-
#1240
by
lrk
on 08 Mar, 2019 19:08
-
I'm surprised that trunk jettison was prior to the de-orbit burn. Was that due to concerns over potential impacts with it during re-entry? And is that going to remain the standard timeline for return operations going forward? Should there be some unexpected issue with the deorbit burn, not having the solar panels and radiators would, I imagine, seriously limit the amount of time the capsule can remain healthy while a fix is worked on.
On the other hand, the trunk failing to seperate
after de-orbit would present an even more critical problem, as the capsule would try to enter nose-first. I would guess that the risk of a thruster failure between separation and de-orbit is smaller than the risk of a separation failure, since the thruster performance would be monitored throughout the flight.
-
#1241
by
lonestriker
on 08 Mar, 2019 19:19
-
I'm surprised that trunk jettison was prior to the de-orbit burn. Was that due to concerns over potential impacts with it during re-entry? And is that going to remain the standard timeline for return operations going forward? Should there be some unexpected issue with the deorbit burn, not having the solar panels and radiators would, I imagine, seriously limit the amount of time the capsule can remain healthy while a fix is worked on.
On the other hand, the trunk failing to seperate after de-orbit would present an even more critical problem, as the capsule would try to enter nose-first. I would guess that the risk of a thruster failure between separation and de-orbit is smaller than the risk of a separation failure, since the thruster performance would be monitored throughout the flight.
Someone mentioned in the forums or Twitter that Dragon 2 could survive on batteries alone from launch until docking. So there's a lot more battery capacity than you think. People really should approach issues from the standpoint that they don't understand the choice that SpaceX made, rather than "there's a problem with the choice SpaceX made." It is rocket science and they are really good at it.
-
#1242
by
CorvusCorax
on 08 Mar, 2019 20:45
-
IMHO the choice is perfectly right. If you deorbit first and then detach the trunk - and detaching fails - the capsule enters in a very stable aerodynamic nose first orientation and will burn through nosecone, front hatch, parachutes, pressure vessel, crew and finally propellant tanks first while the trunk remains protected by the capsules heat shield.
However I am surprised they detached the trunk in such a high, almost circular orbit. It could take many months if not years for reentry, in the exact same plane of the station where it's gonna be an obstacle any future visiting vehicle will have to navigate around. At least its mass to area ratio isn't high, being a hollow cylinder.
IMHO a weird choice. Obviously you don't "deorbit" with the trunk attached, but lowering perigee to something under 200 km so it reenters more quickly would have made more sense intuitively. That of course is a procedure choice they might still make in the future.
-
#1243
by
Rocket Science
on 08 Mar, 2019 21:16
-
Not to rain on what is a great day however all the monkey motion under the chutes and the bobbing in the swells that folks have been commenting on would not exist with a crew Dream Chaser... Just sayin'...
-
#1244
by
John Alan
on 08 Mar, 2019 21:22
-
IMHO
Leaving the trunk in such a high circular orbit was unwise....
Many of you know I'm in the "clean up you mess today" camp on rocket hardware left in orbit...
However...
IF the "fluffy" nature of the truck results in the now tracked object coming down and then deorbiting faster then seems obvious to myself anyway... then we will have learned something of note.
Maybe they were hedging keeping as much prop available for this first reentry, and ditched the trunk to save as much as possible... in case Dragon uses RCS more then calculated during re-entry...
-
#1245
by
RDMM2081
on 08 Mar, 2019 21:25
-
The trunk exterior is like 50% solar panels right? Can anything interesting be done with a flying mass of solar panels in a relatively stable orbit? My imagination is already getting the better of me here.
-
#1246
by
Eerie
on 08 Mar, 2019 21:32
-
Can anything interesting be done with a flying mass of solar panels in a relatively stable orbit?
It's uncontrollable, so no.
-
#1247
by
VoodooForce
on 08 Mar, 2019 21:57
-
Does anyone know if EM was in the Hawthorne control centre to the left of Gwynne Shotwelll? My stream was fairly pixelated at that point.
-
#1248
by
JEF_300
on 08 Mar, 2019 21:58
-
Can anything interesting be done with a flying mass of solar panels in a relatively stable orbit?
It's uncontrollable, so no.
I assumed he meant in the future. Using leftover Dragon 2 truck in a way sort of similar to the shuttle ET wet workshop proposals would be really neat if doable.
-
#1249
by
RobW
on 08 Mar, 2019 22:09
-
If Musk is successful with Starship / Super Heavy, it only has to work minimally (no crew, no refuelling) and it would (with a small arm) be capable of returning trunks for re-use.
Maybe leaving the trunk in a high orbit is just Musk backing his work on Starship, and planning to take advantage of it.
-
#1250
by
Roy_H
on 08 Mar, 2019 22:15
-
Although I too thought they would leave the trunk in a lower orbit, I would like to know the expected time before it re-enters and burns up. 2 to 3 years? It certainly won't be over 5.
-
#1251
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 08 Mar, 2019 22:15
-
However I am surprised they detached the trunk in such a high, almost circular orbit. It could take many months if not years for reentry, in the exact same plane of the station where it's gonna be an obstacle any future visiting vehicle will have to navigate around. At least its mass to area ratio isn't high, being a hollow cylinder.
The trunk is very "fluffy" ballistically speaking. It will deorbit itself relatively quickly.
-
#1252
by
ppb
on 08 Mar, 2019 22:30
-
Not to rain on what is a great day however all the monkey motion under the chutes and the bobbing in the swells that folks have been commenting on would not exist with a crew Dream Chaser... Just sayin'...
Those things also wouldn't exist with Dragon propulsive landing---also just sayin' ;-)
-
#1253
by
obi-wan
on 08 Mar, 2019 22:31
-
I'm surprised that trunk jettison was prior to the de-orbit burn. Was that due to concerns over potential impacts with it during re-entry? And is that going to remain the standard timeline for return operations going forward? Should there be some unexpected issue with the deorbit burn, not having the solar panels and radiators would, I imagine, seriously limit the amount of time the capsule can remain healthy while a fix is worked on.
The trunk by itself has a much lower ballistic coefficient than the crew capsule. Take a look at the ground track across the U.S. - if it deorbits with the capsule aiming at landing just offshore, the trunk is going to land somewhere in the U.S. mainland. There was something a while back about landing on an ascending node so the capsule lands in the Atlantic and the trunk lands in the Gulf of Mexico - but that's pretty congested with boats and oil platforms. At space station inclination, you have a higher chance of landing in an ocean or empty land on an uncontrolled entry.
-
#1254
by
andylander
on 08 Mar, 2019 22:38
-
Not to rain on what is a great day however all the monkey motion under the chutes and
Not sure what monkey motion is but I saw the capsule being EXTREMELY stable under the chutes - no pendulum motion and no spin at all. In general more chutes make the capsule more stable and I think the lateral sliding that the canopies were doing was by design - canopies drift around, capsule remains stable.
I agree about the bobbing in the ocean though, that doesn't look like much fun. The relatively tall Dragon looks like it is pitching over a lot more with each wave than the much more squat Apollo capsules, because of it's relative height. I wonder if hey considered an inflatable donut for Dragon like the Apollo capsule had?
-
#1255
by
Rocket Science
on 08 Mar, 2019 22:44
-
Not to rain on what is a great day however all the monkey motion under the chutes and the bobbing in the swells that folks have been commenting on would not exist with a crew Dream Chaser... Just sayin'...
Those things also wouldn't exist with Dragon propulsive landing---also just sayin' ;-)
Agreed, but that was SpaceX's task to prove unequivocally to NASA... I never commented on what we saw (others did) down to splashdown as it performed as expected for a capsule vehicle. I'm pleased with the outstanding results of the mission!
-
#1256
by
freddo411
on 08 Mar, 2019 23:02
-
Anyone got a link to the video of the sea recovery ops? The vids I watched show the fast boats approaching ; then it cuts off. I'm wondering if it takes 2 minutes or 10 minutes to get to the capsule.
Also, I'd like to see what things are done during the recovery.
Interesting to note that 5 of the apollo capsules ended up inverted in the water:
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-40_Entry_Splashdown_and_Recovery.htm?fbclid=IwAR1JAzUIgqBnEpZwS68P8dJfTj3Gg45ODznkcLtPhdWv6AL8BYaUhURs0EsI'm disappointed that NASA wouldn't let SpaceX develop its preferred landing methodology ... which would not have any of these complications and potential dangers. That being said, it appears to be no more or less troublesome than mercury, gemini, and apollo.
-
#1257
by
abaddon
on 08 Mar, 2019 23:02
-
Not to rain on what is a great day however all the monkey motion under the chutes and the bobbing in the swells that folks have been commenting on would not exist with a crew Dream Chaser... Just sayin'...
One can always imagine how much superior something that doesn't exist is to something that does.
-
#1258
by
Rocket Science
on 08 Mar, 2019 23:12
-
Not to rain on what is a great day however all the monkey motion under the chutes and the bobbing in the swells that folks have been commenting on would not exist with a crew Dream Chaser... Just sayin'...
One can always imagine how much superior something that doesn't exist is to something that does.
And if man were meant to fly he'd have wings... Failure of imagination...
-
#1259
by
Grandpa to Two
on 08 Mar, 2019 23:47
-
I'm a bit amazed that people think that a parachute covering the capsule is a critical flaw. That's just the luck of the draw when dealing with parachutes like this. For any round parachute there is a wind direction that could push it on top of the capsule or jumper.
Soyuz runs into the same problem occasionally. Of course that’s on the ground, not water. This event has been planned for, it will be studied and changes may or may not be made. Looked exactly like I thought it would, similar to Apollo. Well done Elon and all involved, a mostly perfect first attempt. Brilliant!
