SpaceX test parachute system for Commercial Crew Dragon

[guckyfan]

In the NASA press release (#14-018 2014-01-17) and web posting they said:

During a normal spacecraft landing, the parachutes will be aided by the Dragon’s SuperDraco thrusters to provide a soft controlled landing. This redundancy on both the parachutes and thrusters is designed to ensure safe landings for crews.

[emphasis added]
This does not line up exactly with what SpaceX has been saying.  Sounds like a Soyuz landing.
Could this be what SpaceX has agreed to for NASA manned missions or just a garbled description?
As Emily Shanklin of Spacex was listed on the release, one would think that it would be accurate.

I see it as an intermediate step. It can be used until NASA (and SpaceX) has more confidence in the reliability of SuperDraco landing.

[Avron]

Redundancy , critical for human spaceflight.. If the parachutes don't work then its 100% SuperDraco landing.

[guckyfan]

Redundancy , critical for human spaceflight.. If the parachutes don't work then its 100% SuperDraco landing.

They will want 100% SuperDraco landings as standard for pinpoint landing on a landing pad of helipad size.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Which is another reason why I expect them to use a slightly modified Dragon2 for cargo as well. It would give them a chance to practice powered landings without parachutes to get more experience with it.

[Lars_J]

Which is another reason why I expect them to use a slightly modified Dragon2 for cargo as well. It would give them a chance to practice powered landings without parachutes to get more experience with it.

Except based on what we are seeing, on Dragon 2 the parachute compartment now takes up the space under the hatch where the ISS arm attachment point is. The star trackers and approach sensors to used to be placed there also have presumably been moved up to around the docking port - next to the new drogue canisters.

This changes things. And will make it difficult to use the Dragon 2 with station capture and berthing.

[Jason1701]

Which is another reason why I expect them to use a slightly modified Dragon2 for cargo as well. It would give them a chance to practice powered landings without parachutes to get more experience with it.

Except based on what we are seeing, on Dragon 2 the parachute compartment now takes up the space under the hatch where the ISS arm attachment point is. The star trackers and approach sensors to used to be placed there also have presumably been moved up to around the docking port - next to the new drogue canisters.

This changes things. And will make it difficult to use the Dragon 2 with station capture and berthing.

Berthing will be impossible for other reasons with Dragon 2 - mostly because of various subsystems filling the space on the forward bulkhead that was previously taken up by the CBM.

[Elmar Moelzer]

That's why I said "modified". Obviously, the cargo dragon will have to be able to berth with the station.

[Lurker Steve]

That's why I said "modified". Obviously, the cargo dragon will have to be able to berth with the station.

Only if you meant modified to revert those items back to the original Dragon 1 design.

[Ben the Space Brit]

That's why I said "modified". Obviously, the cargo dragon will have to be able to berth with the station.

Only if you meant modified to revert those items back to the original Dragon 1 design.

So, basically, what we're seeing here is the point where the Cargo and Crew Dragons diverge in commonality? There is a common OML and pressure module but they are almost totally different in outfitting.

[Elmar Moelzer]

So, basically, what we're seeing here is the point where the Cargo and Crew Dragons diverge in commonality? There is a common OML and pressure module but they are almost totally different in outfitting.

And I don't think that this is what will happen. I am pretty sure that they will try to keep as much commonality between the two versions as possible. We don't even know for sure yet what Dragon 2 will look like. It is likely going to look like some of the mockups we have seen and the shape of the pressure vessel seems to be pretty certain at this point. But otherwise, we cant be sure. Maybe there is a certain amount of modularity that allows turning a crew Dragon into a cargo Dragon and vice versa. It seems quite against SpaceX MO to have two so specialized versions. I certainly cant wait for the Dragon 2 reveal, which will hopefully give us a better idea about all this. It is overdue already anyway. Wonder what the holdup is.

[Lar]

I certainly cant wait for the Dragon 2 reveal, which will hopefully give us a better idea about all this. It is overdue already anyway. Wonder what the holdup is.

Today is the day that many proposals are due for CCDev/CCiCAP ... . See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28699.msg1151708#msg1151708 for example.

After those proposals are submitted we may see more.

[manboy]

That isn't a surprise. We saw a similar Dragon parachute+Superdraco landing video at least a year ago, I believe.

The was from late July 2012. The is from early August 2012.

Which is another reason why I expect them to use a slightly modified Dragon2 for cargo as well. It would give them a chance to practice powered landings without parachutes to get more experience with it.

Except based on what we are seeing, on Dragon 2 the parachute compartment now takes up the space under the hatch where the ISS arm attachment point is. The star trackers and approach sensors to used to be placed there also have presumably been moved up to around the docking port - next to the new drogue canisters.

That doesn't mean the grapple fixture can't be moved elsewhere.

Which is another reason why I expect them to use a slightly modified Dragon2 for cargo as well. It would give them a chance to practice powered landings without parachutes to get more experience with it.

Except based on what we are seeing, on Dragon 2 the parachute compartment now takes up the space under the hatch where the ISS arm attachment point is. The star trackers and approach sensors to used to be placed there also have presumably been moved up to around the docking port - next to the new drogue canisters.

This changes things. And will make it difficult to use the Dragon 2 with station capture and berthing.

Berthing will be impossible for other reasons with Dragon 2 - mostly because of various subsystems filling the space on the forward bulkhead that was previously taken up by the CBM.

It might be possible to fit both the CBM and drogues.

[Lars_J]

Berthing will be impossible for other reasons with Dragon 2 - mostly because of various subsystems filling the space on the forward bulkhead that was previously taken up by the CBM.

It might be possible to fit both the CBM and drogues.

Take another look at how little space there is around the CBM.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Berthing will be impossible for other reasons with Dragon 2 - mostly because of various subsystems filling the space on the forward bulkhead that was previously taken up by the CBM.

It might be possible to fit both the CBM and drogues.

Take another look at how little space there is around the CBM.

Who says the arrangement wont be different on the Dragon2?

[Lars_J]

Berthing will be impossible for other reasons with Dragon 2 - mostly because of various subsystems filling the space on the forward bulkhead that was previously taken up by the CBM.

It might be possible to fit both the CBM and drogues.

Take another look at how little space there is around the CBM.

Who says the arrangement wont be different on the Dragon2?

Different how? Do you not see the size of the CBM ring? I think you are grasping at straws here.

It's becoming clearer and clearer that "Dragon 2" won't have room for a CBM hatch. I.e. = No cargo version of Dragon 2.

[manboy]

Berthing will be impossible for other reasons with Dragon 2 - mostly because of various subsystems filling the space on the forward bulkhead that was previously taken up by the CBM.

It might be possible to fit both the CBM and drogues.

Take another look at how little space there is around the CBM.

How deep are the drogues?

[Lars_J]

Berthing will be impossible for other reasons with Dragon 2 - mostly because of various subsystems filling the space on the forward bulkhead that was previously taken up by the CBM.

It might be possible to fit both the CBM and drogues.

Take another look at how little space there is around the CBM.

How deep are the drogues?

Hard to tell, but I would assume they are ~1.5-2.5ft deep. See this diagram, the current drogue canister is the blue cylinder near the top.

[Elmar Moelzer]

It's becoming clearer and clearer that "Dragon 2" won't have room for a CBM hatch. I.e. = No cargo version of Dragon 2.

I still don't get where you are making those deductions from. I doubt that Dragon2 will look like the parachute test article, which seems to look more like Dragon1.

[Lars_J]

It's becoming clearer and clearer that "Dragon 2" won't have room for a CBM hatch. I.e. = No cargo version of Dragon 2.

I still don't get where you are making those deductions from. I doubt that Dragon2 will look like the parachute test article, which seems to look more like Dragon1.

I sure hope that they tested the final drogue/parachute layout, otherwise what is the point?  And that drogue location would be make hard or impossible to fit a CBM hatch in there. You can doubt all you want, but that sounds more like wishful thinking on your part to fit data to your theory rather than evaluation of the data we have.

[Lurker Steve]

It's becoming clearer and clearer that "Dragon 2" won't have room for a CBM hatch. I.e. = No cargo version of Dragon 2.

I still don't get where you are making those deductions from. I doubt that Dragon2 will look like the parachute test article, which seems to look more like Dragon1.

I sure hope that they tested the final drogue/parachute layout, otherwise what is the point?  And that drogue location would be make hard or impossible to fit a CBM hatch in there. You can doubt all you want, but that sounds more like wishful thinking on your part to fit data to your theory rather than evaluation of the data we have.

It doesn't have to be the "FINAL" layout, but it is certainly the current reference location in their design documents. After all, the test is to test the chute deployment in the new configuration. The rest of the craft doesn't have to look like the Dragon 2. It just needs to have more or less the same center of gravity. I'm sure they just modified the old test article instead of creating a new test article from scratch for this test.

Of course, the test article that Boeing dropped for their chute tests didn't look too much like the final configuration of the CST-100 either. It was just something they had Bigelow throw together for the test.