-
#620
by
whitelancer64
on 20 Feb, 2019 23:07
-
It takes about 30 minutes for Dragon to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere and splash down in the Atlantic Ocean.
I was going to say that was a typo, Dragon lands in the Pacific. But it's not? Guess I missed that.
When astronauts need to return home, the plan is for the Crew Dragon to splash down in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/5/18064396/spacex-commercial-crew-dragon-astronauts-go-searcher-boat-recovery
Yep, Atlantic, with the Pacific as backup landing location. I recall there was some talk of having a section of the Caribbean off the West coast of Florida as another backup landing area, I don't know if that went anywhere. But the Atlantic is the primary landing site, and that's why SpaceX built a Dragon processing building near LZ-1.
-
#621
by
John Santos
on 20 Feb, 2019 23:20
-
... I recall there was some talk of having a section of the Caribbean off the West coast of Florida as another backup landing area, I don't know if that went anywhere. But the Atlantic is the primary landing site, and that's why SpaceX built a Dragon processing building near LZ-1.
Geographical nit: The Caribbean is south of Florida (actually, south of Puerto Rico). West of Florida is the Gulf of Mexico.
IIRC, the area marked out was off the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and maybe the Florida pan handle, i.e. the northern Gulf of Mexico. But maybe this was from when they were still planning to launch F9s from Boca Chica.
-
#622
by
punder
on 20 Feb, 2019 23:24
-
Not a bad launch time for us west coasters. 
And not that bad for us Rocky Mountain High types. Party on!
-
#623
by
rcoppola
on 22 Feb, 2019 21:22
-
A little shudder...and a catch in my throat as I read the FRR is approved and we are a go for DM-1 March 2....Wow, this is actually happening.
-
#624
by
HarryM
on 22 Feb, 2019 21:57
-
"It's been a long road,
Getting from there to here.
it's been a long time,
but my time is finally near…"
-
#625
by
crandles57
on 22 Feb, 2019 22:03
-
Post (flight readiness review) would make a lot more sense than "Post-flight readiness review" (as displayed on NASA TV)
-
#626
by
punder
on 22 Feb, 2019 22:08
-
A little shudder...and a catch in my throat as I read the FRR is approved and we are a go for DM-1 March 2....Wow, this is actually happening.
Only 7-1/2 days from now!
-
#627
by
AndyH
on 22 Feb, 2019 22:21
-
Any insight into the issue the Russians might have with the crew Dragon? I'm watching the Post FRR stream on NASA TV.
-
#628
by
cppetrie
on 22 Feb, 2019 22:22
-
Any insight into the issue the Russians might have with the crew Dragon? I'm watching the Post FRR stream on NASA TV.
You mean besides the fact that it leads towards NASA not needing Russian seats?
-
#629
by
AndyH
on 22 Feb, 2019 22:32
-
Any insight into the issue the Russians might have with the crew Dragon? I'm watching the Post FRR stream on NASA TV.
You mean besides the fact that it leads towards NASA not needing Russian seats?
Apparently there was a specific objection to some part of the DM1 process that may have been left open after the FRR. Apparently there's also a data-related item open as well.
Ok, it was covered later in the FRR presser. Something about a desire for a failsafe in case the computer locks during approach to ISS.
-
#630
by
Joffan
on 22 Feb, 2019 22:36
-
Any insight into the issue the Russians might have with the crew Dragon? I'm watching the Post FRR stream on NASA TV.
You mean besides the fact that it leads towards NASA not needing Russian seats?
It's a safety review meeting; anyone must be free to raise any concerns without their motivation being questioned. Of course at this stage they must also be able to describe their concern in some detail.
Per the presser this is a concern that there isn't a totally separate control system to abort the approach if the computer fails.
-
#631
by
Pelorat
on 22 Feb, 2019 23:16
-
It's a safety review meeting; anyone must be free to raise any concerns without their motivation being questioned. Of course at this stage they must also be able to describe their concern in some detail.
Per the presser this is a concern that there isn't a totally separate control system to abort the approach if the computer fails.
Says the country who had a capsule collide with the ISS, and has a launch system that would never be certified for crew had it been american. They can voice their concerns but they are ultimately (IMHO) invalid. Do they think Crew Dragon is less capable than Cargo Dragon? No... their concerns are political.
-
#632
by
eeergo
on 22 Feb, 2019 23:25
-
It's a safety review meeting; anyone must be free to raise any concerns without their motivation being questioned. Of course at this stage they must also be able to describe their concern in some detail.
Per the presser this is a concern that there isn't a totally separate control system to abort the approach if the computer fails.
Says the country who had a capsule collide with the ISS, and has a launch system that would never be certified for crew had it been american. They can voice their concerns but they are ultimately (IMHO) invalid. Do they think Crew Dragon is less capable than Cargo Dragon? No... their concerns are political.
Could you point out which capsule collided with ISS? Please don't spread nonsense.
Which launch system would have never been certified to launch crews had it been from the US? You mean the Soyuz LV, the rocket that has been certified for decades to launch crew, has never experienced a LOC event and indeed the only available means of returning from the ISS since its inception, and to get there (therefore to maintain ISS operational) during the Columbia and post-STS US HSF gaps?
How can Crew Dragon be equally "capable" as Cargo Dragon with respect to approach operations when the latter doesn't dock, neither use the same IVA C&C equipment?
Just as the US has rightfully expressed concerns about Russian procedures, so can international *partners* express similar reserves.
-
#633
by
mme
on 22 Feb, 2019 23:30
-
Quote of the night by Kathy:
People weigh different, but not *that* different. And if they do, they're probably not an astronaut.
...
That's why you aren't an astronaut (pointing to Hans)
[Hilarity ensues, Hans doesn't believe his ears]
I should have taken a nap before the briefing, they told me...
I truly laughed out loud at this one. Poor Hans. But seriously it seems like everyone has a good working relationship which is always good to see.
-
#634
by
drnscr
on 22 Feb, 2019 23:43
-
It's a safety review meeting; anyone must be free to raise any concerns without their motivation being questioned. Of course at this stage they must also be able to describe their concern in some detail.
Per the presser this is a concern that there isn't a totally separate control system to abort the approach if the computer fails.
Says the country who had a capsule collide with the ISS, and has a launch system that would never be certified for crew had it been american. They can voice their concerns but they are ultimately (IMHO) invalid. Do they think Crew Dragon is less capable than Cargo Dragon? No... their concerns are political.
Actually, they had a vehicle collide with Mir
-
#635
by
joek
on 22 Feb, 2019 23:46
-
Says the country who had a capsule collide with the ISS...
Think you might be referring to collision with launch vehicle, not ISS?
... and has a launch system that would never be certified for crew had it been american.
Think you might be referring to crew transportation system as a whole, not the launch system?
Might better be restated as "Which
launch crew transportation system would have never been certified to launch crews had it been from the US?"
-
#636
by
blah
on 23 Feb, 2019 00:07
-
Quote of the night by Kathy:
People weigh different, but not *that* different. And if they do, they're probably not an astronaut.
...
That's why you aren't an astronaut (pointing to Hans)
[Hilarity ensues, Hans doesn't believe his ears]
I should have taken a nap before the briefing, they told me...
I truly laughed out loud at this one. Poor Hans. But seriously it seems like everyone has a good working relationship which is always good to see.
Here's a link to the question that gave rise to that quip. I could hardly believe my ears either, I had to rewatch it to confirm. Hopefully they have the kind of relationship where banter like that is normal.
-
#637
by
yokem55
on 23 Feb, 2019 02:17
-
It's a safety review meeting; anyone must be free to raise any concerns without their motivation being questioned. Of course at this stage they must also be able to describe their concern in some detail.
Per the presser this is a concern that there isn't a totally separate control system to abort the approach if the computer fails.
Says the country who had a capsule collide with the ISS, and has a launch system that would never be certified for crew had it been american. They can voice their concerns but they are ultimately (IMHO) invalid. Do they think Crew Dragon is less capable than Cargo Dragon? No... their concerns are political.
Actually, they had a vehicle collide with Mir
We all have a tendency to re-fight the last battle. From their perspective, having the most experience of anyone in automated docking sequences, and how those sequences can fail, their concerns are very well placed.
-
#638
by
DaveS
on 23 Feb, 2019 02:36
-
It's a safety review meeting; anyone must be free to raise any concerns without their motivation being questioned. Of course at this stage they must also be able to describe their concern in some detail.
Per the presser this is a concern that there isn't a totally separate control system to abort the approach if the computer fails.
Says the country who had a capsule collide with the ISS, and has a launch system that would never be certified for crew had it been american. They can voice their concerns but they are ultimately (IMHO) invalid. Do they think Crew Dragon is less capable than Cargo Dragon? No... their concerns are political.
Actually, they had a vehicle collide with Mir
We all have a tendency to re-fight the last battle. From their perspective, having the most experience of anyone in automated docking sequences, and how those sequences can fail, their concerns are very well placed.
In that case, the automated docking system ("Kurs") was not active. It happened during a test with it fully deactivated and the Progress M-34 spacecraft was flown manually from the TORU station onboard Mir by Vasily Tsibliyev. He had a really poor remote TV view of Mir as seen from the Progress and no range or ranging data as result of Kurs being inactive.
So he had to judge its range and rates just from the poor TV view and by the time he noticed the Progress being off course and moving too fast it was too late to avoid the impact with the Mir Core Module and the Spektr module.
This test was being done to see if the cash-strapped Russia could do away with the now very expensive Kurs system which was now being manufactured in the now independent Ukraine, another sore spot. This lasted for a long time, even will into the mid 00's as several shuttle missions returned disconnected Kurs avionics boxes for re-use on later Soyuz and Progress missions.
-
#639
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 23 Feb, 2019 06:05
-
