about for the un-crewed Demo 1?  Fall 2016?  And then I imagine they'll need the MaxQ abort test flight done before as well?

No the unmanned test flight does not require that the inflight abort has flown yet.

Which feels a bit strange (I know I'd feel safer going up in something that had been in-flight abort tested), but then, note that we're quietly waiting for an Orion in-flight abort test that's supposed to happen in 2018/19, and that the CST-100 won't be performing any physical abort tests at all.  Not a huge deal, just pointing out that the test isn't as critical as it might seem, due to extremely accurate modeling software and mature design philosophies.

... inb4 that's also why STS-1 had people on it.

CST-100 will do pad abort but not inflight.

First off, sorry, my original post was misinformed and is, in retrospect, poor quality.  However, can you provide details on the CST-100 pad abort?  I don't doubt that it's going to happen, but I've looked on google and the CST-100 forum section and can't see anything obvious.

Plan is to do pad abort at White Sands. Probably 3rd quarter of 2017.

I think the latest plan is to use the Qualification Test Vehicle for pad abort, but not sure. The earlier plan was to use the Structural Test Article.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Ohsin on 01/10/2016 10:03 pm
Is this a mock-up or something? Found on Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/p/BAOteDVCIHS/

Tried some Google fu for context but it only got weird  :-X
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 01/10/2016 10:10 pm
V2 structural test article?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 01/10/2016 10:12 pm
V2 structural test article?

That's what I would assume too.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dorkmo on 01/11/2016 05:16 am
but what would the insulated hose be for?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: corrodedNut on 01/11/2016 11:49 am
Could be a simulator
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: BrianNH on 01/11/2016 12:18 pm
The building looks very empty and there are cars parked in it.  Could this be an old photo of the first Dragon (which had a window) or a test article for it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Comga on 01/11/2016 12:44 pm
The building looks very empty and there are cars parked in it.  Could this be an old photo of the first Dragon (which had a window) or a test article for it?
I believe the tall oval window differentiates it as a V2 pressure shell.
The original window was smaller and round.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: 411rocket on 01/11/2016 12:52 pm
but what would the insulated hose be for?


I saw 2 hoses & I'm thinking a remotely connected Life Support System, that is under development. It can make sense, to work the system out first, before mounting it inside.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Roy_H on 01/11/2016 02:11 pm
Definitely a V2 design, early mock-up? I don't see the ribbing that usually covers all outside, unless this is underneath cover plates, but then there is the less dense ribs vertically so not the outer shell obviously.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Craig_VG on 01/11/2016 04:02 pm
The building looks very empty and there are cars parked in it.  Could this be an old photo of the first Dragon (which had a window) or a test article for it?

Doubtful it's an old photo because of the Model S in the photo. But that doesn't rule out a photo of an old test article. But it doesn't look like it's in storage.

We do know SpaceX has expanded to many of the smaller buildings in the area, so this could be one of those.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 01/12/2016 06:31 pm
Quote from: @TheLurioReport link=https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/686656503214911489?lang=en
Some in DC saying very likely that the winners of the second set of ISS cargo supply contracts to be announced Thursday (CRS-2).

Whether this is true or not, do we know what configuration SpaceX has bid for the CRS2 contract?

My understanding was that since they relocated the parachute to the top there was no room for a CBM on Dragon 2 (or crew dragon or just dragon 2016 if they want to use the vague apple method).

Docking uses a smaller tunnel which would limit cargo size, but that may not be a problem since progress works that way. Docking could also be a major disadvantage once crew rotations start since they could not have cargo and crew at the same time. They only have one port at first because of CRS-7 and later I understand they wanted to save the second one for redundancy, but perhaps they are okay with using both simultaneously.

Anyway, if there is any other information about what they bid for CRS2 I'm curious about it. Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 01/12/2016 06:36 pm
They have been pretty quiet about their bid. I believe that Musk said that they would continue using Dragon1 for cargo. He said that they might use Dragon2 for cargo down the road. But that sounded to be years away.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 01/12/2016 06:50 pm
They have been pretty quiet about their bid. I believe that Musk said that they would continue using Dragon1 for cargo. He said that they might use Dragon2 for cargo down the road. But that sounded to be years away.

I can't find that quote but I remember it and I thought it was a couple of years ago, befor CRS2 was being discussed (publicly anyway). CRS2 is still years away as well, so it would be a logical time to switch if they were going to. They could even wrap in higher costs of operating a Dragon 2 if it is indeed more expensive since they are certainly the low bidder anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AnimatorRob on 01/12/2016 07:02 pm
Here's a thought. The next revision of cargo Dragon could rely on powered landing without backup parachutes, thus freeing space to use the CBM.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 01/12/2016 07:04 pm
Someone (baldusi?) on this site proposed a pressurized disposable container in the V2 trunk (or something along those lines) that could be used on cargo flights of Dragon V2, that could be part of a hypothetical CRS2 Dragon V2 bid.  Trunk could be empty on a flight (to allow for large unpressurized upmass) or include the container (to allow for large pressurized upmass and pressurized disposal).  Seemed like an interesting idea.  We might know more in just a few days, hopefully...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Dante80 on 01/12/2016 07:12 pm
Here's a thought. The next revision of cargo Dragon could rely on powered landing without backup parachutes, thus freeing space to use the CBM.

You should really talk to NASA about that. XD
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rpapo on 01/12/2016 07:58 pm
Here's a thought. The next revision of cargo Dragon could rely on powered landing without backup parachutes, thus freeing space to use the CBM.
No matter what, it has to have parachutes available.  Absolutely for the launch abort, which won't have extra fuel for a landing.  And since they are there anyway, they serve as a backup method for landing if it turns out the Super Dracos won't start properly (testing it well up in the air still).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/12/2016 09:06 pm
Here's a thought. The next revision of cargo Dragon could rely on powered landing without backup parachutes, thus freeing space to use the CBM.
No matter what, it has to have parachutes available.  Absolutely for the launch abort, which won't have extra fuel for a landing.  And since they are there anyway, they serve as a backup method for landing if it turns out the Super Dracos won't start properly (testing it well up in the air still).
Don't need launch abort for cargo.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dkovacic on 01/12/2016 09:10 pm
Here's a thought. The next revision of cargo Dragon could rely on powered landing without backup parachutes, thus freeing space to use the CBM.
No matter what, it has to have parachutes available.  Absolutely for the launch abort, which won't have extra fuel for a landing.  And since they are there anyway, they serve as a backup method for landing if it turns out the Super Dracos won't start properly (testing it well up in the air still).
I agree with AnimatorRob and that seems like a SpaceX way of doing things. For cargo launch, parachute recovery is of lesser importance because it is really only a backup. Also for launch abort, they dont have to spent all the fuel during the abort, taking a little more risk.

Having Dragon V2 cargo with CBM and propulsive landing would be a very good way to test it during CRS2 missions before applying the same concept to astronaut missions. First test precision propulsive landing to ocean. Then switch to barge. I heard they have a few around with nice SpaceX logo on it. Then switch to land. Uh, I think I read on this site they have that too...

In essence, they used similar approach for testing stage 1 landing. In this case NASA would also take a part of the risk. But they also took it accepting two major upgrades of Falcon 9 and adding S1 landing legs, cold thrusters, grid fins during existing contract. All that in the span of three years and three months.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RanulfC on 01/12/2016 09:11 pm
Here's a thought. The next revision of cargo Dragon could rely on powered landing without backup parachutes, thus freeing space to use the CBM.
No matter what, it has to have parachutes available.  Absolutely for the launch abort, which won't have extra fuel for a landing.  And since they are there anyway, they serve as a backup method for landing if it turns out the Super Dracos won't start properly (testing it well up in the air still).
Don't need launch abort for cargo.

"Technically" no, but if you already have the capability installed (we're talking Dragon V2 here) then it would make no sense not to use it and very little to design and build a new "cargo-only" vehicle if you don't have to.

Randy
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 01/12/2016 09:47 pm
"Technically" no, but if you already have the capability installed (we're talking Dragon V2 here) then it would make no sense not to use it and very little to design and build a new "cargo-only" vehicle if you don't have to.

Randy

I have a dim recollection that the new position of the parachutes was the reason that no CBM could be installed. If dropping the parachutes enables CBM on cargo Dragon 2 I am all for it.

If my recollection is wrong and we can have both CBM and parachutes I am all for that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/12/2016 10:41 pm

Here's a thought. The next revision of cargo Dragon could rely on powered landing without backup parachutes, thus freeing space to use the CBM.
No matter what, it has to have parachutes available.  Absolutely for the launch abort, which won't have extra fuel for a landing.  And since they are there anyway, they serve as a backup method for landing if it turns out the Super Dracos won't start properly (testing it well up in the air still).
Don't need launch abort for cargo.
Well, according to Elon Musk, he thinks differently...

Quote
Prior to the failure, the first stage of the vehicle was operating nominally, so there were no issues seen on the first stage at all. It actually continued to power through the overpressure event on the second stage for several seconds following the first [second?] stage coming apart. In addition, Dragon actually survived not only the second stage overpressure but continued to communicate until the vehicle dropped below the horizon and out of range. In fact, if the software had initiated the parachute deployment, then the Dragon spacecraft, we believe, would have survived. And for future missions, even for the cargo version of the Dragon spacecraft, we're now including contingency software that, if something were to go wrong with the vehicle, Dragon will always attempt to save itself. This is certainly something that we have included in Dragon 2, which is the next generation Dragon that will be carrying cargo and crew to the Space Station, but we've now advanced that activity to include it in Dragon 1 as well. So that's an unfortunate thing, because we could have saved Dragon if we had the right software there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/13/2016 01:48 am

Here's a thought. The next revision of cargo Dragon could rely on powered landing without backup parachutes, thus freeing space to use the CBM.
No matter what, it has to have parachutes available.  Absolutely for the launch abort, which won't have extra fuel for a landing.  And since they are there anyway, they serve as a backup method for landing if it turns out the Super Dracos won't start properly (testing it well up in the air still).
Don't need launch abort for cargo.
Well, according to Elon Musk, he thinks differently...

Quote
Prior to the failure, the first stage of the vehicle was operating nominally, so there were no issues seen on the first stage at all. It actually continued to power through the overpressure event on the second stage for several seconds following the first [second?] stage coming apart. In addition, Dragon actually survived not only the second stage overpressure but continued to communicate until the vehicle dropped below the horizon and out of range. In fact, if the software had initiated the parachute deployment, then the Dragon spacecraft, we believe, would have survived. And for future missions, even for the cargo version of the Dragon spacecraft, we're now including contingency software that, if something were to go wrong with the vehicle, Dragon will always attempt to save itself. This is certainly something that we have included in Dragon 2, which is the next generation Dragon that will be carrying cargo and crew to the Space Station, but we've now advanced that activity to include it in Dragon 1 as well. So that's an unfortunate thing, because we could have saved Dragon if we had the right software there.
Does not mean that they will use the abort engines to the point that powered landing is not possible anymore, with the cargo version. They might just do a quick push away and then land using the engines. Dragon 1 does not have abort engines either and so cant push away either. So there should not be any disadvantage to that compared to the current cargo version of Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris_Pi on 01/13/2016 02:34 am
A quick question to clear something up I've been wondering about:

Does "Not enough space for the CBM" mean not enough for the CBM-size tunnel, Or not enough space for the hardware to grab the CBM on the station even if the tunnel had to be smaller?

Seems to me there might be some use for a V2 cargo capsule that doesn't tie up one of the new docking ports if the cargo could still fit through the smaller tunnel.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 01/13/2016 09:03 pm
A quick question regarding the inflight abort test. As far as I know, they'll use a first stage equipped with less engines (because it's not necessary to use a fully equipped stage).
And now, they'll possibly get a first stage from the jason-3 flight, if it lands on the barge. And so far, they have no other use for it, just post flight examination.

So, could they launch the dragon 2 for pad abort on that soon to be flightproven stage?

And recover the first stage aswell.

This way they know what a stage looks like after 2 flights, without risking any payload. If that stage fails at some point during the flight, the capsule could do a launch abort, proving that it wouldn't just abort during a test scenario but during a real accident (although that would raise other questions).
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 01/13/2016 09:10 pm
A quick question regarding the inflight abort test. As far as I know, they'll use a first stage equipped with less engines (because it's not necessary to use a fully equipped stage).
And now, they'll possibly get a first stage from the jason-3 flight, if it lands on the barge. And so far, they have no other use for it, just post flight examination.

So, could they launch the dragon 2 for pad abort on that soon to be flightproven stage?

And recover the first stage aswell.

This way they know what a stage looks like after 2 flights, without risking any payload. If that stage fails at some point during the flight, the capsule could do a launch abort, proving that it wouldn't just abort during a test scenario but during a real accident (although that would raise other questions).

It's unlikely the first stage can be recovered from a flight abort test. Abort will occur at max drag, and the aerodynamic forces on the stage at that point means it would likely tumble and break up...assuming they don't also test the FTS and destroy the stage intentionally, which I would guess they will do.

In that case, it doesn't make sense to waste a good booster. Hence the plan to use F9R Dev2 with only 3 engines.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 01/13/2016 10:50 pm
WRT to room at the top for a CBM...I think another issue beyond the parachute placement is the capsule nose-cone or the cap. It is not expendable but now rather opens and closes on a hinge. It looks as if they altered the entirety of the top shape of the capsule (at least the outer mold lines) to accommodate this feature.

I do believe they will merge the cargo and crew Dragon production lines once Crewed Dragon is certified.

And frankly, we really haven't seen what the final Crewed Dragon actually looks like. Since the reason they are not using the pad abort vehicle for the in-flight abort test is that the latest Crewed Dragon design has moved too far beyond that Pad Abort vehicle. So they may have made alterations that will allow a more efficient merging of cargo/crew versions. At least the baseline vehicle, as the interiors will be custom for each service.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 01/14/2016 08:47 am
A quick question regarding the inflight abort test. As far as I know, they'll use a first stage equipped with less engines (because it's not necessary to use a fully equipped stage).
And now, they'll possibly get a first stage from the jason-3 flight, if it lands on the barge. And so far, they have no other use for it, just post flight examination.

So, could they launch the dragon 2 for pad abort on that soon to be flightproven stage?

And recover the first stage aswell.

This way they know what a stage looks like after 2 flights, without risking any payload. If that stage fails at some point during the flight, the capsule could do a launch abort, proving that it wouldn't just abort during a test scenario but during a real accident (although that would raise other questions).

It's unlikely the first stage can be recovered from a flight abort test. Abort will occur at max drag, and the aerodynamic forces on the stage at that point means it would likely tumble and break up...assuming they don't also test the FTS and destroy the stage intentionally, which I would guess they will do.

In that case, it doesn't make sense to waste a good booster. Hence the plan to use F9R Dev2 with only 3 engines.

But that's the thing: that booster is the last one of the old version, they have no intention of reflying it. the NSF-articles about the jason-3 launch tell that. On the other hand, if they want to use F9R Dev2, that's an already built vehicle aswell, so they wouldn't spend too much money on that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: marcon on 01/14/2016 11:49 am
A quick question regarding the inflight abort test. As far as I know, they'll use a first stage equipped with less engines (because it's not necessary to use a fully equipped stage).
And now, they'll possibly get a first stage from the jason-3 flight, if it lands on the barge. And so far, they have no other use for it, just post flight examination.

So, could they launch the dragon 2 for pad abort on that soon to be flightproven stage?

And recover the first stage aswell.

This way they know what a stage looks like after 2 flights, without risking any payload. If that stage fails at some point during the flight, the capsule could do a launch abort, proving that it wouldn't just abort during a test scenario but during a real accident (although that would raise other questions).

It's unlikely the first stage can be recovered from a flight abort test. Abort will occur at max drag, and the aerodynamic forces on the stage at that point means it would likely tumble and break up...assuming they don't also test the FTS and destroy the stage intentionally, which I would guess they will do.

In that case, it doesn't make sense to waste a good booster. Hence the plan to use F9R Dev2 with only 3 engines.

But that's the thing: that booster is the last one of the old version, they have no intention of reflying it. the NSF-articles about the jason-3 launch tell that. On the other hand, if they want to use F9R Dev2, that's an already built vehicle aswell, so they wouldn't spend too much money on that.

From a technical standpoint it seems attractive to reuse the booster from Jason-3. My personal belief, however, is that the in-flight abort test also carries a political "payload", especially as Boeing isn't doing one. If for some reason the test failed due to the recovered stage, the whole contract would at least come under strong political pressure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 01/14/2016 09:57 pm
Quote
But that's the thing: that booster is the last one of the old version, they have no intention of reflying it.

Maybe not, but they have no intention of reflying F9R Dev2 either.  Why throw away six more engines than necessary? And they may have other plans for the Jason-3 booster that we don't know about yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: raketa on 01/15/2016 06:34 am
Here's a thought. The next revision of cargo Dragon could rely on powered landing without backup parachutes, thus freeing space to use the CBM.
No matter what, it has to have parachutes available.  Absolutely for the launch abort, which won't have extra fuel for a landing.  And since they are there anyway, they serve as a backup method for landing if it turns out the Super Dracos won't start properly (testing it well up in the air still).
Don't need launch abort for cargo.
I think in their MCT cargo version, satellites will deliver in cargo module with escape capability, treating cargo like humans an saving on insurance and possibility to deliver nuclear rods for in space reactor safely to orbit, without EPA complaints
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 01/15/2016 11:14 am
From a technical standpoint it seems attractive to reuse the booster from Jason-3. My personal belief, however, is that the in-flight abort test also carries a political "payload", especially as Boeing isn't doing one. If for some reason the test failed due to the recovered stage, the whole contract would at least come under strong political pressure.

Even if all goes well there would be voices that this is reckless behaviour not befitting development of a manned vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 01/15/2016 05:26 pm
Regarding the discussions of using the Dragon 2 for cargo and whether it can be modified for berthing with a CBM:  It looks like SpaceX and NASA have agreed to use Dragon for cargo that requires the CBM with the option to use Dragon 2 for cargo runs that don't require the CBM.

Kirk notes Dragon and Dragon 2 involved. "One berths, one docks"
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/16/2016 02:10 am
From a technical standpoint it seems attractive to reuse the booster from Jason-3. My personal belief, however, is that the in-flight abort test also carries a political "payload", especially as Boeing isn't doing one. If for some reason the test failed due to the recovered stage, the whole contract would at least come under strong political pressure.

Even if all goes well there would be voices that this is reckless behaviour not befitting development of a manned vehicle.
But then, what better way to test the in flight abort than an actual in flight failure of the booster?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 01/16/2016 02:18 am
From a technical standpoint it seems attractive to reuse the booster from Jason-3. My personal belief, however, is that the in-flight abort test also carries a political "payload", especially as Boeing isn't doing one. If for some reason the test failed due to the recovered stage, the whole contract would at least come under strong political pressure.

Even if all goes well there would be voices that this is reckless behaviour not befitting development of a manned vehicle.
But then, what better way to test the in flight abort than an actual in flight failure of the booster?
Unless it fails before MaxQ which is in the region of this test profile to prove out the SD Abort system. Absolutely no reason to risk a major milestone failure on a $4+Billion program since they already have a 3 Engine booster assigned to this test.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MKremer on 01/16/2016 04:45 am
But then, what better way to test the in flight abort than an actual in flight failure of the booster?
Unless it fails before MaxQ which is in the region of this test profile to prove out the SD Abort system. Absolutely no reason to risk a major milestone failure on a $4+Billion program since they already have a 3 Engine booster assigned to this test.
I agree. Also considering the amount of time and money already invested into detailed engineering/flight studies and performance of the 3E booster for the abort test.  Suddenly using a different booster flushes all that investment of time+$$$ down the drain because it must be redone.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 01/16/2016 01:29 pm
On the other hand, SoaceX had to use FTS on the only three-engine launch they've ever conducted...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 01/16/2016 02:10 pm
On the other hand, SoaceX had to use FTS on the only three-engine launch they've ever conducted...

Because of a blocked sensor, a single  sensor config not in M1D flight engines.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris_Pi on 01/16/2016 05:46 pm
On the other hand, SoaceX had to use FTS on the only three-engine launch they've ever conducted...

Because of a blocked sensor, a single  sensor config not in M1D flight engines.

And IIRC a lack of hold-downs. Which would have kept it on the pad so the engines could be shut down. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rickyramjet on 01/21/2016 09:03 pm
Dragon V2 hover test.

https://vine.co/v/iepOLZvMBYz
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mule169 on 01/21/2016 09:03 pm
Just posed on SX instagram

Doh, beat out.  Feel free to delete mods.

Edit/Lar: It's a different image, no need to delete. Here's the direct Instagram link: https://www.instagram.com/p/BA0Rksxl8Ud/
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: IRobot on 01/21/2016 09:10 pm
Too short to make conclusions (it will always be a quick burn) but I could see:
- slight rotation
- slight translation
- slight thrust loss near end

Maybe they were intended, but does not look reasonable to assume that for a first test.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: starsilk on 01/21/2016 09:14 pm
Too short to make conclusions (it will always be a quick burn) but I could see:
- slight rotation
- slight translation
- slight thrust loss near end

Maybe they were intended, but does not look reasonable to assume that for a first test.

thrust reduction at the end may be deliberate to avoid it 'dropping' back on to the tether.
Title: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 01/21/2016 09:21 pm
Too short to make conclusions (it will always be a quick burn) but I could see:
- slight rotation
- slight translation
- slight thrust loss near end

Maybe they were intended, but does not look reasonable to assume that for a first test.

- it also rotated 0.1 degrees in the X-axis

... Y'know, just in case SpaceX missed it. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 01/21/2016 09:26 pm
Smaller cosine losses than I expected. Look at that big toxic plume!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 01/21/2016 09:33 pm
So, this is the second firing we have seen of the full-up integrated system.  Looks great!  Anyone know if this is the pad abort vehicle?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jarnis on 01/21/2016 09:36 pm
So, this is the second firing we have seen of the full-up integrated system.  Looks great!  Anyone know if this is the pad abort vehicle?

It is the pad abort vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 01/21/2016 09:48 pm
Too short to make conclusions (it will always be a quick burn) but I could see:
- slight rotation
- slight translation
- slight thrust loss near end

Maybe they were intended, but does not look reasonable to assume that for a first test.

thrust reduction at the end may be deliberate to avoid it 'dropping' back on to the tether.
That makes sense.  This test is also a Commercial Crew milestone so I thought it might be a simulation of the propulsion for soft landing under canopy.  If that's the case I wonder if it makes sense to throttle down rather than just cut the engines (basically unweight the shroud lines and then gently touch down.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Baranquilla on 01/21/2016 09:52 pm
Too short to make conclusions (it will always be a quick burn) but I could see:
- slight rotation
- slight translation
- slight thrust loss near end

Maybe they were intended, but does not look reasonable to assume that for a first test.

Do we know whether this vehicle has actual regular thrusters? If not that would at least explain the rotation? Maybe the tether induced the rotation, and not necessarily any 'misalignment' of the superdracos.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: AnalogMan on 01/21/2016 09:56 pm
Bigger pic of test.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: xpete on 01/21/2016 09:57 pm
Quote
On November 24, SpaceX’s Dragon 2, powered by eight SuperDraco engines, executed a picture-perfect propulsive hover test at the company’s rocket development facility in McGregor, Texas.

Eight SuperDraco thrusters, positioned around the perimeter of the vehicle in pairs called “jet packs”, fired up simultaneously to raise the Crew Dragon spacecraft for a five-second hover, generating approximately 33,000 lbs of thrust before returning the vehicle to its resting position. This test was the second of a two-part milestone under NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. The first test—a short firing of the engines intended to verify a healthy propulsion system—was completed November 22, and the longer burn two-days later demonstrated vehicle control while hovering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Pm8ZY0XJI
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 01/21/2016 10:09 pm
That is quite impressive. Long way to go before helicopter drop tests but it's a great start. Reminds me of those early short Grasshopper tests. Should be in great shape heading into 2017. I wonder if they'll swap this Pad Abort tester out with the Orbital and in-flight abort test vehicle in 2017. Probably IMO.

(As long as it continues to survive the tests that is)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 01/21/2016 10:11 pm
It reminds me of every VTVL vehicle testing except grasshopper since Armadillo Aerospace showed the world how it was done.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lar on 01/21/2016 10:14 pm
It reminds me of every VTVL vehicle testing except grasshopper since Armadillo Aerospace showed the world how it was done.
Bravo. Why reinvent the wheel on how to do tests?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 01/21/2016 10:15 pm
Bravo. Why reinvent the wheel on how to do tests?

Not saying they should.. just hoping that everyone is aware of the pioneers.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Nomadd on 01/21/2016 10:17 pm
 33,000 pounds? What did they have in there, depleted uranium?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 01/21/2016 10:29 pm
It reminds me of every VTVL vehicle testing except grasshopper since Armadillo Aerospace showed the world how it was done.
I wasn't really referencing the "How To", but just the context of how we went from observing those initial short, tiny hops of Grasshopper, all the way to Orb-2. The difference from other VTVL tests, while certainly others pioneered some of the path, is that this vehicle type will become operational and carry people and cargo back from orbit.

That's the context I was thinking about and why this is quite a bit more exciting. IMO.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/21/2016 10:42 pm
Remember we have a Dragonfly thread, where today's video was already posted:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34800.0
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: xpete on 01/21/2016 11:16 pm
Quote
Parachute Testing: Parachutes are vital for the safe return of our astronaut crews. This year, SpaceX will perform thorough testing of the chutes designed for Crew Dragons. Flown inside a transport aircraft, a Crew Dragon test article will be dropped thousands of feet to see how the four main parachutes deploy. Engineers will then review the data and components after landing to ensure that the systems work as expected.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/eve-of-launch-2016-goals-vital-to-commercial-crew-success/

Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Craftyatom on 01/21/2016 11:53 pm
33,000 pounds? What did they have in there, depleted uranium?

Well they'd want to ballast it to flight weight - though, on the other hand, maybe 8 SDs only throttle this low?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Patchouli on 01/22/2016 12:18 am
It reminds me of every VTVL vehicle testing except grasshopper since Armadillo Aerospace showed the world how it was done.

I wonder if Spacex hired some ex Armadillo people.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 01/22/2016 12:30 am

I wonder if Spacex hired some ex Armadillo people.

Extremely likely - a lot of "newspace" people in the industry rotate through SpaceX nowadays.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: joertexas on 01/22/2016 04:33 am
Dragon V2 hover test.

https://vine.co/v/iepOLZvMBYz

Forgive me if this has been discussed: What is the noise level inside the Dragon's cabin when these thrusters are running? I sure hope the crew has hearing protection, because I'd guess it's pretty danged loud in that tin can.

JR
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bjornl on 01/22/2016 10:03 am
About noise levels, see also: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33423.msg1371936#msg1371936
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: darkenfast on 01/22/2016 11:08 am
They will be wearing pressure suits and probably headsets of some sort, so that will help cut down on the noise.  Remember the escape towers on other designs have some pretty loud nozzles pointed DOWN at the capsules from above.  I imagine the old Mercury was the least sound-protected in an abort, since it had no boost protective cover or fairing like Apollo, Orion and Soyuz
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: hrissan on 01/22/2016 02:35 pm
33,000 pounds? What did they have in there, depleted uranium?
Depleted castironium is usually sufficiently high-tech for similar applications.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RoboGoofers on 01/22/2016 02:51 pm
Dragon V2 hover test.

https://vine.co/v/iepOLZvMBYz

Forgive me if this has been discussed: What is the noise level inside the Dragon's cabin when these thrusters are running? I sure hope the crew has hearing protection, because I'd guess it's pretty danged loud in that tin can.

JR

I hope they show a countdown on the screens so the occupants can brace themselves. talk about a kick in the pants...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Kansan52 on 01/22/2016 03:20 pm
It reminds me of every VTVL vehicle testing except grasshopper since Armadillo Aerospace showed the world how it was done.

I wonder if Spacex hired some ex Armadillo people.

As of about a year ago, here's what became of AA:

http://spacenews.com/exos-seeks-to-revive-armadillo-rocket-technology/
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 01/27/2016 08:30 pm
NASA released some footage of a test of the new Dragon 2 parachute system (4 parachutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PG438XSarg
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: xpete on 01/27/2016 09:27 pm
Article about the test:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2016/01/27/spacex-tests-crew-dragon-parachutes/
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: jacqmans on 01/29/2016 09:03 am
SpaceX performed a successful test of its parachute system for the Crew Dragon spacecraft near Coolidge, Arizona, in January as part of its final development and certification work with NASA's Commercial Crew Program. Using a mass simulant in the place of a boilerplate spacecraft, four main parachutes were rigged to deploy just as they would when the Crew Dragon returns to Earth with astronauts aboard. Initially, the spacecraft will splash down safely in the ocean under parachutes, but ultimately the company wants to land the vehicle on land using eight SuperDraco engines. Credit: SpaceX
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 02/04/2016 10:09 pm
Interesting that the latest from Shotwell is now there going back to doing the In-FLight Abort first, this year. The last news was that they would first fly an un-crewed D2 to the station, refurbish that and use it for the In-Flight Abort in 2017, then the crewed test.

I wonder what changed? Perhaps it buys them more time as they really don't need the ECLSS, etc. ready for the IFA.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 02/04/2016 10:21 pm
Perhaps after DragonFly wraps up they'll return to Plan A: use the pad abort vehicle. That would free up a flight-proven full-up Dragon 2 (uncrewed ISS) for another mission. I can think of 2 or 3 potential flagships.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 02/04/2016 10:37 pm
Perhaps after DragonFly wraps up they'll return to Plan A: use the pad abort vehicle. That would free up a flight-proven full-up Dragon 2 (uncrewed ISS) for another mission. I can think of 2 or 3 potential flagships.
I don't think so. They weren't going to use the Pad Abort for the IFA anyways, because the D2 design has moved too far form that version for it to provide the kinds of model verifications they'd need.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 02/04/2016 10:43 pm
If the flight abort precedes the uncrewed ISS flight they need a third Dragon 2; IFA, uncrewed ISS and crewed ISS. Unless they use the same Dragon 2 for both the IFA and uncrewed ISS mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 02/04/2016 10:55 pm
If the flight abort precedes the uncrewed ISS flight they need a third Dragon 2; IFA, uncrewed ISS and crewed ISS. Unless they use the same Dragon 2 for both the IFA and uncrewed ISS mission.
Yeh, that's why I found this interesting. Reusing the first un-crewed test flight for the IFA made a lot of sense. Now they'll need 3, as I highly doubt they'll reuse the IFA for the un-crewed test in 2017 and definitely not for the Crewed test. But perhaps that's ok as they'll probably take the IFA capsule and transition it for further Propulsive landing tests, or turn it into the first Red Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 02/05/2016 12:08 am
Interesting that the latest from Shotwell is now there going back to doing the In-FLight Abort first, this year. The last news was that they would first fly an un-crewed D2 to the station, refurbish that and use it for the In-Flight Abort in 2017, then the crewed test.

I wonder what changed? Perhaps it buys them more time as they really don't need the ECLSS, etc. ready for the IFA.
It could just be the order she remembered to mention upcoming milestones as opposed to the order they intend to achieve those milestones.  I'd wait for an explicit statement that the plan has changed before reading too much into it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 02/05/2016 01:08 am
Yes. Please listen to her talk: she was very hesitant here and almost forgot to mention the demo flight entirely.  It's likely she just misspoke.  This is too thin a thread to hang a bunch of speculation upon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 02/05/2016 03:20 pm
Yes. Please listen to her talk: she was very hesitant here and almost forgot to mention the demo flight entirely.  It's likely she just misspoke.  This is too thin a thread to hang a bunch of speculation upon.
I did listen, as did others and they seem to have heard the same thing. Perhaps she misspoke, perhaps not. I'm certainly open to either possibility.

http://spacenews.com/spacex-seeks-to-accelerate-falcon-9-production-and-launch-rates-this-year/

"Those crewed Falcon 9 flights are still on schedule to begin in 2017. Shotwell said the company is planning an in-flight abort test of the Crew Dragon spacecraft before the end of this year, where the vehicle uses its thrusters to separate from a Falcon 9 rocket during ascent. That will be followed in 2017 by two demonstration flights to the International Space Station, the first without a crew and the second with astronauts on board, and then the first operational mission."
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: jak Kennedy on 02/05/2016 03:56 pm
Does anyone know if they will conduct engine cutout or pod failure after the milestone tests? Seems like this would be useful data.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim_LAX on 02/05/2016 04:40 pm
If I recall correctly, all 9 engines are shutdown as soon as the flight computer decides that the Dragon must abort.  If one engine fails during ascent the mission should continue to completion.  That's what "engine out" capability means.  If several engines fail (not likely) that would make separation and abort of the Dragon even easier.  Pods?  I don't think the Dragon has pods.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/05/2016 04:42 pm
He's talking about the 8 SuperDracos on Dragon 2, which supposedly allow engine-out on Dragon itself.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: jak Kennedy on 02/06/2016 12:35 am
Yes to clarify I was talking about the SuperDracos. And as I understand it there are two SuperDracos to a pod. So a single SuperDraco could fail or under perform or a pod could go out. I feel at some stage they will test all the variables but I don't recall reading anything about it. Not that SpaceX would publicize every detail.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 02/16/2016 07:58 pm
Crew Dragon mockup access training.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2016/02/16/astronauts-practice-crew-dragon-egress/

Seems they yanked the photo...

Edit: photo still there if you click the image holder
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kevinof on 02/16/2016 08:03 pm
Nice find.

What angle are we looking at? I presume the hatch on top is the hatch to the ISS?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 02/16/2016 09:53 pm

What angle are we looking at? I presume the hatch on top is the hatch to the ISS?

Thats what it looks like. Also looks like she may be sitting on the newest iteration of the control/display unit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris_Pi on 02/17/2016 12:22 am
Sure looks like it. I wouldn't have thought of doing it that way but climbing out the top (Door's jammed? tipped over?) landed would need a ladder. The seats and the control panel are in just the right spot for that. Control/Display panel+stair tread isn't a common combination, But why not?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 02/18/2016 06:11 pm
A pilot control question; brightening newer pics of the display panel reveals no joypad, just rotary switches and buttons under the displays. Has the joystick been moved to the arm rest(s), power wheelchair style, or is it now just a digital representation on the display?

Note: inverted panel image
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Craftyatom on 02/18/2016 06:34 pm
A pilot control question; brightening newer pics of the display panel reveals no joypad, just rotary switches and buttons under the displays. Has the joystick been moved to the arm rest(s), power wheelchair style, or is it now just a digital representation on the display?

Note: inverted panel image

Anyone who's ever used directional controls on a touch screen knows that that method isn't desirable.

I'd hope they moved it to the armrests, that's actually probably a better place to put it - reaching up to the dashboard to use a joystick that points towards you instead of at the ceiling may have been a bad plan.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deadman719 on 02/18/2016 11:12 pm
A pilot control question; brightening newer pics of the display panel reveals no joypad, just rotary switches and buttons under the displays. Has the joystick been moved to the arm rest(s), power wheelchair style, or is it now just a digital representation on the display?

Note: inverted panel image

Anyone who's ever used directional controls on a touch screen knows that that method isn't desirable.

I'd hope they moved it to the armrests, that's actually probably a better place to put it - reaching up to the dashboard to use a joystick that points towards you instead of at the ceiling may have been a bad plan.

One would assume the Human Machine Interface (HMI) is evaluated by the human factors team to ensure the controls are easy to access/manipulate.  It would include the position of the joystick.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cuddihy on 02/19/2016 06:09 am

What angle are we looking at? I presume the hatch on top is the hatch to the ISS?

Thats what it looks like. Also looks like she may be sitting on the newest iteration of the control/display unit.

Wow that is one fat display unit. Wonder if the extra bulk is due to rigidity requirements and vacuum rating so you can depressurize the cabin?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: woods170 on 02/19/2016 07:05 am
A pilot control question; brightening newer pics of the display panel reveals no joypad, just rotary switches and buttons under the displays. Has the joystick been moved to the arm rest(s), power wheelchair style, or is it now just a digital representation on the display?

Note: inverted panel image

Anyone who's ever used directional controls on a touch screen knows that that method isn't desirable.

I'd hope they moved it to the armrests, that's actually probably a better place to put it - reaching up to the dashboard to use a joystick that points towards you instead of at the ceiling may have been a bad plan.

One would assume the Human Machine Interface (HMI) is evaluated by the human factors team to ensure the controls are easy to access/manipulate.  It would include the position of the joystick.
That is assuming the latest version of the Dragon 2 would actually have a joystick. Which it doesn't BTW.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 02/19/2016 07:09 am
>
One would assume the Human Machine Interface (HMI) is evaluated by the human factors team to ensure the controls are easy to access/manipulate.  It would include the position of the joystick.

That is assuming the latest version of the Dragon 2 would actually have a joystick. Which it doesn't BTW.

Is that joystick-less design baked in or is a joystick simply yet to be implemented?

I ask because commercial pilots I know have noticed the absence and can't stop talking about Gemini 8.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Garrett on 02/19/2016 07:54 am
Crew Dragon mockup access training.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2016/02/16/astronauts-practice-crew-dragon-egress/

Seems they yanked the photo...

Edit: photo still there if you click the image holder
Here is the text from that blog article:
Quote
Astronauts Practice Crew Dragon Egress
Posted on February 16, 2016 at 3:29 pm by Stephanie Martin
Astronaut Anne McClain takes part in egress training for the Crew Dragon at SpaceX’s Hawthorne, California, headquarters recently as part of a larger team of astronauts and engineers evaluating processes for the new generation of American spacecraft in development to carry astronauts to the International Space Station. Working inside a mock-up built by SpaceX to simulate the actual spacecraft, the team practices leaving the spacecraft through the top hatch of the Crew Dragon as well as using the side hatch. The work is common in assessing spacecraft design. For astronauts, such rehearsals are regular exercise in mission preparations even in spacecraft that have been flying regularly.

It doesn't look like the photo was taken down, just some sort of HTML mess-up it seems.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kevinof on 02/19/2016 08:13 am
You would have to assume that SpaceX are not designing this in a vacuum. No doubt Nasa (who will have the first paying customers on board) have had a lot of input into the layout, functionality , backup features and control of the Dragon 2.



>
One would assume the Human Machine Interface (HMI) is evaluated by the human factors team to ensure the controls are easy to access/manipulate.  It would include the position of the joystick.

That is assuming the latest version of the Dragon 2 would actually have a joystick. Which it doesn't BTW.

Is that joystick-less design baked in or is a joystick simply yet to be implemented?

I ask because commercial pilots I know have noticed the absence and can't stop talking about Gemini 8.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: DecoLV on 02/19/2016 12:43 pm
You would have to assume that SpaceX are not designing this in a vacuum. No doubt Nasa (who will have the first paying customers on board) have had a lot of input into the layout, functionality , backup features and control of the Dragon 2.

You know, that egress photo reminded me that they're going to land on water...which means going out the top of Dragon may be for a Carpenter-style contingency on water. SpaceX is probably going to have to fuss with life rafts, flotation collars, egress exercises in swimming pools, da da da.... all of which were probably not thought about until propulsive landing was ruled out for the first flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/19/2016 12:46 pm
You would have to assume that SpaceX are not designing this in a vacuum. No doubt Nasa (who will have the first paying customers on board) have had a lot of input into the layout, functionality , backup features and control of the Dragon 2.

You know, that egress photo reminded me that they're going to land on water...which means going out the top of Dragon may be for a Carpenter-style contingency on water. SpaceX is probably going to have to fuss with life rafts, flotation collars, egress exercises in swimming pools, da da da.... all of which were probably not thought about until propulsive landing was ruled out for the first flights.
No, remember that splashdown was the original plan for Dragon crew before SpaceX became all obsessed with powered landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/19/2016 01:41 pm
I would prefer a translational-rotational hand controller and joy stick... The touch screen could serve as a back up... But hey, I'm an "old stick and rudder guy"... ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: solartear on 02/19/2016 03:13 pm

You know, that egress photo reminded me that they're going to land on water...which means going out the top of Dragon may be for a Carpenter-style contingency on water. SpaceX is probably going to have to fuss with life rafts, flotation collars, egress exercises in swimming pools, da da da.... all of which were probably not thought about until propulsive landing was ruled out for the first flights.

Launch abort was always planned for water landing (CST-100 too), so the design would always have included plans for handling such a scenario.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: clongton on 02/20/2016 01:41 am
No, remember that splashdown was the original plan for Dragon crew before SpaceX became all obsessed with powered landing.

From the beginning of "Crew" Dragon, powered landing was to be the normal landing mode with splashdown as the backup. It was during negotiations with NASA over Crew Dragon that water landing became the norm. That's (one of) the reasons that what became known as Firefly was delayed. NASA was *very* nervous about powered landing and SpaceX bowed to their pressure rather than loose the contract.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/20/2016 02:51 am
No, remember that splashdown was the original plan for Dragon crew before SpaceX became all obsessed with powered landing.

From the beginning of "Crew" Dragon, powered landing was to be the normal landing mode with splashdown as the backup. It was during negotiations with NASA over Crew Dragon that water landing became the norm. That's (one of) the reasons that what became known as Firefly was delayed. NASA was *very* nervous about powered landing and SpaceX bowed to their pressure rather than loose the contract.
Not from the beginning!

I'm talking about way before powered landing. At one point, SpaceX was going to use splashdown for crew Dragon as the primary recovery means (just like initial cargo Dragon) and a launch abort tower like other capsules. That was back in the COTS days. This is from ~2010.
http://www.murc.ws/showthread.php?69201-SpaceX-Falcon-9-Dragon-updates-launch-date-time
http://digitalvideo.8m.net/SpaceX/AIAA/f9evolution640.jpg (http://digitalvideo.8m.net/SpaceX/AIAA/f9evolution640.jpg)

And as others have said, even when SpaceX switched to powered landing, there was never a time when they wouldn't have had to do water egress training, since water egress would've been needed for abort.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 02/20/2016 03:40 am
From a 2009 SpaceX press release, though IIRC the escape tower dates bact to a 2008 presentation.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=27552
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/20/2016 03:43 am
From a 2009 SpaceX press release, though IIRC the escape tower dates bact to a 2008 presentation.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=27552
Heh, you were the one who posted that six years ago on that other site!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 02/20/2016 03:46 am
God knows where it originally came from. At the bottom is the 2008 image.



Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/20/2016 04:12 am
Always interesting to see SpaceX old visions. Reminds you of how far they've slipped:
Falcon Heavy was delayed at least 4 years, same as crew Dragon. And they still haven't reused any first stages yet.

But also how far they've come:
The current Falcon 9 full thrust is more than twice as capable as the Falcon 9 envisioned at that point, plus has a much more advanced and actually proven recovery system, plus propulsive Dragon which is also much better in the same ways plus having done actual ISS missions.

And how their NEXT plans are just so much more ambitious than their older plans (which they're just now accomplishing):
Raptor, first possibly as an upper stage (reusable?) for F9 and Heavy, but destined for BFR and BFS, which would be fully and rapidly reusable (BFR anyway) and would dwarf anything every made. And an enormous Internet constellation. And a megacity on Mars with tens of thousands of people coming and going every year. I mean, this stuff is /insane/, and I'm not even sure I mean that figuratively.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Hg on 03/13/2016 02:46 am
The only video of the DragonFly program released publicly to date shows the Dragon2 capsule supported by a crane and hovering under the power of the SuperDrago engines. Spacex will soon be forced to expose their design of landing ‘legs’ for the Dragon 2 capsule.  Regardless whether it’s a ‘hop’ or a ‘drop’, the Dragon2 will need the additional hardware.  They can’t keep it company confidential, since the testing should be visible at McGregor.   Spacex has incentive to add this functionality, or at least the ‘hooks’ to be able to add it to the design, as soon as possible.  They are certainly preparing the design of Dragon2 for their upcoming manned flights now, and the testing has more value if the design is as close to its ‘final’ configuration as possible.  Otherwise, they’ll need to conduct another full round of testing with the new constraints (weight, etc). This is why the DragonFly program is being conducted now, when logically they could be delaying it until they have accomplished their manned missions and landed under parachutes in the sea.

Why is this seemingly minor hardware change a big deal?  Clearly, landing this way (vertical, softly, on land, heat shield intact) offers the best chance of reuse and minimum cost. Yet, no other launch company or government entity has chosen this design direction.  Only Spacex believes it can work.  Think about the challenging design requirements here:  Maintain the integrity of re-entry heat shield, can’t just leave holes through which the legs will extend.  Keep the legs out of the high temperature exhaust flow of the SuperDraco engines.  Don’t let any part of the heat shield hit the ground, because you want to re-use it.  Absorb some shock.  Minimize weight.  Keep it simple for reliability.  So, will we see pivoting legs around the sides, like S1?  Telescoping legs, like the promo videos?

Seems to me that this will be the big ‘reveal’ of 2016 for Spacex.  Maybe not key to the company’s success, but key to keeping the credibility of their vision in the public’s mind.

The other ‘2016 reveal’ possibilities: (1) Falcon Heavy- will be delayed until 2017.  (2) The docking software- will not be as visually stimulating or unique (still a big accomplishment, unless they bought the functionality from the shuttle program, Europeans or the Russians, and modified it for their use), or (3) the spacesuit, a spaceship in its own right, but there will be no reason to expose it before 2017.

And it could come any day now, since the last test we’ve seen was conducted in November.  Then again, we may have to wait six months.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: James54 on 03/13/2016 03:04 am
This is a photo of the landing leg on the Crew Dragon  revealed in May 2014. Points made about it included extending out from the heat shield and the "back legs" were closer together than the "front legs" .  This configuration provides some stability.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/13/2016 04:34 am
Yes, like James54 pointed out, the legs of Dragon 2 were revealed in the Dragon 2 unveil in 2014.  Other aspects of the design of Dragon 2 don't seem to have changed much since the 2014 reveal, so why would the legs?

Even if there were minor changes in the leg design, it's quite unlikely they changed the basic idea of the legs telescoping out from the heat shield.  For stage 1, the legs pop out of the sides because (1) the stage is very tall and thin and hence needs legs much wider than its base and (2) that's where the legs are out of the way of the engines.  For Dragon 2, the engines are on the outside and the capsule is much shorter relative to its width, so there's every reason to have the legs under the heat shield instead of popping out from the outside.

So, no, I don't think there will be a big reveal of legs in 2016 -- when we see the legs on a flight test, there won't be anything remarkable about them and it will just confirm that they're more or less like the ones revealed in 2014.

Don’t let any part of the heat shield hit the ground, because you want to re-use it.

I don't think that's really necessary.  If they have a small portion of the heat shield end up on the end of each leg (as shown in the 2014 reveal), so what?  PICA-X is cheap and replacing the small amounts on the end of each leg on each flight will be a tiny cost.

Alternatively, they can have some kind of door system, like the landing gear of a typical retractable-gear airplane, but that requires more complexity and mass.  I think they'll more likely stick with replacing that small bit of the heat shield on each flight for the near-to-medium term.

The other ‘2016 reveal’ possibilities: [...] or (3) the spacesuit, a spaceship in its own right, but there will be no reason to expose it before 2017.

All the evidence we've seen so far strongly indicates that SpaceX is not going with the "spacesuit as a spaceship" design for commercial crew.  They seem to be designing a lightweight suit optimized for the common case that the capsule remains pressurized, with only enough protection against vacuum to allow a few minutes of survival if the capsule is depressurized but the passengers remain inside.  That is, no long endurance, no thermal management, no RCS -- virtually nothing of what a spaceship is except the very limited ability to survive a vacuum.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: nrubin on 03/13/2016 04:56 am
I don't think that's really necessary.  If they have a small portion of the heat shield end up on the end of each leg (as shown in the 2014 reveal), so what?  PICA-X is cheap and replacing the small amounts on the end of each leg on each flight will be a tiny cost.

Alternatively, they can have some kind of door system, like the landing gear of a typical retractable-gear airplane, but that requires more complexity and mass.  I think they'll more likely stick with replacing that small bit of the heat shield on each flight for the near-to-medium term.

I'm not an expert on thermal protection systems, but is PICA-X or a door system for the legs really necessary?  The point of an ablative heat shield is to create a cooler boundary layer made up of gases emitted by the ablative material.  If the bulk of the heat shield is emitting gases and forming a boundary layer, doesn't that layer also protect small structures like the ends of legs, even though the legs are not themselves emitting any gas?  Even if the legs get a little hotter as a result, there should be some ability for the structure to absorb and/or radiate that relatively small amount of extra heat.

The bottoms of legs are not likely to ever be maintenance-free, but it seems like avoiding doors and avoiding landing on PICA-X would be good things.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2016 05:06 am
Just land on the PICA-X. Really not hard. But doesn't have to be PICA-X.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Comga on 03/13/2016 06:07 am
Doesn't the current Dragon have four or six hard attach points that carry launch loads through the heat shield?
They seem to be some rugged material that would be excessively heavy to use for the entire heat shield but not a significant problem for a few 200 to 300 mm diameter disks.
They could make the footpads of the same material.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2016 06:09 am
Doesn't the current Dragon have four or six hard attach points that carry launch loads through the heat shield?
They seem to be some rugged material that would be excessively heavy to use for the entire heat shield but not a significant problem for a few 200 to 300 mm diameter disks.
They could make the footpads of the same material.
I've handled the similar cylinders used for Orion. Heavy but small.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/13/2016 12:32 pm

The other ‘2016 reveal’ possibilities: ... (2) The docking software- will not be as visually stimulating or unique (still a big accomplishment, unless they bought the functionality from the shuttle program, Europeans or the Russians, and modified it for their use) ...


Not even sure what this means. How can software be "visually stimulating"? And yes, it's almost certainly going to be unique in that it will be designed in-house by SpaceX software engineers to run on SpaceX hardware. Sorry to burst bubbles of any Russo-centric or Euro-centric folks who think autonomous rendezvous and proximity operations are some kind of magic that can't be developed or used outside of Russian-designed systems, but the laws of orbital mechanics are well-understood and have been for over 50 years. SpaceX will design every capability they need for their commercial crew contract, and it will be "unique" in that it will be designed in-house and not using Russian hardware or software.  ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: pippin on 03/13/2016 02:13 pm
ATV wasn't "Russian designed" either, it just had to interface with the docking systems on the Russian segment since that's where it docked.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 03/13/2016 04:10 pm
In terms of the landing legs, a couple of points:

1 - An ablative heat shield doesn't protect by outgassing.  Any heat shield utilizing the blunt-body entry approach creates a shock wave as it passes through the thickening air which creates a boundary layer separation between the hottest of the heated air from the body of the spacecraft.  Bits of the ablative shield melt and flake off and are carried away in the airstream.  But the entire outer surface of a heat shield can reach temps of more than 5,000 degrees F throughout the high heating phase of an entry.  Any metal not covered with ablative material that can "bleed away" as it gets dangerously hot can melt and burn through.  (And even if such unprotected plugs didn't burn through, by some miracle, they'd be so damaged and deformed that I wish you good luck in getting them to extend from the base of the capsule when the time comes...)

A note, though, about various types of heat shields: you don't have to have ablative shielding, if the TPS material used can withstand the heating regime and not transmit the heat into the structure of the capsule.  The Shuttle's ceramic TPS worked not by outgassing or ablating in any way, it worked because it could heat up to 5,000 degrees F for up to 20 minutes and not burn through or transmit the heat into the airframe.

But, no -- you can't just leave four aluminum pads in your heat shield and think that outgassing from nearby Pica-X will protect the aluminum.  Can't even do it with titanium, it'll burn through, too, in that heating environment.  Any material in the direct path of the entry heating (i.e., on the blunt end of the cone) has to be able to withstand the high heating phase for five or more minutes without melting and without transmitting the heat into the capsule's internal structures.  Short version -- leave four aluminum or even titanium landing pads exposed on the base of the heat shield without any ablative or ceramic heat shielding, you'll have an LOCV event.

2 - I think that the maintenance flow on extendable gear pads would be that the pads would be unbolted from the ends of the legs and replaced with a replacement set, covered with fresh Pica-X.  The old pads would be refurbished, any smashed or damaged Pica-X replaced, and put into a nice landing pad replacement kit, to be used to replace the pads on a future Dragon.

As much of the refurbishment work on a rocket or spacecraft that can be done "offline" from that item's refurbishment flow, the better.  We'll see a lot of replaceable units removed and replaced with refurbished ones, while the removed units are refurbished in their own work flows to be readied for use on another rocket or spacecraft down the line.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Hg on 03/13/2016 04:53 pm
In terms of:   Not even sure what this means. How can software be "visually stimulating"?

The visual manifestation of a whole lot of software work will be the autonomous docking of the Dragon2 to the ISS.  Rendezvous has always been one of the most exciting events in the space program (see the docking of the LEM with the CSM in lunar orbit for example). But, the first Dragon2/ISS docking won’t have a big ‘wow’ factor, since people have seen it occur many times before at the ISS.  However, it will be the result of a lot of mission critical work at Spacex.  There’s a reason why the current Dragons and Cygnus capsules don’t do it.

When you are in a cycle time war with Boeing to develop new technology, and you are behind (in docking technology), you need to take action.  Boeing has significant docking experience with the shuttle and, through Rockwell, all the way back to Apollo.   So, you get some more software experience by creating a design center in Seattle and assign the task to them.  You also consider whether to license some previously-developed algorithms to integrate into your design, rather than re-inventing from first principles. No disgrace, happens all the time in business to meet a date with minimum risk.  That being said, I have no idea what source (if any) that Spacex used.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/13/2016 05:13 pm
In terms of:   Not even sure what this means. How can software be "visually stimulating"?

The visual manifestation of a whole lot of software work will be the autonomous docking of the Dragon2 to the ISS.  Rendezvous has always been one of the most exciting events in the space program (see the docking of the LEM with the CSM in lunar orbit for example). But, the first Dragon2/ISS docking won’t have a big ‘wow’ factor, since people have seen it occur many times before at the ISS.  However, it will be the result of a lot of mission critical work at Spacex.  There’s a reason why the current Dragons and Cygnus capsules don’t do it.

Yes, there is a reason.  They don't do it because NASA told them not to do it.

Seriously.  It's not that it's particularly hard in this day and age.  It's that NASA felt more comfortable with astronauts on the station in control, and felt that the robotic arm moving something was less of a risk than that thing autonomously thrusting itself (less risk of a stuck-open thruster, for example, which has nothing to do with the control software).

This is not a difficult software problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 03/14/2016 02:56 am
In terms of:   Not even sure what this means. How can software be "visually stimulating"?

The visual manifestation of a whole lot of software work will be the autonomous docking of the Dragon2 to the ISS.  Rendezvous has always been one of the most exciting events in the space program (see the docking of the LEM with the CSM in lunar orbit for example). But, the first Dragon2/ISS docking won’t have a big ‘wow’ factor, since people have seen it occur many times before at the ISS.  However, it will be the result of a lot of mission critical work at Spacex.  There’s a reason why the current Dragons and Cygnus capsules don’t do it.

Yes, there is a reason.  They don't do it because NASA told them not to do it.

Seriously.  It's not that it's particularly hard in this day and age.  It's that NASA felt more comfortable with astronauts on the station in control, and felt that the robotic arm moving something was less of a risk than that thing autonomously thrusting itself (less risk of a stuck-open thruster, for example, which has nothing to do with the control software).

This is not a difficult software problem.

One of the primary differences between "berthing" and "docking" is that a docking port has sort of a floating ring that makes first contact with the vehicle so that any remaining forces including rotational are burned into the floating ring and not transferred directly into the airframe (vacuum frame?) of the vehicle. A berthing port is basically just a door with bolts around it to attach a vehicle or module. You cannot fly autonomously into a berthing port, you have to be slowly and carefully placed by the arm, but the berthing ports are bigger and require less hardware.

I can't speak to why the shuttle used human controlled docking (or that it always did for sure, but that is what is being implied here). But the dragon does not autonomously dock now because it berths, which is totally different.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/14/2016 03:47 am
In terms of:   Not even sure what this means. How can software be "visually stimulating"?

The visual manifestation of a whole lot of software work will be the autonomous docking of the Dragon2 to the ISS.  Rendezvous has always been one of the most exciting events in the space program (see the docking of the LEM with the CSM in lunar orbit for example). But, the first Dragon2/ISS docking won’t have a big ‘wow’ factor, since people have seen it occur many times before at the ISS.  However, it will be the result of a lot of mission critical work at Spacex.  There’s a reason why the current Dragons and Cygnus capsules don’t do it.

Yes, there is a reason.  They don't do it because NASA told them not to do it.

Seriously.  It's not that it's particularly hard in this day and age.  It's that NASA felt more comfortable with astronauts on the station in control, and felt that the robotic arm moving something was less of a risk than that thing autonomously thrusting itself (less risk of a stuck-open thruster, for example, which has nothing to do with the control software).

This is not a difficult software problem.

One of the primary differences between "berthing" and "docking" is that a docking port has sort of a floating ring that makes first contact with the vehicle so that any remaining forces including rotational are burned into the floating ring and not transferred directly into the airframe (vacuum frame?) of the vehicle. A berthing port is basically just a door with bolts around it to attach a vehicle or module. You cannot fly autonomously into a berthing port, you have to be slowly and carefully placed by the arm, but the berthing ports are bigger and require less hardware.

I can't speak to why the shuttle used human controlled docking (or that it always did for sure, but that is what is being implied here). But the dragon does not autonomously dock now because it berths, which is totally different.

Yes, but that's not really an answer because it begs the question of why NASA chose to set up berthing ports in the first place, which is what I was addressing.  To keep it simple, I only mentioned some of the reasons.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Mike_1179 on 03/14/2016 10:15 am

Yes, but that's not really an answer because it begs the question of why NASA chose to set up berthing ports in the first place, which is what I was addressing.  To keep it simple, I only mentioned some of the reasons.


Is you're question, "Why does ISS have some berthing ports and not all docking port?"

ISS was designed to be serviced by the space shuttle. If you need to bring a lot of stuff up, load an MPLM full of it, stick it in the shuttle payload bay, and use the shuttle arm to deftly place it in the right spot. If you need to add a module (like a Node or lab) then do the same thing - load it into the payload bay and use the shuttle arm.

As said above, the docking ports have mechanisms to align and de-rotate an incoming vehicle. All of those mechanisms take up space (and mass).  CBMs are sized so that ISS racks can fit through them (or perhaps ISS racks were sized to fit through the CBM...) but these racks can't fit through the docking ports - the ports are too small.

It's like asking why a building has a loading dock for truck deliveries and a revolving door for people to enter. They both allow things to go in and out, so why have both? They have slightly different requirements and can be optimized as such
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 03/14/2016 01:02 pm

Yes, but that's not really an answer because it begs the question of why NASA chose to set up berthing ports in the first place, which is what I was addressing.  To keep it simple, I only mentioned some of the reasons.


So they could assemble the ISS with lighter and larger openings.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: The man in the can on 03/17/2016 07:34 pm
From the NAC Commercial crew program status presentation of March 2 2016
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/4-CCP-Status-McAlister.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/4-CCP-Status-McAlister.pdf)

slide12
Quote
Significant progress made over the last quarter:

Completed two Critical Design Reviews
– Dragon, F9, ground systems, and operations
– SpaceX in the process of addressing all NASA comments to satisfaction

Propulsion System Testing
– Began Initial propulsive landing tests (Pad abort vehicle)
– Propulsion system testing (SuperDraco Module)

Activated 39A launch site

Good progress on space suit and helmet design

Crew Module seats being modified to maximize crew
safety

Flew upgraded F9 that will carry crew

Completed first 4-parachute test

Qualification and production on key components
– Dragon vehicle structures are in production
– Conducted Qualification testing of several F9 Systems and development testing of stage separation system to human standards
– Completed Docking System Qualification

Approved alternate standards
– Software alternate standard approved
– Avionics environmental testing alternate standard approved
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: drsnooker on 03/17/2016 10:02 pm
A demonstration of Dragon 2 interface

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga_ZItJSZho&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: NovaSilisko on 03/18/2016 12:02 am
You... fly it manually by repeatedly tapping a button on a touchscreen?

What happens if your super-cool slick smooth interface gets stuck on one of its super-cool slick smooth transitions during a critical manuever? This doesn't really sit well with me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 03/18/2016 01:35 am
You... fly it manually by repeatedly tapping a button on a touchscreen?

What happens if your super-cool slick smooth interface gets stuck on one of its super-cool slick smooth transitions during a critical manuever? This doesn't really sit well with me.

Isn't that just a simulator? I thought the actual translation/rotation control inputs were to be done using the center joystick/controller:

(http://i.imgur.com/fqJIcpa.jpg)

Edit: I see this is an earlier version of the display/control panel which has been superceded by one that apparently has no joystick. Sorry I missed that discussion upthread.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35381.msg1492953#msg1492953
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/18/2016 01:41 am

You... fly it manually by repeatedly tapping a button on a touchscreen?

What happens if your super-cool slick smooth interface gets stuck on one of its super-cool slick smooth transitions during a critical manuever? This doesn't really sit well with me.

Isn't that just a simulator? I thought the actual translation/rotation control inputs were to be done using the center joystick/controller:

(http://i.imgur.com/fqJIcpa.jpg)
That was my interpretation too. That docking was a visual simulation that didn't utilize the final input hardware.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: OxCartMark on 03/18/2016 03:17 am
Whether by stick or fingers on a screen I wouldn't feel comfortable (for the safety portions of control at least, such as the de-orbit immediately function) with controls that have to go through the computer.  Somewhere in the vehicle I'm hoping to see a way to actuate valves, parachutes etc. more directly, either totally manually or through switches and copper wired circuits. Yes, all of the controls in the primary system can go through the computer but I want a way to deal with computer failure, both the failure of the computer to perform a function and the failure by perfarming an undesired function.  Software people like having everything go through them but they've had what, 35 years to convince me that their stuff is reliable, and I'm not seeing it.

This rant brought to you not necessarily by the speculation above that the stick may have been dropped, but rather its something that has been bugging me since the time that Elon showed the controls a year or so back.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Kabloona on 03/18/2016 03:24 am
Whether by stick or fingers on a screen I wouldn't feel comfortable (for the safety portions of control at least, such as the de-orbit immediately function) with controls that have to go through the computer.  Somewhere in the vehicle I'm hoping to see a way to actuate valves, parachutes etc. more directly, either totally manually or through switches and copper wired circuits.

AIUI, there will be buttons for all critical functions as backup for the touchscreen.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: NovaSilisko on 03/18/2016 03:26 am
Edit: I see this is an earlier version of the display/control panel which has been superceded by one that apparently has no joystick. Sorry I missed that discussion upthread.

Yes, I'm fairly certain this newly revealed one is what they at least intend the final one to be near to. I guess NASA must be okay with the idea of no stick if it's gotten this far? It's not like they don't know, they have a hundred times more insight into it than we do.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 03/18/2016 03:30 am
The complaint I constantly hear from pilots is not so much that there are few buttons but no sign of a joystick. The argument being, how can you use a touchpad to correct a Gemini 8 style problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 03/18/2016 03:30 am
Whether by stick or fingers on a screen I wouldn't feel comfortable (for the safety portions of control at least, such as the de-orbit immediately function) with controls that have to go through the computer.  Somewhere in the vehicle I'm hoping to see a way to actuate valves, parachutes etc. more directly, either totally manually or through switches and copper wired circuits. Yes, all of the controls in the primary system can go through the computer but I want a way to deal with computer failure, both the failure of the computer to perform a function and the failure by perfarming an undesired function.  Software people like having everything go through them but they've had what, 35 years to convince me that their stuff is reliable, and I'm not seeing it.

This rant brought to you not necessarily by the speculation above that the stick may have been dropped, but rather its something that has been bugging me since the time that Elon showed the controls a year or so back.

Umm... I will point out that the Shuttle flew entirely through inputs to its computer system, it had no Fly-By-Wire or direct manual controls of either the thrusters or the control surfaces.  And the F-117 stealth fighter is too aerodynamically unstable to be flown except entirely through inputs to the computer.

The difference here is that those vehicles used hand controllers, sticks and footpedals that were connected to the control surfaces and other systems solely through the computer.  What we're seeing in these Dragon control panels is touch-screen cell-phone-style controls.

It's jarring, but the part about control inputs going through computers is nothing new, and is really very highly reliable, overall.    The jarring part is that the inputs aren't coming from the classic, recognizable devices, is all...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sojourner on 03/18/2016 03:39 am
Forgive me if this is wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the joystick was moved to the pilot's seat arm?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: QuantumG on 03/18/2016 03:42 am
I blame Rick Berman.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 03/18/2016 03:59 am
Given the current and last generation, perhaps an X-BOX controller would make more sense ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/18/2016 08:09 am
I am not at all concerned about the fact that all controls go through the computer. It is nothing unusual these days.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JamesH65 on 03/18/2016 09:13 am
Whether by stick or fingers on a screen I wouldn't feel comfortable (for the safety portions of control at least, such as the de-orbit immediately function) with controls that have to go through the computer.  Somewhere in the vehicle I'm hoping to see a way to actuate valves, parachutes etc. more directly, either totally manually or through switches and copper wired circuits. Yes, all of the controls in the primary system can go through the computer but I want a way to deal with computer failure, both the failure of the computer to perform a function and the failure by perfarming an undesired function.  Software people like having everything go through them but they've had what, 35 years to convince me that their stuff is reliable, and I'm not seeing it.

This rant brought to you not necessarily by the speculation above that the stick may have been dropped, but rather its something that has been bugging me since the time that Elon showed the controls a year or so back.

If the computer(s) fails, you are going to be pretty much dead anyway. There is a colossal amount of incredible safe software out there. Don't conflate Windows or Android or iPad or mobile phone software with the software in cars or planes. They are very different things that undergo very different development and testing regimes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: gadgetmind on 03/18/2016 09:21 am
Don't SpaceX use Linux on their stages? I guess same for Dragon?

I run a Linux kernel development team, and I'd definitely trust it more than Windows, but I'm glad they have triple redundancy!
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 03/18/2016 09:41 am
Always better to have an over automated system than an under automated pilot dependent system. Most systems are only as accident prone as the hardware holding the flight stick (or touch screen in this case).

As for not being able to fix a gemini 8 style problem, I don't see any visible way why an astronaut in a system such as this one wouldn't be able to fix such an issue. They'll still have an equal amount of control over their craft. Besides, any problem of that exact nature would be impossible to recur due to the nature of modern  spacecraft design.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Garrett on 03/18/2016 10:11 am
presumably crew Dragon will be controllable from the ground too?, albeit with a slight delay (on the order of a 100 ms say?).
Any indication whether Dragon/Starliner will have "pilots" on the ground too, much like drone pilots in the military?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 03/18/2016 12:59 pm
It is possible for cargo DC to be piloted from the ground (in an emergency). So I imagine that it is the same for other commercial crew or cargo providers.

Quote
Sirangelo says the Dream Chaser Cargo System is designed to be operated autonomously, with ground monitoring. “In the event of degraded systems, damage, or other issues, we do have ground control operations that exist as a back-up mode. The uncrewed Dream Chaser spacecraft does not require any unique navigational aids, remote systems, or special ground support equipment, beyond GPS signals, and standard navigational aids and systems.”

http://magazine.onlineamd.com/article/march-2016-/dream-chaser-to-supply-cargo-to-the-international-space-station.aspx
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/18/2016 02:08 pm
Given the current and last generation, perhaps an X-BOX controller would make more sense ;)

Nah, we have examples of virtual controllers from various TV shows. Could see the pilot's gloves with embedded sensors & feedback mechanisms to act as virtual joysticks.

Still waiting for the holographic control systems from the "Earth: Final Conflict" TV series.  ;)

 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mvpel on 03/18/2016 02:17 pm
Given the current and last generation, perhaps an X-BOX controller would make more sense ;)

Game Controllers Driving Drones, Nukes (http://www.wired.com/2008/07/wargames/) - Wired - July 19, 2008
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JamesH65 on 03/18/2016 03:05 pm
Given the current and last generation, perhaps an X-BOX controller would make more sense ;)

Game Controllers Driving Drones, Nukes (http://www.wired.com/2008/07/wargames/) - Wired - July 19, 2008

Nice link. The people who design games controllers have been doing it for years. They know exactly what makes a good controller, because they get an awful lot of feedback (no pun intended). They are robust and reliable. Can't see any downsides really. I'd use one in these circumstances.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: inventodoc on 03/19/2016 03:49 pm
Given the current and last generation, perhaps an X-BOX controller would make more sense ;)

That's actually not a crazy idea. You rarely need the controls and then only for very short segments of flight. A storable controller makes sense. if they did it, would there be a battle between PS4 and XBOX?    :o
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 03/19/2016 05:28 pm
As someone who still uses a good ol' fashioned flight stick to play Wing Commander, Descent and the Freespace saga, I raise my fine gallic nose at the idea of inferior console controllers coming anywhere near my next generation capsule, thank you.

In all seriousness, those things are amply suited for three directions of movement (unsure about roll). I'd bulk the design up for space use (you'd have to manipulate the controls through a suit) and stuff like triggers can be repurposed, but it's a difficult design to beat, ergonomically. Indeed, they'd most likely be even more comfortable to use in microgravity than in 1g.

Mind you, SpaceX has likely considered the idea even if it does seem very left field. Don't forget the background of many of their software people and the general interdisciplinary mixing that seems to go on between software and hardware guys (everybody working on the same floor, etc). It's likely been considered and rejected for whatever reason.

I do wonder why, though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: GWH on 03/21/2016 05:31 am
As much as I have sci fi based nostalgia for a joystick and pedals, I feel touchscreen taps are more suitable to the actual thrust and coast maneuvers of a space craft in zero g.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 03/21/2016 07:15 am

You... fly it manually by repeatedly tapping a button on a touchscreen?

What happens if your super-cool slick smooth interface gets stuck on one of its super-cool slick smooth transitions during a critical manuever? This doesn't really sit well with me.

Isn't that just a simulator? I thought the actual translation/rotation control inputs were to be done using the center joystick/controller:

(http://i.imgur.com/fqJIcpa.jpg)
That was my interpretation too. That docking was a visual simulation that didn't utilize the final input hardware.

Why do people still think that this picture - at the Dragon 2 unveiling - shows a final flight interface. C'mon. I put a lot more stock in that simulation - being much more recent - than I do that those old mockups of an unfinished interior and user interface.

I got a lot of heat for suggesting this at the time, but just wait. The final Dragon 2 flight control interface will NOT be exactly like that image. Just like the ORBCOMM-2 stage that landed looked different than the "reuse CG video" posted many years back. The basic idea was on display, but the details *WILL* differ. The same applies here.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 03/21/2016 08:00 am
More recent D2 panel pics than at the intro.

Face on

Cropped lower portion; brightened and inverted, which sometimes helps with dark backgrounds and white lines

Angled from left side, brightened a tad. Shows the docking cam & controls in the video.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: CraigLieb on 03/21/2016 05:47 pm
Designers have to consider the issue of Pilot Induced Oscillations (PIO). In PIO, an acceleration of the pilot's hand/arm causes additional input to the control system beyond what the pilot intended, forcing the pilot to over-correct in the reverse direction... Again, possibly causing  new accelerations and unintended inputs.. etc.

These kind of things have caused loss of vehicles in flight test programs.  History might suggest that damping/resistance in the controls, and support for the arm/hand controlling the side-stick control/joystick may be needed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: joncz on 03/22/2016 12:08 pm
I've never heard of PIO attributed to acceleration of the pilot's hand/arm; always seen it attributed to latency in control system response.  Source?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: meberbs on 03/22/2016 12:55 pm
CraigLeib's description of PIO isn't wrong, but make it sound like it is due to the control forces making the pilot move their hand too far, or the control forces being too low. While that is a possible mode, I haven't heard of a case where that was the root cause.

Latency is one possible cause, just like the "fool in a shower" scenario.

Too sensitive controls is another, see the accidental first flight of the F16. This is distinct from too little control force in that it takes very little physical displacement to create a strong response, which makes it harder to deal with, since in the too little control force case, the pilot can still provide a less than full input command if they have a steady hand.

Other issues such as instruments or other feedback that makes the pilot misjudge the state of the vehicle can also lead to oscillations, as can pilot error, if they are not experienced enough with handling the craft and there is an easily induced oscillatory mode. (For planes you can modify the design of stabilizing surfaces so that the oscillatory mode has more damping, or different frequency making it harder to excite and easier for pilots to get out of.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JamesH65 on 03/22/2016 01:22 pm
I've never heard of PIO attributed to acceleration of the pilot's hand/arm; always seen it attributed to latency in control system response.  Source?

I've had PIO in a car due to acceleration pulling foot off accelerator pedal, sudden deceleration slamming it back down - call it kangaroo petrol in the UK! Quite a light powerful car, I used to brace foot against side chassis to prevent it happening. Driving a JCB backhoe has a similar thing going side to side due to delay responses to input.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: the_other_Doug on 03/22/2016 01:44 pm
One of the most famous examples of PIO in space history was the first ALT of Enterprise without the boat-tail.  Poor Fred Haise was trying like crazy to settle the orbiter down and got into a flutter that nearly dug a wingtip into the lakebed...

And that was with much more conventional hand controller and footpedal input devices.  The PIO in that case had to do with latency in the system, not the input devices.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: CraigLieb on 03/22/2016 05:46 pm
CraigLeib's description of PIO isn't wrong, but make it sound like it is due to the control forces making the pilot move their hand too far, or the control forces being too low. While that is a possible mode, I haven't heard of a case where that was the root cause.

Latency is one possible cause, just like the "fool in a shower" scenario.

Too sensitive controls is another, see the accidental first flight of the F16. This is distinct from too little control force in that it takes very little physical displacement to create a strong response, which makes it harder to deal with, since in the too little control force case, the pilot can still provide a less than full input command if they have a steady hand.

Other issues such as instruments or other feedback that makes the pilot misjudge the state of the vehicle can also lead to oscillations, as can pilot error, if they are not experienced enough with handling the craft and there is an easily induced oscillatory mode. (For planes you can modify the design of stabilizing surfaces so that the oscillatory mode has more damping, or different frequency making it harder to excite and easier for pilots to get out of.)

Birth of the (redacted) Helicopter - part 2   start watching at 5:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYkB2y49gnw

" about this time, we had our first set back. We had a visit from a (redacted) executive who was a pilot...
   who felt that he should be the one to make the first flight.  And so, he came to join us one day...Near New Years of '43. And here he is without his safety belt fastened. And he's holding on by means of the controls.  So watch very closely because we are going to have our first, uh, bad episode here. He's thrown up THROUGH THE ROTOR. He landed in the snowbank to the left there, and fortunately his injuries were limited to a broken left arm just above the wrist. In fact in a matter of days, he was able to go about his, uh, business.  But we were set back considerably. It took us a while to rebuild our test-bed..."

In this example, accelerations, not properly controlled due to unconstrained motion of the pilot's arm and in this case the whole pilot from failure to wear his seat-belt caused the crash.

In general, we have, for a long time known to provide significant stick force required to make significant inputs to control systems, provide dead-bands from the inputs, and have control system designs that don't have a lot of lag from pilot input to craft response. However, in a NEW environment, there are plenty of ways to forget these lessons. This is why I raise the issue about providing bracing, arm Velcro, or some other resistance to accelerations in zero-g which could cause unintended inputs to the controls. 

and one more... in this case from "Phantom from the Cockpit flying the Legend" by Peter Caygill.
 about PIO where the most telling quote in this is
"Always lock the shoulder straps when flying under conditions of high speed and low altitude. The body, from the lap belt up, could become the forcing function during an inadvertent pitch input if the shoulder straps are unlocked."
(sorry for all the edits, but I wanted to make my case completely)


Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: inventodoc on 03/22/2016 07:49 pm
As someone who still uses a good ol' fashioned flight stick to play Wing Commander, Descent and the Freespace saga, I raise my fine gallic nose at the idea of inferior console controllers coming anywhere near my next generation capsule, thank you.

In all seriousness, those things are amply suited for three directions of movement (unsure about roll). I'd bulk the design up for space use (you'd have to manipulate the controls through a suit) and stuff like triggers can be repurposed, but it's a difficult design to beat, ergonomically. Indeed, they'd most likely be even more comfortable to use in microgravity than in 1g.

Mind you, SpaceX has likely considered the idea even if it does seem very left field. Don't forget the background of many of their software people and the general interdisciplinary mixing that seems to go on between software and hardware guys (everybody working on the same floor, etc). It's likely been considered and rejected for whatever reason.

I do wonder why, though.

Very good points.   I'd point out the LEM joystick was a pretty clunky affair.  The LEM was the first manned craft designed to operate exclusively in space.  I think the large size of good simulator flight controllers would be disadvantageous in zero gravity.   I do believe that game console controllers would be just fine.     Inputs in zero gravity / orbit tend to be pulsatile or transient and are either rotational or translatory only, as compared to flight environments where input and trim are continuous due to airflow effects and drift.     Wing Commander and Descent are more like an aircraft flight model in the way the physics models were simplified and how they respond to input.   I loved those games!   Never played Freespace though.....
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jim on 03/22/2016 07:54 pm

Very good points.   I'd point out the LEM joystick was a pretty clunky affair. 

No different from the CSM. Or the shuttle aft flight deck, where they were used to control both the shuttle in zero g and the RMS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yg1968 on 03/31/2016 03:41 pm
Jeff Foust has tweeted a new Commercial Crew milestone chart presented by Bill Gerstenmaier, current as of March 2016.  (Previous chart was from November 30, 2015.)

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/715552131323994115
Quote
Gerst: commercial crew program doing pretty good overall, lots of challenges. Upcoming milestones:

Uncrewed Dragon2 test flight to the ISS has been delayed (from December 2016) to May 2017 according to this chart. The first crewed Dragon2 test flight to the ISS is now scheduled for August 2017.

Edit: corrected date for the first crewed test flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: kevinof on 03/31/2016 03:53 pm
Jeff Foust has tweeted a new Commercial Crew milestone chart presented by Bill Gerstenmaier, current as of March 2016.  (Previous chart was from November 30, 2015.)

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/715552131323994115
Quote
Gerst: commercial crew program doing pretty good overall, lots of challenges. Upcoming milestones:

Uncrewed Dragon2 test flight to the ISS has been delayed (from December 2016) to May 2017 according to this chart. The first crewed Dragon2 test flight to the ISS is now scheduled for May 2017.

Where is the "unlike" button? not good.  Was hoping for something a little sooner.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Arb on 03/31/2016 10:17 pm
Uncrewed Dragon2 test flight to the ISS has been delayed (from December 2016) to May 2017 according to this chart. The first crewed Dragon2 test flight to the ISS is now scheduled for May 2017.

Where is the "unlike" button? not good.  Was hoping for something a little sooner.

It's SpaceX. Hate to say it but fully expect that CST100 will get to ISS first.

We should maybe start a poll.

And some time dilation analysis.

Edit: Fix quotes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 03/31/2016 10:37 pm
I think it's fairly important to them that they keep to this particular timeframe. I don't expect additional slips without impassable hardware problems.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: The man in the can on 03/31/2016 11:37 pm
Uncrewed Flight test May 2017
In flight abort test July 2017 (date unofficial)
Crewed flight test August 2017

It's very short time frame to reuse the uncrewed flight test vehicule for the abort test like it was planned.

It's only my speculation, maybe SpaceX dropped that plan and the new delay come from the time needed to build and additional prototype? :-\

EDIT: Here a link about the plan to reuse the uncrewed flight vehicule for the flight abort test if someone don't trust me.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/more-fidelity-for-spacex-in-flight-abort-reduces-risk (http://www.nasa.gov/feature/more-fidelity-for-spacex-in-flight-abort-reduces-risk)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: woods170 on 04/01/2016 07:31 am
Uncrewed Dragon2 test flight to the ISS has been delayed (from December 2016) to May 2017 according to this chart. The first crewed Dragon2 test flight to the ISS is now scheduled for May 2017.

Where is the "unlike" button? not good.  Was hoping for something a little sooner.

It's SpaceX. Hate to say it but fully expect that CST100 will get to ISS first.

We should maybe start a poll.

And some time dilation analysis.

Edit: Fix quotes.
I fully expect the crewed demo missions of both SpaceX and Boeing to shift into 2018. Boeing, like SpaceX, has it's plate very full.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: stoker5432 on 04/03/2016 05:45 pm
What's people's opinion on the LEO loiter time (as in not connected to the ISS) of the Dragon 2 with a crew? I assume NASA had some minimum requirements on this, but I can't find the info.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: nadreck on 04/03/2016 05:51 pm
What's people's opinion on the LEO loiter time (as in not connected to the ISS) of the Dragon 2 with a crew? I assume NASA had some minimum requirements on this, but I can't find the info.
I am sure that this will be limited by the ECLSS and that any serviceable ECLSS on the Dragon would mean that the option is there to carry additional consumables.  I would expect the minimum design capacity would be 100 to 200 hours, but trading off other uses of the volume and mass capacity of the Dragon for extra consumables I am sure you could go beyond one month for 4 people and obviously more if you cut the complement down.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: wes_wilson on 04/04/2016 07:55 pm
What's people's opinion on the LEO loiter time (as in not connected to the ISS) of the Dragon 2 with a crew? I assume NASA had some minimum requirements on this, but I can't find the info.
I am sure that this will be limited by the ECLSS and that any serviceable ECLSS on the Dragon would mean that the option is there to carry additional consumables.  I would expect the minimum design capacity would be 100 to 200 hours, but trading off other uses of the volume and mass capacity of the Dragon for extra consumables I am sure you could go beyond one month for 4 people and obviously more if you cut the complement down.

Ummm,  that's right on the border of enough for a 1 person one way flight to Mars....  Not suggesting anyone would do that, it just struck me while reading your response.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: nadreck on 04/04/2016 08:15 pm
What's people's opinion on the LEO loiter time (as in not connected to the ISS) of the Dragon 2 with a crew? I assume NASA had some minimum requirements on this, but I can't find the info.
I am sure that this will be limited by the ECLSS and that any serviceable ECLSS on the Dragon would mean that the option is there to carry additional consumables.  I would expect the minimum design capacity would be 100 to 200 hours, but trading off other uses of the volume and mass capacity of the Dragon for extra consumables I am sure you could go beyond one month for 4 people and obviously more if you cut the complement down.

Ummm,  that's right on the border of enough for a 1 person one way flight to Mars....  Not suggesting anyone would do that, it just struck me while reading your response.

At that point you would be coming  up on the contracted lifespan while docked/berthed to ISS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docteurgeek on 04/20/2016 08:41 pm
What is your opinion about using a refurbish first stage for the inflight abort test ?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Hauerg on 04/20/2016 08:46 pm
What is your opinion about using a refurbish first stage for the inflight abort test ?
IIRC this job is already taken by the F9R dev 2 or whatever it was called.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 04/20/2016 08:53 pm
What is your opinion about using a refurbish first stage for the inflight abort test ?

The CRS-8 recovered stage will undergo inspection and several test firings before being flown again, likely on a payload flight, in 2 or 3 months.

I recall that the in-flight abort test will not attempt any kind of booster recovery, so it would be a waste to use the CRS-8 booster or any of the first recovered stages for this purpose. The F9R test stage mentioned, which only 3 engines, was last seen at Vandenburg base, used to test out tanking at the SpaceX launch pad there some time ago.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: whitelancer64 on 04/20/2016 09:03 pm
It's SpaceX. Hate to say it but fully expect that CST100 will get to ISS first.
*snip*

According to the same chart, Boeing's CST-100 / Starliner does its unmanned flight test in June 2017, and the crewed flight test in October 2017. Both are after SpaceX's unmanned and crewed flight tests.

Woods is right that the crew flights could slip to early 2018.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 04/20/2016 09:06 pm
What is your opinion about using a refurbish first stage for the inflight abort test ?

The CRS-8 recovered stage will undergo inspection and several test firings before being flown again, likely on a payload flight, in 2 or 3 months.

I recall that the in-flight abort test will not attempt any kind of booster recovery, so it would be a waste to use the CRS-8 booster or any of the first recovered stages for this purpose. The F9R test stage mentioned, which only 3 engines, was last seen at Vandenburg base, used to test out tanking at the SpaceX launch pad there some time ago.
Exactly.  The abort will be at near max-Q.  It's hard to imagine a booster in the transonic range surviving exposing a blunt nose with no control authority (part of the abort is shutting down the engines.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/20/2016 09:28 pm
What is your opinion about using a refurbish first stage for the inflight abort test ?

The CRS-8 recovered stage will undergo inspection and several test firings before being flown again, likely on a payload flight, in 2 or 3 months.

I recall that the in-flight abort test will not attempt any kind of booster recovery, so it would be a waste to use the CRS-8 booster or any of the first recovered stages for this purpose. The F9R test stage mentioned, which only 3 engines, was last seen at Vandenburg base, used to test out tanking at the SpaceX launch pad there some time ago.
Exactly.  The abort will be at near max-Q.  It's hard to imagine a booster in the transonic range surviving exposing a blunt nose with no control authority (part of the abort is shutting down the engines.)

I'm looking forward to incredible footage. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 04/20/2016 09:29 pm
Exactly.  The abort will be at near max-Q.  It's hard to imagine a booster in the transonic range surviving exposing a blunt nose with no control authority (part of the abort is shutting down the engines.)

And what of how the CRS-7 S1 kept on chugging after its S2 went kaboom?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rocx on 04/20/2016 09:37 pm
Exactly.  The abort will be at near max-Q.  It's hard to imagine a booster in the transonic range surviving exposing a blunt nose with no control authority (part of the abort is shutting down the engines.)

And what of how the CRS-7 S1 kept on chugging after its S2 went kaboom?

That was past max-Q, with running and controlled engines.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rcoppola on 04/20/2016 09:55 pm
So we know these milestones have been pushed back but do we know specifically why? Is it budgetary or technical? Sure would love to know what's technically keeping them up at night and why.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 04/20/2016 10:36 pm
Exactly.  The abort will be at near max-Q.  It's hard to imagine a booster in the transonic range surviving exposing a blunt nose with no control authority (part of the abort is shutting down the engines.)

And what of how the CRS-7 S1 kept on chugging after its S2 went kaboom?
CRS-7 S1 "kept chugging" for a few of seconds and then disintegrated.  Range triggered the FTS more than 20 seconds after S1 ceased to exist.  I could be wrong, but I think saving S1 after the abort would be complicated - if not impossible.

They have a 3-engine v1.1 stage that is usable as an abort vehicle and not much else.  Why risk a reusable stage?  Why bother to invest the engineering time?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docteurgeek on 04/21/2016 12:08 pm
What is your opinion about using a refurbish first stage for the inflight abort test ?

The CRS-8 recovered stage will undergo inspection and several test firings before being flown again, likely on a payload flight, in 2 or 3 months.

I recall that the in-flight abort test will not attempt any kind of booster recovery, so it would be a waste to use the CRS-8 booster or any of the first recovered stages for this purpose. The F9R test stage mentioned, which only 3 engines, was last seen at Vandenburg base, used to test out tanking at the SpaceX launch pad there some time ago.
Exactly.  The abort will be at near max-Q.  It's hard to imagine a booster in the transonic range surviving exposing a blunt nose with no control authority (part of the abort is shutting down the engines.)

NASA expressed before it's will to creat a simulation as close as possible from what will be a maned mission. A real stage with a dummy stage 2 with an FTS would be great in this case.

If they want to recover stage 1,  they'll have to use a fairing for the aerodynamics of the top of the stage 1 with , at least, an interstage to protect it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bstrong on 05/12/2016 03:25 pm
http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/05/boeing-starliner-delayed-2018/

Quote
A spokesman for SpaceX told Ars Wednesday night that the company remains on track for crewed missions in 2017.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/12/2016 03:49 pm
Space was also "on track" for a Falcon Heavy launch to take place several years ago...delays occur and SpaceX is certainly no stranger to them, and probably will be reaquainted with them several more times, perhaps on commercial crew (again). A lot can happen and first launch of crew is still a long way off.  gloating over anyone's delays or difficulties is juvenile and unproductive.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: abaddon on 05/12/2016 03:54 pm
gloating over anyone's delays or difficulties is juvenile and unproductive.
Who's gloating?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: bstrong on 05/12/2016 03:55 pm
Space was also "on track" for a Falcon Heavy launch to take place several years ago...delays occur and SpaceX is certainly no stranger to them, and probably will be reaquainted with them several more times, perhaps on commercial crew (again). A lot can happen and first launch of crew is still a long way off.  gloating over anyone's delays or difficulties is juvenile and unproductive.

I don't know what you are calling gloating. I just posted the most recent public statement from SpaceX about Crew Dragon schedule, sans commentary. SpaceX made that statement because they were asked the question.

I am also skeptical of 2017 for a SpaceX flight, but it's worth noting their publicly reaffirmed plan of record.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/12/2016 04:46 pm
Space was also "on track" for a Falcon Heavy launch to take place several years ago...delays occur and SpaceX is certainly no stranger to them, and probably will be reaquainted with them several more times, perhaps on commercial crew (again). A lot can happen and first launch of crew is still a long way off.  gloating over anyone's delays or difficulties is juvenile and unproductive.

I don't know what you are calling gloating. I just posted the most recent public statement from SpaceX about Crew Dragon schedule, sans commentary. SpaceX made that statement because they were asked the question.

I am also skeptical of 2017 for a SpaceX flight, but it's worth noting their publicly reaffirmed plan of record.

They are checking off some of the to do list in the engineering department too.  So resources should be able to focus on less things. 

I think that for a small company they've been busying on too many development projects. F9, F9v1.1 and later the full thrust and now recovery operations. 

F9 is essentially out of the way.
FH should be reasonably along it's way now.  After that flies that leaves Dragon2 as the next big development.

There is $2.6 billion riding on Dragon2. I think SpaceX should minimize internal pet projects like Dragon Fly and paper rockets and spacecraft for Mars.  There is time for that later.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/12/2016 04:50 pm
SpaceX, and Elon Musk in particular, cannot function unless they're constantly at the edge of the possible.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Escapist on 05/12/2016 05:11 pm

I think that for a small company they've been busying on too many development projects. F9, F9v1.1 and later the full thrust and now recovery operations. 


At some point we're all going to have to stop thinking of SpaceX as a small company. They have ~5000 employees now. ULA has ~3400 according to their own website. ESA has ~2000 employees. NASA has ~18,000 plus contractors.

SpaceX is rapidly becoming a large company, which probably means they have more resources than at least I usually default to thinking they do.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: RoboGoofers on 05/12/2016 05:19 pm
Space was also "on track" for a Falcon Heavy launch to take place several years ago...delays occur and SpaceX is certainly no stranger to them, and probably will be reaquainted with them several more times, perhaps on commercial crew (again). A lot can happen and first launch of crew is still a long way off.  gloating over anyone's delays or difficulties is juvenile and unproductive.

I don't know what you are calling gloating. I just posted the most recent public statement from SpaceX about Crew Dragon schedule, sans commentary. SpaceX made that statement because they were asked the question.

I am also skeptical of 2017 for a SpaceX flight, but it's worth noting their publicly reaffirmed plan of record.

They are checking off some of the to do list in the engineering department too.  So resources should be able to focus on less things. 

I think that for a small company they've been busying on too many development projects. F9, F9v1.1 and later the full thrust and now recovery operations. 

F9 is essentially out of the way.
FH should be reasonably along it's way now.  After that flies that leaves Dragon2 as the next big development.

There is $2.6 billion riding on Dragon2. I think SpaceX should minimize internal pet projects like Dragon Fly and paper rockets and spacecraft for Mars.  There is time for that later.

There's a lot of co-dependence between Falcon 9 development and FH development, but there's no reason why Dragon 2 development should be held up by any delays from Falcon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/13/2016 12:08 am

I think that for a small company they've been busying on too many development projects. F9, F9v1.1 and later the full thrust and now recovery operations. 


At some point we're all going to have to stop thinking of SpaceX as a small company. They have ~5000 employees now. ULA has ~3400 according to their own website. ESA has ~2000 employees. NASA has ~18,000 plus contractors.

SpaceX is rapidly becoming a large company, which probably means they have more resources than at least I usually default to thinking they do.

I consider 100,000 a large company.  But I get your point. 

Comparing employee count between those 3 companies is not valid since SpaceX is vertically integrated.  Many of the jobs that ULA needs to support a launch vehicle are with subcontractors. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: spacenut on 05/13/2016 01:51 am
Yes, that is right.  Subcontractors for ULA and ESA.  ULA uses Russian engines on Atlas V, so they don't make them.  Also The RL-10's and the Delta IV engines are not made by ULA.  By using a lot of sub-contractors, it seems their costs are higher because all the sub's have to make a profit.  Who knows what the sub-contractor profits are for what they make.  SpaceX being vertically integrated can watch the costs up and down the chain and still make a profit at a lower overall cost. 

Now, how far along is the Dragon 2?  Do they have people who are doing nothing but working on Dragon 2 or do they spend some time working on other SpaceX projects? 
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Hirox on 05/13/2016 02:00 am

I think that for a small company they've been busying on too many development projects. F9, F9v1.1 and later the full thrust and now recovery operations. 


At some point we're all going to have to stop thinking of SpaceX as a small company. They have ~5000 employees now. ULA has ~3400 according to their own website. ESA has ~2000 employees. NASA has ~18,000 plus contractors.

SpaceX is rapidly becoming a large company, which probably means they have more resources than at least I usually default to thinking they do.

I consider 100,000 a large company.  But I get your point. 

Comparing employee count between those 3 companies is not valid since SpaceX is vertically integrated.  Many of the jobs that ULA needs to support a launch vehicle are with subcontractors.

Google got 61k employees. Highest valued public company as of yesterday at about $500b. tiny.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JamesH65 on 05/13/2016 05:55 am

I think that for a small company they've been busying on too many development projects. F9, F9v1.1 and later the full thrust and now recovery operations. 


At some point we're all going to have to stop thinking of SpaceX as a small company. They have ~5000 employees now. ULA has ~3400 according to their own website. ESA has ~2000 employees. NASA has ~18,000 plus contractors.

SpaceX is rapidly becoming a large company, which probably means they have more resources than at least I usually default to thinking they do.

I consider 100,000 a large company.  But I get your point. 

Comparing employee count between those 3 companies is not valid since SpaceX is vertically integrated.  Many of the jobs that ULA needs to support a launch vehicle are with subcontractors.

Google got 61k employees. Highest valued public company as of yesterday at about $500b. tiny.

Quite. You don't need to be big to achieve great things.

5000 employees at SpaceX should be plenty for what they are trying to do right now. Vertical integration doesn't just mean that you make stuff yourself, it also means that you don't need many staff to deal with subcontractors - they can actually be working on stuff.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: sevenperforce on 05/18/2016 06:42 pm
Apologies if this has already been hashed and rehashed, but does anyone have even vague estimates for the mass breakdown of the Dragon V2? The quoted dry mass is 6.4 tonnes, and that includes the trunk, the docking connector, the heat shield, the aeroshell, the pressure vessel, the Dracos and SuperDracos, and the onboard hypergol tanks. Do we know if it also includes the crew cabin and amenities, like seats, screens, controls, life support, and so forth?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Scylla on 06/23/2016 06:58 pm
Backbone of Crew Dragon, the crew-carrying version of Dragon 2 spacecraft, undergoing structural load testing
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/746052988964200448
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: rpapo on 06/24/2016 12:01 am
Am I seeing things, or is the side hatch much bigger than it was in the reveal nearly two years ago?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 06/24/2016 12:04 am
Am I seeing things, or is the side hatch much bigger than it was in the reveal nearly two years ago?

It looks about the same. Keep in mind here that you aren't seeing the bottom 'service section' with propellant tanks, lined around the base of the Dragon, so the hatch looks bigger.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cuddihy on 06/24/2016 03:34 am
Is it time to rename this thread, "Crew Dragon Updates and Discussion"? The "V2" terminology appears to have disappeared entirely from Musk's/ SpaceX's lexicon.

Like the purple hatch BTW, very festive.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 06/24/2016 12:34 pm
Looks slightly lengthened, no? Maybe the pad abort told them they needed slightly more SuperDraco fuel?
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: MattMason on 06/24/2016 12:43 pm
Is it time to rename this thread, "Crew Dragon Updates and Discussion"? The "V2" terminology appears to have disappeared entirely from Musk's/ SpaceX's lexicon.

Like the purple hatch BTW, very festive.

I agree with a caveat.

SpaceX or NASA's captions used "Dragon 2" as a generic family name of the vehicles. "Crew Dragon" and "Red Dragon" are, thus, variants of the model. The whole "V2" too-soon mess looks like it has changed how SpaceX itself refers to the vehicle and we should follow their lead.

So if this thread is to discuss any and all Dragon 2 spacecraft types, "SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion" it should be. No "V."
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: jacqmans on 06/25/2016 12:54 pm
The first test article of a SpaceX Crew Dragon undergoes structural load testing to demonstrate the spacecraft’s ability to withstand the tremendous forces it’s exposed to during space flight. The backbone of Crew Dagon is a metallic welded pressure vessel. SpaceX has completed manufacturing of the first two pressure vessels to be used for ground testing, and is currently manufacturing two Crew Dragon flight articles. Photo credit: SpaceX
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: dror on 06/25/2016 07:06 pm
Is it time to rename this thread, "Crew Dragon Updates and Discussion"? The "V2" terminology appears to have disappeared entirely from Musk's/ SpaceX's lexicon.

Like the purple hatch BTW, very festive.
...
SpaceX or NASA's captions used "Dragon 2" as a generic family name of the vehicles. "Crew Dragon" and "Red Dragon" are, thus, variants of the model.
...

There may also be an unmanned "Cargo Dragon 2" version, so "Crew Dragon" may not be correct
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: ScottMC on 06/26/2016 08:14 pm
Looks slightly lengthened, no?
Side-by-side comparison.  Dragon 1 pressure vessel on the left, Dragon 2 on the right

Credits to SpaceX:
http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/02/12/dragonfalcon-9-update
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/746052988964200448

The angles are different but I agree that base does appear slightly lengthened compared to the Dragon 1 pressure vessel.  The round window might be larger too.

Edit: shortened quote to clarify what I'm responding to.  Simply a photo comparison between Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 pressure vessels :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 06/26/2016 08:22 pm
I am sure they have not redesigned the shape of the pressure vessel since the pad abort. If I remember correctly it was mentioned though, that the amount of fuel would be increased. But that too was decided before the pad abort.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: yokem55 on 06/27/2016 12:15 am
I am sure they have not redesigned the shape of the pressure vessel since the pad abort. If I remember correctly it was mentioned though, that the amount of fuel would be increased. But that too was decided before the pad abort.
From what I remember, the pad abort article was was a dragon 1 pressure vessel with a dragon 2 outer mold line, so the differences could entirely be chalked up to that...
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: guckyfan on 06/27/2016 03:56 am
I am sure they have not redesigned the shape of the pressure vessel since the pad abort. If I remember correctly it was mentioned though, that the amount of fuel would be increased. But that too was decided before the pad abort.
From what I remember, the pad abort article was was a dragon 1 pressure vessel with a dragon 2 outer mold line, so the differences could entirely be chalked up to that...

I probably was not clear enough. That's what I meant. The pressure vessel on the abort test was old. But the design of the new one was already done and not changed because of the outcome of the pad abort. Which would probably mean that fuel for the abort was more limited then it will be on the real crew Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: darkenfast on 06/27/2016 08:44 am
The windows are somewhat oval and are also set at a slight angle to the pressure vessel (i.e: the side away from the hatch protrudes out more than the side towards the hatch.  On the old Dragon info page on the SpaceX site, the dimensions of the lower cylinder (IIRC), were 2.2m wide and .6m long.  If I had to guess (based on these wide-angle photos), I'd say that they made the cone-shaped part of the pressure hull above the cylinder more shallow.  I don't THINK they changed the upper cone, although the angle and lens make it appear somewhat shorter.  One of the photos above shows a man underneath the rig, which may help with scale.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: stoker5432 on 06/27/2016 09:22 pm
I am sure they have not redesigned the shape of the pressure vessel since the pad abort. If I remember correctly it was mentioned though, that the amount of fuel would be increased. But that too was decided before the pad abort.
From what I remember, the pad abort article was was a dragon 1 pressure vessel with a dragon 2 outer mold line, so the differences could entirely be chalked up to that...

Looking at the pictures of the pad abort article verses these new pictures, I can't see how the outer mold line could be the same if that base is used. It looks to be twice as tall. Looking at the hatch position on the pad abort article,to me anyway, clearly indicates use of the older version of the pressure vessel. As far as the bottom of the capsule being shallower, that just looks like camera angle distortion to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: BrianNH on 08/19/2016 04:50 pm
New parachute test

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2016/08/19/spacex-conducts-successful-crew-dragon-parachute-system-test/

Quote
A Crew Dragon test article successfully deployed its four main parachutes as planned during a test that saw the SpaceX-made test article dropped from a C-130 aircraft 26,000 feet above Delamar Dry Lake, Nevada.

Quote
The parachute test is just one of an evaluation regimen that is expected to include many additional parachute drops of increasing complexity. SpaceX and NASA engineers will use the results throughout the test program to confirm the system and get it certified for use first on flight tests and then for operational missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Lars-J on 08/19/2016 05:31 pm
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: docmordrid on 08/19/2016 05:43 pm
With a trunk? Looks odd....
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/19/2016 05:45 pm
4 good chutes. Looks like a very smooth test.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: JBF on 08/19/2016 06:33 pm
Interesting how much they had to squash it to fit into the cargo plane.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: cscott on 08/19/2016 07:14 pm
With a trunk? Looks odd....
I think JBF is suggesting that this is the shape of the capsule-without-trunk clipped to the cargo bay volume, not a capsule+trunk.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: mme on 08/19/2016 07:31 pm
With a trunk? Looks odd....
I think it's just the 'chutes mounted in a mass simulator, not a Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Craftyatom on 08/19/2016 08:35 pm
(drop test pictures)

It's gonna take a while to get used to that many chutes, just saying.

And yeah, that looks like just a mass simulator.  Anything with the same mass and a lower Cd should work fine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: jacqmans on 08/22/2016 02:05 pm
High Res.
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Jdeshetler on 08/22/2016 02:50 pm
This 10 frames per second clip from NASA streaming was altered and stabilized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KzCZtmlWNw
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: deruch on 08/26/2016 08:08 am
This 10 frames per second clip from NASA streaming was altered and stabilized.

For anyone who wants to watch the NASA stream with sound, it can be found in Part 3 of the hosted commentary from John44's capture of the EVA-36 coverage.  The start time mark is 37m:15s.

Expedition-48 - US Spacewalk (EVA-36) (hosted coverage and commentary)
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9949
Title: Re: SpaceX Dragon V2 Updates and Discussion
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/27/2016 04:41 pm
New thread time!
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.0