Dragon 2 on display at Newseum in DC on Wed June 11, 2014

[Mongo62]

This is just a compilation of the reports from the Washington Dragon display, collected into one post and sorted by subject:

HAWTHORNE UNVEILED FLIGHT HARDWARE, NOT ABORT TEST ARTICLE

This capsule is indeed actual flight hardware, not a mockup. [moralec]

This is the same exact vehicle that was displayed in Hawthorne, not a second one. The external power connector panel has the same horizontal paint smudge artifact just above the top connector that is visible on Blackstar's photos. [Helodriver]

Confirmed this one is due to go to orbit, not pad abort. Same unit as California unveiling. [grythumn]

There are two more v2 under construction.  One is being fit out and the other is still in welding.  The unit on display is intended to go to orbit. [Shredder56]

The plumbing and SD mounting hardware and all will be stripped from this capsule shortly, and put on the abort test article for the pad abort test and, hopefully, for the in-flight abort test. He also told me that this capsule will eventually fly in space. [vtirag]

STATE OF READINESS

However, this does not mean that is ready to fly to space right now. The external part is ready, and the avionics have been installed. But the draco boosters have not being installed in this particular version (they don't carry the capsule around with them). Further improvements to the interior are going to be included, in particular padding (I guess to avoid the astronauts getting hurt when floating in microgravity). [moralec]

The Draco engines were NOT installed. What we were seeing was the composite material that surrounds the nozzels, against which the nozzels are seated. My pictures don't show this very well, but you could clearly see the weave of the composite. The black ring around the "throat" of the nozzel are seemed like it could possibly have been a carbon-carbon composite, but it was way back in there and I couldn't really tell. That would make sense though, since the throat of the nozzel is hotter -- carbon/carbon would be better suited to take that heat. There was one shiny metal object at teh back of the nozzel, I'm guessing it's an attachment point that's behind the engine chamber. But no, what we were seeing was definitely not the nozzels, just where they fit against. [Shaledc]

They just removed/not installed some "boring" stuff like the padding, otherwise this is the final interior. Further small changes are possible. [vtirag]

The spaceship was "basically complete".  They need to install the engine injectors and a few other things, but he said it was pretty much ready to go. [Sesquipedalian]

EXTERIOR HEAT PROTECTION

It has a tick white painting that hides all the bolts and panels, however they are all there! they are very noticeable when seeing it up close. [moralec]

The reason the Dragon looks like a mockup is because the whole thing is covered in SPAM -- SPacex Ablator Material.  (Except for the heat shield which, of course, uses PICA-X.)  They coat the outer panels with the stuff, shape it, and form it, and then stick the panels on the spacecraft.  This protects the outer skin of the spacecraft from re-entry heating.  The SPAM is what makes it look fake; it has the texture and glossiness of a flimsy mockup molded out of styrofoam or plastic, but it is in fact quite solid. [Sesquipedalian]

I had ample hands on time in Hawthorne. The surface was very firm to the touch and felt quite solid. No give at all, not flimsy or hollow, not cold like metal. When tapped, it felt and sounded like thick fiberglass, like on the bottom of a substantial boat. The skin is made of close fitting panels and the seams between the panels and holes for fasteners are filled with a fairly rigid putty that has slightly more give than the panels themselves. This same putty also fills in space between the panels and the edges of the small Draco thrusters, so I suspect it is highly thermal resistant. [Helodriver]

The spaceX rep mentioned the area below the SDs are protected with an ablative material - not picax though. [Shaledc]

Feet are not replaced *after each flight*. Apparently PicaX is fairly mechanically strong. If it does get damaged, they can sand it down multiple times before having to reapply. [grythumn]

WINDOWS

There are five windows: 3 in the front (one of them in the hatch itself) and one on each sides. No windows on the back. Windows have a yellowish coating, that reflects most of the exterior light (probably to protect the crew from the very intense sunlight of outerspace). [moralec]

HATCH DOOR

I asked about the large hatch opening to the outside. Turns out it was designed (at least partly) to allow for EVAs. [vtirag]

The hatch door has both a handle and two circular dials on the side (no idea what those are for). [moralec]

The circular knobs on the hatch are, in fact, for pressure equalization, as JasonAW3 surmised.  The engineer said they provided the capability to quickly blow the hatch in an emergency. [Sesquipedalian]

The hatch handle and knobs were polished on a whim and may or may not be in the final prep checklist. [Shredder56]

DRACOS

The capsule has 16 draco boosters in total: 6 in the front (three at each side of the hatch door), 6 in the back (symmetrically to the ones on front), and two on each side (one on each side of the wings that will hold the superdraco boosters). [moralec]

CONNECTOR PANELS

Besides the front panel (full of connectors), there is also a back panel with two connectors. Those where plugged, I guess providing energy for the interior. [moralec]

DOCKING MECHANISM

The cover of the docking mechanism does not cut the top of the capsule horizontal, but rather diagonally. This is very noticeable when looking the capture from the side.  It is shorter in the front  of the capsule and taller in the back. This could gives us a sense of the direction in which it  is going to open. [moralec]

LANDING

No current plans to change seat mounts.  Legs (or water) will take up the landing shock. [Shredder56]

TRUNK

The trunk will have solar panels around its entire circumference, like the HTV.  The reason it didn't seem this way in the demo video was probably a rendering omission. [Sesquipedalian]

MISCELLANEOUS

There were some circular raised areas on the bottom of the capsule in addition to the legs.  The engineer said that these were for conducting heat between the capsule and the cooling system in the trunk. [Sesquipedalian]

There is one honeycomb circular element on each side, above the side windows but below the cover of the docking mechanism. I have no idea what they are for... [moralec]

Also, while I was shooting pictures, someone else asked what number this was and was told SpaceX doesn't number them, but that individual missions are numbered. [grythumn]

I was not able to find any barcodes. [moralec]

[meekGee]

And no, I don't have any inside SpaceX knowledge. I'm just calling it as I see it. [...] Am I really the only one seeing it?

You seem to be the only one claiming definitive knowledge of which pieces of the displayed dragon can't fly.  Everyone else seems to be taking the reasonable wait-and-see approach.

I'm claiming no definite knowledge. Just two working eye-balls. Saying that it "is flight hardware" is the reasonable wait-and-see approach? Whatever. I'm happy to revisit this topic when Dragon v2 has its first crewed flight.

I'm jumping on the band wagon on Lars_J's side. There are too many elements of the hatch that seem off for it to be final. My engineering BS meter says its pretty clearly not final. Notably, I don't see the car door handle staying.

FWIW it initially looked "mockupy" to me too, but the information accumulated over the past two weeks was very definite and pretty credible, enough so that I chose it over my first impression.

[cosmicvoid]

Has anybody posted online photos they took from inside the spacecraft?

Video clip here shows interior from 00:12 to 00:19
http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/11/news/companies/musk-spacex-washington/index.html

Picture posted in this link:
http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=2313563645866408622

[Kabloona]

The Draco engines were NOT installed. What we were seeing was the composite material that surrounds the nozzels, against which the nozzels are seated. My pictures don't show this very well, but you could clearly see the weave of the composite. The black ring around the "throat" of the nozzel are seemed like it could possibly have been a carbon-carbon composite, but it was way back in there and I couldn't really tell. That would make sense though, since the throat of the nozzel is hotter -- carbon/carbon would be better suited to take that heat. There was one shiny metal object at teh back of the nozzel, I'm guessing it's an attachment point that's behind the engine chamber. But no, what we were seeing was definitely not the nozzels, just where they fit against. [Shaledc]

Oh wait...does that mean the people who said, from looking at the unveiling photos, Hey, it doesn't look like the SD's are actually installed...and who were told they were being rude for doubting Helodriver's report and badgered to apologize for simply offering their observations...you mean those people were right??

[LastOf7]

Saw this on Twitter.  First time I had seen Dragon without its hat.  Unfortunately the resolution isn't great.

https://twitter.com/GWMacGillivray/status/476211956014391296/photo/1

[MP99]

The only final thing about the hatch is the shape if it.

Source please.

Fundamental common sense. If there is no way to open the hatch from the inside, you can take it to the bank that it is not the final hatch. Is it really that hard to grasp?

And no, I don't have any inside SpaceX knowledge. I'm just calling it as I see it. Most of you seem be misinterpreting the "mostly flight hardware" to mean that everything is flight hardware. I feel like I'm the kid in story of "the emperors new clothes".  Am I really the only one seeing it?

The first orbital test flight will be uncrewed. Why would it *need* a way to open the hatch from the inside?

While this might not be the final hatch design for the first crewed flight, the argument is less strong that it's impossible for this to fly uncrewed. Of course "test like you fly" is always nice.

As I think about this more, if Dv2 is ever used to fly a cargo-only mission, the only thing that an internal handle achieves is the safety risk of an explosive decompression. (I'd imagine the hatch would be sealed shut in this case, and all loading would be from the top, anyway.)

Cheers, Martin

[meekGee]

And no, I don't have any inside SpaceX knowledge. I'm just calling it as I see it. [...] Am I really the only one seeing it?

You seem to be the only one claiming definitive knowledge of which pieces of the displayed dragon can't fly.  Everyone else seems to be taking the reasonable wait-and-see approach.

I'm claiming no definite knowledge. Just two working eye-balls. Saying that it "is flight hardware" is the reasonable wait-and-see approach? Whatever. I'm happy to revisit this topic when Dragon v2 has its first crewed flight.

I'm jumping on the band wagon on Lars_J's side. There are too many elements of the hatch that seem off for it to be final. My engineering BS meter says its pretty clearly not final. Notably, I don't see the car door handle staying.

I'll ask you this...  We've heard a lot of skepticism on the "chrome door handle", but hardly any on the pressure relief knobs.  Why is that?  Both are exposed features, more or less at the same location.

The answer IMO is that it is because the door latch lever is different from what we expect to see. That's all there is to it.

[mlindner]

And no, I don't have any inside SpaceX knowledge. I'm just calling it as I see it. [...] Am I really the only one seeing it?

You seem to be the only one claiming definitive knowledge of which pieces of the displayed dragon can't fly.  Everyone else seems to be taking the reasonable wait-and-see approach.

I'm claiming no definite knowledge. Just two working eye-balls. Saying that it "is flight hardware" is the reasonable wait-and-see approach? Whatever. I'm happy to revisit this topic when Dragon v2 has its first crewed flight.

I'm jumping on the band wagon on Lars_J's side. There are too many elements of the hatch that seem off for it to be final. My engineering BS meter says its pretty clearly not final. Notably, I don't see the car door handle staying.

I'll ask you this...  We've heard a lot of skepticism on the "chrome door handle", but hardly any on the pressure relief knobs.  Why is that?  Both are exposed features, more or less at the same location.

The answer IMO is that it is because the door latch lever is different from what we expect to see. That's all there is to it.

A handle can catch on things and is a single motion to release it. From what someone else mentioned the two knobs both need to be turned to activate. Knobs require torques to activate while a handle only needs a linear motion at any angle +/- 90 degrees of its center.

And can we stop talking about the door?

If anyone remembers, remember how different the first Cargo dragon was from every other dragon? (Extra windows, etc.) This could easily be even up to the first unmanned flight and still bare little resemblance to the production model. My only claim is that these things won't last to production.

[WindyCity]

The D1 capsule door also looks less meaty than, say, the Soyuz hatch. See this video of the hatch opening aboard the ISS: . Start at 1:00. The astronaut inserts a crank handle, which perhaps explains how D2's hatch would open from the inside. I would love for Chris to find out from SpaceX if the D2 hatch is the flight-ready design. I too am skeptical.

[cscott]

My only claim is that these things won't last to production.

This is why I find this discussion so frustrating.  We are looking at a test vehicle, which is "mostly" flight hardware.   There are *many* reasons why details might be different in the final "production" dragon:

1. SpaceX hasn't designed the final part yet.
2. SpaceX has designed the final part but hasn't finished manufacturing it yet.
3. SpaceX has designed and manufactured the final part, but didn't install it on this dragon...
3a. Due to time/flow constraints
3b. Because the flight hardware is too delicate/toxic for show and tell
3c. Because it's proprietary and is being kept close to the vest.
3d. Because the part is "boring".
4. SpaceX has designed, manufactured, and installed what they believe to be the final part, but:
4a. The flight test vehicle is configured differently than the crew dragon
4b. They will later change the part due to manufacturing/supplier/other non-functional issues.
4c. The test series will indicate issues which will motivate a redesign of the part.
4d. They decided to polish and chrome up the part on this particular dragon to impress the senators
4e. Elon is reading this thread and smacking his forehead, crying out, "oh, right! why didn't I think of that!?"

I'm fine with people pointing out why they are surprised by a particular design feature, or why they think it's not the final design -- but there are so many reasons why things could change, it seems pointless to either 1) attach any degree of certainty to a claim, or 2) argue about it.

[Mongo62]

I occurs to me that people are failing to give the SpaceX engineers enough credit, and are assuming that the only proper way to secure a hatch that operates with a pressure difference between the two sides of the hatch, is by using some variant of the tried-and-true methods that have been used for 50 years. But we already know that SpaceX is willing to look in other directions, as seen with their propulsive landing approach.

1. While some elements like the Superdracos are not installed, we have been told what we see is mostly flight hardware. The side hatch is not specifically mentioned as being flight hardware, but neither is it stated to be a mock-up. The default assumption must be that the hatch is going into space as it is.

2. SpaceX engineers are smart, and have given the safety of the crew top consideration. The security of the hatch under all conditions would certainly have been very carefully studied.

3. The "standard" approach to manned spacecraft hatch design has clearly not been followed.

4. If the hatch is flight hardware, then it appears to be significantly lighter, and easier to operate under emergency conditions, than a standard hatch design would allow. These are both strong incentives to adopt a non-standard design.

Here is what I think we might be looking at:

If the pressure seal consists of an inflatable bladder running around the rim of the hatch where photos show a raised band, with a matching band of high-friction polymer material on the inside of the opening placed to be in contact with the inflatable bladder, the frictional pressure of the inflated bladder against the inside of the opening would provide more than enough shear strength to keep the hatch closed in vacuum against the interior pressure. A simple eyeball estimate of the hatch dimensions indicates an outward force of around 100 pounds per linear inch of the hatch rim, assuming the interior is at one atmosphere of pressure and the exterior is in vacuum. This is WELL within the capabilities of almost any reasonably strong inflatable bladder material. (Note that the total forces involved are so large that an accidental kick against the door would barely even be noticed, compared to the six tons or so of static atmospheric pressure.)

The pressure seal could be the other way around, with an inflatable bladder built into the inside of the hatch opening (which would presumably allow more volume for the inflation mechanism) molding itself when inflated around a simple raised polymer band around the outside of the hatch itself. (The "raised" aspect presumably acting as additional security against slippage.)

It might seem intuitively obvious that an inflatable bladder can DEFLATE, and then what? But in reality, that risk can be made negligible by proper material selection and design. One solution would be to have the hatch rim be covered by multiple independent bladders, each covering maybe 1/5 of the total rim distance, and with sufficient safety margin that even two inflated bladders would provide enough force to keep the hatch closed against pressure.

Why would SpaceX consider this approach? It would be much lighter than existing mechanisms, and every pound saved would be an extra pound of payload to orbit. It would take up much less volume than existing mechanisms, leaving more volume for the passengers and interior cargo. With almost no moving parts, it would be less likely to fail (in my opinion). It would be less cumbersome to operate. And it would look sleeker and more "science-fictiony".

[meekGee]

And can we stop talking about the door?

If we could, this wouldn't be the NSF we all love so much.

Admit it. This is an asylum to the highly argumentative...  We can no more stop talking about the door than we can remember what life was like before we signed up for an account...

As for the door latch, it requires a pull-out and a turn...  So it won't catch on anything

[douglas100]

...It might seem intuitively obvious that an inflatable bladder can DEFLATE, and then what? But in reality, that risk can be made negligible by proper material selection and design. One solution would be to have the hatch rim be covered by multiple independent bladders, each covering maybe 1/5 of the total rim distance, and with sufficient safety margin that even two inflated bladders would provide enough force to keep the hatch closed against pressure.

Why would SpaceX consider this approach? It would be much lighter than existing mechanisms, and every pound saved would be an extra pound of payload to orbit. It would take up much less volume than existing mechanisms, leaving more volume for the passengers and interior cargo. With almost no moving parts, it would be less likely to fail (in my opinion). It would be less cumbersome to operate. And it would look sleeker and more "science-fictiony".

So Elon had to deflate a bunch of bladders when he opened that hatch then?  Let's not blow up speculation out of proportion. 

[Mongo62]

So Elon had to deflate a bunch of bladders when he opened that hatch then?  Let's not blow up speculation out of proportion. 

No he would not have to. If pressure is the same on both sides (as obviously was the case in his demonstration) then the hatch with deflated bladders would stay in whatever position it is left at (assuming that it is well-balanced), needing only muscle power to open or close. Inflating the bladders would serve to "lock" the hatch closed, so that many tons of force would be needed to shift it (certainly more tons of force than would be produced by having a pressurized Dragon in a vacuum), but even if the bladders were fully deflated, the hatch would still remain in the closed position until Elon pulled on it.

This is speculation, to be sure. But since some here are convinced that the hatch must be a fake, I wanted to show that it's perfectly possible that the SpaceX engineers might have devised an alternative to the "standard" method of securing a hatch against pressure differentials, of which this system of inflatable bladders was one possibility, which I admittedly came up with after thinking for just a few minutes. The SpaceX engineers have had a lot more than a few minutes to come up with a workable solution.

[douglas100]

I'll make a more serious reply this time.

It seems to me you want to reinvent the wheel. I suggest that metal latches are more than adequate to keep the hatch closed against the internal pressure. And simple rubber O-rings are more than adequate to maintain a seal.

If all the bladders deflate the hatch will open and the crew will die. This alone negates the advantage of lightness you claim.

However the final hatch design turns out, I will make a modest prediction: it will not contain inflatable seals.

[Llian Rhydderch]

My only claim is that these things won't last to production.

This is why I find this discussion so frustrating.  We are looking at a test vehicle, which is "mostly" flight hardware.   There are *many* reasons why details might be different in the final "production" dragon:

1. SpaceX hasn't designed the final part yet.
2. SpaceX has designed the final part but hasn't finished manufacturing it yet.
3. SpaceX has designed and manufactured the final part, but didn't install it on this dragon...
3a. Due to time/flow constraints
3b. Because the flight hardware is too delicate/toxic for show and tell
3c. Because it's proprietary and is being kept close to the vest.
3d. Because the part is "boring".
4. SpaceX has designed, manufactured, and installed what they believe to be the final part, but:
4a. The flight test vehicle is configured differently than the crew dragon
4b. They will later change the part due to manufacturing/supplier/other non-functional issues.
4c. The test series will indicate issues which will motivate a redesign of the part.
4d. They decided to polish and chrome up the part on this particular dragon to impress the senators
4e. Elon is reading this thread and smacking his forehead, crying out, "oh, right! why didn't I think of that!?"

I'm fine with people pointing out why they are surprised by a particular design feature, or why they think it's not the final design -- but there are so many reasons why things could change, it seems pointless to either 1) attach any degree of certainty to a claim, or 2) argue about it.

Indeed.   

Never underestimate the ability of humans to arrogate to themselves more knowledge, and more understanding, (and more certainty) about the future then they have any right to expect is possible if they were to look at several thousand years of human history. 

[Mongo62]

I'll make a more serious reply this time.

It seems to me you want to reinvent the wheel. I suggest that metal latches are more than adequate to keep the hatch closed against the internal pressure. And simple rubber O-rings are more than adequate to maintain a seal.

If all the bladders deflate the hatch will open and the crew will die. This alone negates the advantage of lightness you claim.

However the final hatch design turns out, I will make a modest prediction: it will not contain inflatable seals.

Metal latches would be the obvious solution -- except for the inconvenient fact that there is no sign of them whatsoever on the hatch. I have not seen the hatch myself, but I enhanced the images on this thread and could not see them. The rim of the hatch appears to be unbroken, smooth metal, with only a raised ridge of what appears to be a different material but no depressions that might indicate latches.

One possibility that has been suggested is that the hatch we have seen is a fake.

I suggest that perhaps it is flight hardware, using a different method than metal latches to secure the hatch against vacuum. Inflatable bladders are one such possible system -- which I still maintain can be made very reliable. Another system that fits the observed evidence would be a set of flexible moldings that extend inward from the door opening to tightly grip the raised ridge that we see on the hatch, with airtight seals on one or both sides of them.

The point I am trying to make is that the SpaceX engineers are more than smart enough to develop a superior hatch locking system that saves weight and volume, is reliable and easy to operate, and looks good. The hatch does not need to be a fake.

[docmordrid]

And I would add that high reliability inflatable seals are a known quantity. Toxic gas sterilizers use them so OSHA doesn't have cows over their use by mere mortals. These doors run from a few inches to huge chambers that take roll in racks.

[llanitedave]

My only claim is that these things won't last to production.

This is why I find this discussion so frustrating.  We are looking at a test vehicle, which is "mostly" flight hardware.   There are *many* reasons why details might be different in the final "production" dragon:

1. SpaceX hasn't designed the final part yet.
2. SpaceX has designed the final part but hasn't finished manufacturing it yet.
3. SpaceX has designed and manufactured the final part, but didn't install it on this dragon...
3a. Due to time/flow constraints
3b. Because the flight hardware is too delicate/toxic for show and tell
3c. Because it's proprietary and is being kept close to the vest.
3d. Because the part is "boring".
4. SpaceX has designed, manufactured, and installed what they believe to be the final part, but:
4a. The flight test vehicle is configured differently than the crew dragon
4b. They will later change the part due to manufacturing/supplier/other non-functional issues.
4c. The test series will indicate issues which will motivate a redesign of the part.
4d. They decided to polish and chrome up the part on this particular dragon to impress the senators
4e. Elon is reading this thread and smacking his forehead, crying out, "oh, right! why didn't I think of that!?"

I'm fine with people pointing out why they are surprised by a particular design feature, or why they think it's not the final design -- but there are so many reasons why things could change, it seems pointless to either 1) attach any degree of certainty to a claim, or 2) argue about it.

I'm not a Senator, but I was impressed anyway.  As for delicate and toxic, the last item you'd want with those characteristics is the entry/exit hatch!

I'm not going to claim it's the real thing or isn't, but but it really is a silly argument to be having when we don't even know the kind of ideas that may have gone into it.  The fact that it doesn't "look" like previous hatch mechanisms is no argument at all.

[llanitedave]

And can we stop talking about the door?

If we could, this wouldn't be the NSF we all love so much.

Admit it. This is an asylum to the highly argumentative...  We can no more stop talking about the door than we can remember what life was like before we signed up for an account...

As for the door latch, it requires a pull-out and a turn...  So it won't catch on anything

Not to mention it automatically locks at 6 miles per hour...