Dragon v2 Kremlinology from Helodriver's unveiling pics

[R7]

They have to be quick disconnects, though.  They can't be threaded.

Or, could the whole panel be discarded? Dragon v1 has a similar services tunnel to the trunk. Does anyone know how that disconnects?

Discarding the whole panel doesn't solve the problem of disconnection, just moves it behind the panel Tried to search picture of how the v1 connector looks after flight but not much luck. Attaching the only one I came across with zoomed section. Looks pretty open, just a hole in the wall. Judging by the scorch marks the umbilical is in the "leeward" side during reentry.

Btw InfraNut2 is probably spot on with the fluid connectors. V1 has bank of four fluid connectors which cannot be anything else but coolant to/from radiator, no?

edit: Oh crap, just noticed the linked image is post-flight dragon ... so there you have it, in pristine condition. Time to go to bed, aargh...

[inventodoc]

As a medical doctor, I'm noticing an interesting item on the second to left display, titled "Toxic Levels", which lists CO, HCN and HCL.

I think I understand the reason to look at carbon monoxide (oxygen and carbon dioxide are nearby).  My guess is that HCL is monitored as a thermogenic product of plastics (anything else)?   

What is the reason to be monitoring for cyanide levels (HCN)?   It is a product of plastic combustion like HCL and is probably why people go unconscious from smoke inhalation.  Any particular reason to monitor for it in a space capsule?    (It would be on Titan, but in orbit).  Can it somehow be formed if hydrazine got into the spacecraft after touchdown and mixed with a carbon containing substance???

BTW Kremlinology is a great term for this sort of thing.

[inventodoc]

As far as the animation with astronauts, it bothered me the first time I saw it.  It looks like footage made a long time ago.  The screens and physical controls are not the same as what was unveiled.  The window position was also lower (I think) and round - probably based upon a manned Dragon V1.

[Lars_J]

As far as the animation with astronauts, it bothered me the first time I saw it.  It looks like footage made a long time ago.  The screens and physical controls are not the same as what was unveiled.  The window position was also lower (I think) and round - probably based upon a manned Dragon V1.

All of the interior is subject to change. Don't consider any of it set in stone.

[Herb Schaltegger]

As a medical doctor, I'm noticing an interesting item on the second to left display, titled "Toxic Levels", which lists CO, HCN and HCL.

I think I understand the reason to look at carbon monoxide (oxygen and carbon dioxide are nearby).  My guess is that HCL is monitored as a thermogenic product of plastics (anything else)?   

What is the reason to be monitoring for cyanide levels (HCN)?   It is a product of plastic combustion like HCL and is probably why people go unconscious from smoke inhalation.  Any particular reason to monitor for it in a space capsule?    (It would be on Titan, but in orbit).  Can it somehow be formed if hydrazine got into the spacecraft after touchdown and mixed with a carbon containing substance???

BTW Kremlinology is a great term for this sort of thing.

You ought to see the specs for the TCM (Trace Contaminant Monitor) on the ISS and all the stuff the TCCS (Trace Contaminant Control Subsystem) is spec'd to remove ... (A long time ago, I was in the Boeing ARS design group for Space Station Freedom).

Anyway, you look for  the products of smoldering, not just outright full-on fire. There are TONS of things that can be produced in combustion of polymers but some are a lot more deadly than others. If those graphics are more than notional, then HCN is something they're concerned about, given what they know about materials planned to be used in their pressurized volume. It's one of their "canary in the coal mine" compounds.

[coypu76]

This photo shows the V1 umbilical connector.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Post-flight_Dragon_capsule.jpg
It's in approximately the same position as the one on the Dragon V2 demo article.  This pic appears to show one of the CRS flight articles.  Note that the umbilical panel is in a different position than the one on the very first Dragon recovered (the wheel of cheese flight) which is hanging in the SpaceX headquarters and was visible during the demo as seen here:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/spacex-shows-off-dragon-v2-its-brand-new-manned-space-capsule/#image-2
The Flight 1 article umbilical panel has a cover bolted over it.  It is smaller and located left of the one on the CRS article in the first link, which appears to be an identical model with the one in Propulsophile's post showing the spacecraft floating in the ocean after splashdown.
This in-flight photo shows the umbilical configuration connected to the trunk. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/ISS-31_SpaceX_Dragon_commercial_cargo_craft_approaches_the_ISS_-_crop.jpg

[Coastal Ron]

They have to be quick disconnects, though.  They can't be threaded.

Or, could the whole panel be discarded? Dragon v1 has a similar services tunnel to the trunk. Does anyone know how that disconnects?

Discarding the whole panel doesn't solve the problem of disconnection, just moves it behind the panel Tried to search picture of how the v1 connector looks after flight but not much luck. Attaching the only one I came across with zoomed section. Looks pretty open, just a hole in the wall. Judging by the scorch marks the umbilical is in the "leeward" side during reentry.

There are versions of the bulkhead mount portion of electrical connectors that are stainless steel and hermetically sealed for use in very harsh conditions - undersea systems for instance.  I used to work for one of the companies that made them back in the 80's, and some of the vehicles that our mil-spec connectors went into included cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.

Where the panel is mounted, maybe there isn't a lot of direct heat?

[ChrisWilson68]

As far as the animation with astronauts, it bothered me the first time I saw it.  It looks like footage made a long time ago.  The screens and physical controls are not the same as what was unveiled.  The window position was also lower (I think) and round - probably based upon a manned Dragon V1.

All of the interior is subject to change. Don't consider any of it set in stone.

What's the source for that?

[john smith 19]

There are versions of the bulkhead mount portion of electrical connectors that are stainless steel and hermetically sealed for use in very harsh conditions - undersea systems for instance.  I used to work for one of the companies that made them back in the 80's, and some of the vehicles that our mil-spec connectors went into included cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.

Where the panel is mounted, maybe there isn't a lot of direct heat?

Keep in mind that a goal of Dragons is rerusability.  Not only must the link between trunk and capsule break cleanly it must also be able to be re made with a new trunk.

That rules out anything threaded but you do not necessarily have to rely on just the tight fit between pin and socket. The alignment pins could be grooved to take a cam follower which rotates down the pin and pulls capsule and trunk more tightly together.

Since this panel is buried in the separation plane heat should not be that big an issue.

Many thanks to Helodriver for his many wonderful pics from the Dragon v2 unveiling. See:-

Great event, Attended in person. ... Attached are some pics.

Second image dump.

Draw a vertical line on the capsule and look at the radius of curvature between the left and right hand sides.

The crew entry side is showing a definite flattening, which is a pretty serious shift from the pure truncated cone  designs of every previous US capsule.

This is as much a shift as the introduction of the combined main engine/LAS thrusters.

[ChrisWilson68]

Many thanks to Helodriver for his many wonderful pics from the Dragon v2 unveiling. See:-

Great event, Attended in person. ... Attached are some pics.

Second image dump.

Draw a vertical line on the capsule and look at the radius of curvature between the left and right hand sides.

The crew entry side is showing a definite flattening, which is a pretty serious shift from the pure truncated cone  designs of every previous US capsule.

This is as much a shift as the introduction of the combined main engine/LAS thrusters.

I don't understand what you're seeing.  What picture in particular are you looking at?  Are you claiming there aren't two axes of symmetry?  It certainly looks to me like it has two axes of symmetry.  It's hard to tell in most of the video because it's from one side, but in the animation there are a couple of points where the camera pans over the top of the closed nosecone (once shortly after it leaves the station and then again while it is firing its engines while coming in for a landing) and at those points it looks like the front and back are fully symmetric.

[docmordrid]

Some of the photos from the event suffer from a bit of distortion that makes its front & rear look a tad asymmetrical, but I agree this is illusory.

[Lars_J]

As far as the animation with astronauts, it bothered me the first time I saw it.  It looks like footage made a long time ago.  The screens and physical controls are not the same as what was unveiled.  The window position was also lower (I think) and round - probably based upon a manned Dragon V1.

All of the interior is subject to change. Don't consider any of it set in stone.

What's the source for that?

Common sense. Or do you really think that this is final flight control software UI, final seat design, and that the cabin walls won't be covered and the cabin filled with equipment?

[ChrisWilson68]

As far as the animation with astronauts, it bothered me the first time I saw it.  It looks like footage made a long time ago.  The screens and physical controls are not the same as what was unveiled.  The window position was also lower (I think) and round - probably based upon a manned Dragon V1.

All of the interior is subject to change. Don't consider any of it set in stone.

What's the source for that?

Common sense. Or do you really think that this is final flight control software UI, final seat design, and that the cabin walls won't be covered and the cabin filled with equipment?

I don't know.  It seems plausible to me that this is the final design.

[Lars_J]

As far as the animation with astronauts, it bothered me the first time I saw it.  It looks like footage made a long time ago.  The screens and physical controls are not the same as what was unveiled.  The window position was also lower (I think) and round - probably based upon a manned Dragon V1.

All of the interior is subject to change. Don't consider any of it set in stone.

What's the source for that?

Common sense. Or do you really think that this is final flight control software UI, final seat design, and that the cabin walls won't be covered and the cabin filled with equipment?

I don't know.  It seems plausible to me that this is the final design.

Then I have a Brooklyn bridge to sell you. I can't even fathom how you think this is a final interior. It has seats and a display, EVERYTHING else is missing. But let's check back when the first flight occurs and see who is right.

[ChrisWilson68]

As far as the animation with astronauts, it bothered me the first time I saw it.  It looks like footage made a long time ago.  The screens and physical controls are not the same as what was unveiled.  The window position was also lower (I think) and round - probably based upon a manned Dragon V1.

All of the interior is subject to change. Don't consider any of it set in stone.

What's the source for that?

Common sense. Or do you really think that this is final flight control software UI, final seat design, and that the cabin walls won't be covered and the cabin filled with equipment?

I don't know.  It seems plausible to me that this is the final design.

Then I have a Brooklyn bridge to sell you. I can't even fathom how you think this is a final interior. It has seats and a display, EVERYTHING else is missing. But let's check back when the first flight occurs and see who is right.

I'm not claiming to know.  I'm just saying it seems plausible to me.  It's also plausible to me that this is not intended to be the final design.

The pictures I saw only showed portions of the interior, so it was hard to tell how much equipment there was in there, to tell what was or wasn't missing, so I was thinking mainly in terms of the seats and controls.  I didn't see anything in them to make them obviously not the final design, but maybe others are seeing things I'm not.  Some people have expressed concern about whether the stick will be useable under high g's or vibrations from the engine.  I don't know enough about it to tell whether that really makes the controls shown unworkable.  Some people expressed concern about a lack of switch covers, but again I don't know if that's really a problem.  If the controls have really obvious things like that that make them unworkable, why did SpaceX even bother putting them in and demoing them with such an unworkable design?  They've been thinking about this for years, so they've had plenty of time to come up with the real design for the controls and seats.

As to wall covering, do they really need that?  Is there a thermal issue that requires that?  I'm asking because I don't really know.

[Burninate]

We have it in direct commentary from Elon Musk with individual journalists that this particular unit will eventually fly.

Nobody seems to think it's finished fabrication of the interior yet though.

[Jcc]

With the wall covering, there is the question of optimal use of space for storage of required gear and supplies. Musk may like the "clean look" but as with every space ship or station I have seen, they tend to get lined with storage compartments. In radiation exposed environments (BLEO) the idea is the supplies can double for extra radiation shielding.

Also, I think the seat support structures may get a rework to make them better absorb energy in case of a hard landing, which could include chutes and no SD on land, single chute only, or multiple SD failures below chute deployment altitude.

[Hobbes-22]

I can think of two reasons to cover the walls.
1. to provide a softer surface to bang into when working in 0 G.
2. insulation. In photos of the v1 Dragon, it looks like the outside is covered with white panels, could those be insulation enough?

Apart from that, it's likely the inside will be covered with a layer of bagged supplies.

[ChrisWilson68]

I can think of two reasons to cover the walls.
1. to provide a softer surface to bang into when working in 0 G.
2. insulation. In photos of the v1 Dragon, it looks like the outside is covered with white panels, could those be insulation enough?

Apart from that, it's likely the inside will be covered with a layer of bagged supplies.

I was picturing the bags of supplies on the bottom of the capsule.

And personally I'd rather risk a few bangs into a hard wall than give up the really cool looking grid pattern of the walls -- particularly with the nice multi-color lighting they were using on Thursday.  It really gives it a nice hi-tech feel, like a spaceship should have.  Much better than the padded-cell look of a mental institution.

[Mader Levap]

And personally I'd rather risk a few bangs into a hard wall than give up the really cool looking grid pattern of the walls -- particularly with the nice multi-color lighting they were using on Thursday.  It really gives it a nice hi-tech feel, like a spaceship should have.

Protip: no one cares about that. Things in space has to be functional and I can bet that interior of this Dragon V2 on top of F9 will have your "padded cell in mental institution" feel, as you call it.