Many moons ago somewhere in NSF there were many pages of polite discussion as to whether or not dragon has or should have manual controls.After what happened with starliner, perhaps that discussion can be revisited?(My apologies if this can of worms has already been reopened in another thread)
3.2.6 Software3.2.6.1 Manually Override SoftwareThe integrated space vehicle shall enable the crew to manually override higher level software control/automation (such as automated abort initiation, configuration change, and mode change) during pre-launch operations and ascent when the override of the software system will not directly cause a catastrophic event. [R.CTS.050]3.2.6.2 Manually Override Software - Post-SeparationThe spacecraft shall enable the crew to manually override higher level software control/automation (such as automated abort initiation, configuration change, and mode change) during all mission phases post launch vehicle separation, including ISS integrated operations and while docked to the ISS, when the override of the software system will not directly cause a catastrophic event. [R.CTS.370]3.8.4 Manual Control3.8.4.1 Manual Control of Vehicle Flight PathThe spacecraft shall provide the capability for the crew to manually control the vehicle flight path, attitude, and attitude rates during all actively controlled phases of flight following the separation of the spacecraft from the launch vehicle, excluding ISS mated operations. [R.CTS.128]3.8.4.2 Manual Piloting for DockingThe spacecraft shall provide for crew manual piloting within the ISS approach ellipsoid to perform docking. [R.CTS.385]
Quote from: mn on 12/24/2019 01:13 amMany moons ago somewhere in NSF there were many pages of polite discussion as to whether or not dragon has or should have manual controls.After what happened with starliner, perhaps that discussion can be revisited?(My apologies if this can of worms has already been reopened in another thread)It has manual control, it's part of the CCtCAP requirement.Quote3.2.6 Software3.2.6.1 Manually Override SoftwareThe integrated space vehicle shall enable the crew to manually override higher level software control/automation (such as automated abort initiation, configuration change, and mode change) during pre-launch operations and ascent when the override of the software system will not directly cause a catastrophic event. [R.CTS.050]3.2.6.2 Manually Override Software - Post-SeparationThe spacecraft shall enable the crew to manually override higher level software control/automation (such as automated abort initiation, configuration change, and mode change) during all mission phases post launch vehicle separation, including ISS integrated operations and while docked to the ISS, when the override of the software system will not directly cause a catastrophic event. [R.CTS.370]3.8.4 Manual Control3.8.4.1 Manual Control of Vehicle Flight PathThe spacecraft shall provide the capability for the crew to manually control the vehicle flight path, attitude, and attitude rates during all actively controlled phases of flight following the separation of the spacecraft from the launch vehicle, excluding ISS mated operations. [R.CTS.128]3.8.4.2 Manual Piloting for DockingThe spacecraft shall provide for crew manual piloting within the ISS approach ellipsoid to perform docking. [R.CTS.385]
>>Seems clear as day. So why was there pages and pages of arguing about this? (Or was the argument just about whether it's really useful or there just to make NASA happy)
Quote from: dondar on 12/11/2019 02:57 pm(Snip)I do not have SpaceX or ESA contacts, a couple of my ex-colleagues are working with/in NASA. And they are very disgruntled by all this anti-SpaceX nonsense. And they are literally scared to say anything even remotely controversial in the modern "politically active" atmosphere.Can you be more specific?Are your ex-colleagues scared of criticizing SpaceX of “anti-SpaceX nonsense” from some NASA factions?
(Snip)I do not have SpaceX or ESA contacts, a couple of my ex-colleagues are working with/in NASA. And they are very disgruntled by all this anti-SpaceX nonsense. And they are literally scared to say anything even remotely controversial in the modern "politically active" atmosphere.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/29/2019 01:20 pmNASA does NOT, initially, allow reuse of ocean-landed Crew Dragons.Just a small point, but I think they do not allow reuse of ocean-landed Crew Dragons for future crew flights, but I believe SpaceX is intending to convert them to cargo duty. Point being is thankfully they won't just be thrown away.Also worth noting is that Crew Dragon comes back just as it flew minus its hollow trunk. Starliner jettisons quite a lot (propulsion/service section, nose cone, etc.), so while the pressure vessel itself will be re-used, there will be quite a bit of new hardware every flight as well.
NASA does NOT, initially, allow reuse of ocean-landed Crew Dragons.
According to Woods, they are no longer going to convert them to cargo - too many changes and so on. Basically they go back to SpaceX who can do whatever they want with them.Quote from: JonathanD on 12/29/2019 02:02 pmQuote from: woods170 on 12/29/2019 01:20 pmNASA does NOT, initially, allow reuse of ocean-landed Crew Dragons.Just a small point, but I think they do not allow reuse of ocean-landed Crew Dragons for future crew flights, but I believe SpaceX is intending to convert them to cargo duty. Point being is thankfully they won't just be thrown away.Also worth noting is that Crew Dragon comes back just as it flew minus its hollow trunk. Starliner jettisons quite a lot (propulsion/service section, nose cone, etc.), so while the pressure vessel itself will be re-used, there will be quite a bit of new hardware every flight as well.
Quote from: JonathanD on 12/29/2019 02:02 pmQuote from: woods170 on 12/29/2019 01:20 pmNASA does NOT, initially, allow reuse of ocean-landed Crew Dragons.Just a small point, but I think they do not allow reuse of ocean-landed Crew Dragons for future crew flights, but I believe SpaceX is intending to convert them to cargo duty. Point being is thankfully they won't just be thrown away.Also worth noting is that Crew Dragon comes back just as it flew minus its hollow trunk. Starliner jettisons quite a lot (propulsion/service section, nose cone, etc.), so while the pressure vessel itself will be re-used, there will be quite a bit of new hardware every flight as well.FWIW, in the DM-1 EOM Updates thread there is a tweet from Musk saying how the critical parts of Dragon-2 stayed dry and sealed against the salt water. He said it was much improved over the Cargo Dragon-1 and congratulated his engineers. It’s like the change in seat angles. The new-capsule-only decision can be backed up with solid conservative arguments, but it goes against SpaceX’s original intent and stated planning. It seems like NASA is steering SpaceX back into NASA’s standard mold whenever there is a no-cost option in the contract to do so. That includes setting certification criteria so tough that innovations can’t be included in the time or money available. Edit: But that’s a discussion for the SpaceX threads. What’s relevant here is that Bridenstine’s latest gushing tweet about OFT refers to Starliner as “reusable” even though as JonathanD says it needs new OMAC engines, nose cover halves, aero-skirt, heat shield, and who knows what else (airbags?) for each flight. Edit 2: After landing, the ground team puts a custom cover over Starliner. It protects the outer surface, docking adapter, and forward sensors from the desert environment, but it leaves the hatch and interior exposed. They must have decided that desert dust, including salt from the dry lakebed, is not a significant issue.
QuoteSpaceX, NASA and Boeing have a common problem: Making sure their parachutes workRachael Joy Florida TodayPublished 6:00 AM EST Dec 16, 2019Next year when SpaceX’s Dragon capsule is hurtling toward the Pacific Ocean at 540 miles per hour on its return from the International Space Station, the technology ensuring the astronauts inside land safely is a component it seems we’d have mastered by now: the parachute.https://eu.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2019/12/16/nasa-spacex-and-boeing-struggle-overcome-parachute-issues/4177914002/I don’t remember this quote from Elon, included in the article:Quote“Parachutes, they look easy but they are definitely not easy,” Elon Musk said in October at a press conference at SpaceX, “We’ve had so many engineers quit over the parachutes.”
SpaceX, NASA and Boeing have a common problem: Making sure their parachutes workRachael Joy Florida TodayPublished 6:00 AM EST Dec 16, 2019Next year when SpaceX’s Dragon capsule is hurtling toward the Pacific Ocean at 540 miles per hour on its return from the International Space Station, the technology ensuring the astronauts inside land safely is a component it seems we’d have mastered by now: the parachute.
“Parachutes, they look easy but they are definitely not easy,” Elon Musk said in October at a press conference at SpaceX, “We’ve had so many engineers quit over the parachutes.”
Maybe those engineers were excited about Dragon being a propulsive landing spacecraft that many on this site gushed over and swore by...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/29/2019 10:39 pmMaybe those engineers were excited about Dragon being a propulsive landing spacecraft that many on this site gushed over and swore by... I'll own that. I admit to being more than just a little angry with NASA for its sneaky underhanded lack of gonads and innovation-killing attitude toward SpaceX's innovative approaches, along with its love affair with the "other" company that cheats and steals its way to government contracts (Context only: https://tinyurl.com/w6q5g8h). I'll not rehash it here but anyone interested can find LOTS of discussion here on how SpaceX was forced by NASA to voluntarily abandon propulsive landing.
Simulation of first crewed flight of Falcon 9 / Dragon 2020 @NASA
Crew Dragon should be physically ready & at the Cape in Feb, but completing all safety reviews will probably take a few more months
New technology development schedules tend to exhibit a version of Zeno’s Paradox — at any given point, you’re halfway there
When will we see a propellant based pod landing rather than parachute? Is there a reason parachute is better?
Crew Dragon is capable of propulsive landing, but would require extensive testing to prove safety. Better to focus on Starship.
Hard to believe it’s almost time to retire Cargo Dragon after a decade of solid service
Quote from: clongton on 12/30/2019 02:09 amQuote from: Rocket Science on 12/29/2019 10:39 pmMaybe those engineers were excited about Dragon being a propulsive landing spacecraft that many on this site gushed over and swore by... I'll own that. I admit to being more than just a little angry with NASA for its sneaky underhanded lack of gonads and innovation-killing attitude toward SpaceX's innovative approaches, along with its love affair with the "other" company that cheats and steals its way to government contracts (Context only: https://tinyurl.com/w6q5g8h). I'll not rehash it here but anyone interested can find LOTS of discussion here on how SpaceX was forced by NASA to voluntarily abandon propulsive landing. There is always an old saying to go along with a situation. I suggest "Be careful what you wish for". All of that likely played a part in SpaceX working to go all-in on Starship.
Quote from: DigitalMan on 12/30/2019 02:52 amQuote from: clongton on 12/30/2019 02:09 amQuote from: Rocket Science on 12/29/2019 10:39 pmMaybe those engineers were excited about Dragon being a propulsive landing spacecraft that many on this site gushed over and swore by... I'll own that. I admit to being more than just a little angry with NASA for its sneaky underhanded lack of gonads and innovation-killing attitude toward SpaceX's innovative approaches, along with its love affair with the "other" company that cheats and steals its way to government contracts (Context only: https://tinyurl.com/w6q5g8h). I'll not rehash it here but anyone interested can find LOTS of discussion here on how SpaceX was forced by NASA to voluntarily abandon propulsive landing. There is always an old saying to go along with a situation. I suggest "Be careful what you wish for". All of that likely played a part in SpaceX working to go all-in on Starship.Exactly. And the way this is going, Dragon (and other capsules) will have a very short lifetime before being relegated to irrelevacy.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1211493590456848385Quote Simulation of first crewed flight of Falcon 9 / Dragon 2020 @NASA
