SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3

[llanitedave]

It's no joke. Gwynne Shotwell mentioned in 2 separate occasions (once during Washington Post interview a few weeks ago, another during Q&A with Spanish students yesterday) that a tourism deal/announcement is incoming.

I agree the cost for a dedicated tourist flight would be substantial, hard to close the business case if it's just going to LEO. That's why I'm wondering if they'll bring back the Dragon lunar flyby deal, the business case for that one should be easy.

I am as the song says "an optimist" we have an airport that is going to open here in Istanbul in well not that many days...the taxiways are not finished, the parkinglots are not finished...but everyone says it is going to open...so I believe

I think that the "guest" worker in space is coming...oh in the next three or so years.  I dont see the case yet for "space tourism" until ISS is somehow included in that.

I cannot imagine "rich people" paying XX million of dollars to go into space and orbit the earth in a small can for X days and being happy.  but lets see

Were I a rich person, I could stomach a few days of that.  Rich people spend weeks trekking up Mount Everest and doing other 'hardship' adventures.  Not a lot of them percentage wise, but the actual numbers are still in the tens of thousands.

[clongton]

I know's there's been talk of using returned as cargo but what if they planned to keep some as flyable crew for private use? Why not? Their own staff will need experience in orbit when they get BFS done.

Some on here may remember that I have said several times that SpaceX has its own space program in mind, totally outside of NASA that will need a fleet of Crew Dragons cycling more or less continually. To my mind it is no coincidence that SpaceX is flying completely new Crew Dragons for each and every crew rotation flight to the ISS. This way every Dragon in its growing fleet will be completely funded by NASA while SpaceX retains ownership of the spacecraft to do whatever it wishes to do with them. I expect to see a return to propulsive landing for non-NASA flights, just because it reduces the cost and refurbishment turnaround time of commercial Dragons. The Dragon will already be paid for and all SpaceX will need to do is pick up where it left off with NASA crew. Every big-time entrepreneur there ever was has said some variation of "whenever possible, always use somebody else's money to do your development". Elon was listening and will own a fleet of Dragons, Cargo and Crew - all built with somebody else's money.

Falcon 9 won't be going away so quickly as so many here seem to think it is. Manufacturing will cease - yes. Refurbishment and reflight will continue for many, many years to come, providing a more or less constant income stream to SpaceX. These funds will be funnelled into BFS development, deployment and initial Mars exploration efforts. Falcon 9/Dragon and BFS will coexist for some time to come.

[clongton]

So the cost to prove out propulsive D2 landings might come down to two or three Block 5 flights. Still, that's money they may feel isn't worth spending if NASA doesn't care about it.

That assumes that NASA astronauts remain the majority of SpaceX crewed flights.
While that may be true for now, I really don't think that will be true in the not too distant future. I fully expect the number of commercial passengers to eclipse NASA's needs making commercially or internally crewed flights the majority of SpaceX's crew flights. That will be a huge game changer.

[Cheapchips]

It's hard to see where the free option for an unmanned test would come from.  In it's absence, you'd be looking at $millions for an unmanned test flight vs $10,000's* each time for a sea recovery.  I can't see that they'd have enough flights to offset the test.

I have a feeling that sea recoveries are more likely in the six-figure range.

It can't be that far into the six figure range can it?  They already lease the boats and pay the crew.  There's just the fuel and grog to pay for.

[Kansan52]

Memory says the problem was the legs extending through the heat shield/making the heat shield available for the leg extensions.

If so, could the 1st stage landing leg technology be reduced to be attached to the outer mold line?

[TripleSeven]

It's hard to see where the free option for an unmanned test would come from.  In it's absence, you'd be looking at $millions for an unmanned test flight vs $10,000's* each time for a sea recovery.  I can't see that they'd have enough flights to offset the test.

I have a feeling that sea recoveries are more likely in the six-figure range.

It can't be that far into the six figure range can it?  They already lease the boats and pay the crew.  There's just the fuel and grog to pay for.

Helo's, ships, lots of people.....1/2 to 1 million USD would be my guess.  it is just that a guess...

[John Alan]

It's hard to see where the free option for an unmanned test would come from.  In it's absence, you'd be looking at $millions for an unmanned test flight vs $10,000's* each time for a sea recovery.  I can't see that they'd have enough flights to offset the test.

I have a feeling that sea recoveries are more likely in the six-figure range.

It can't be that far into the six figure range can it?  They already lease the boats and pay the crew.  There's just the fuel and grog to pay for.

If a D2 goes in the ocean it will require strip down and cleaning of every Draco, SDraco, and inspection, clean and rework of any place salt water may have seeped in while bobbing around...
Not cheap and not quick... six figures sure...
Land landing... may be a quick clean and vacuum... clean the windows... Refill the hypos and a new trunk...
Inspect the heatshield and replace if needed based on condition...
Couple days instead of a couple months to turn one around... that is huge $$ savings...

IF the cost deference between the above is what I think it is...
...And if SpaceX could convince the FAA with just two unmanned test flights of a used D2... and the data from inspections and post flight inspections...
$100 million or so (guess) for two self paid flights to prove it to FAA only... NOT NASA...
They could then go into paying flights with live cargo and price it to make it worthwhile...   

The irony someday could be private citizens stepping out on dry land and the NASA folks still getting seasick and SpaceX then bidding it will take $100 million more from NASA to fill out the mountains of paperwork you want if we do it now for you... 

[whitelancer64]

It's hard to see where the free option for an unmanned test would come from.  In it's absence, you'd be looking at $millions for an unmanned test flight vs $10,000's* each time for a sea recovery.  I can't see that they'd have enough flights to offset the test.

I have a feeling that sea recoveries are more likely in the six-figure range.

It can't be that far into the six figure range can it?  They already lease the boats and pay the crew.  There's just the fuel and grog to pay for.

It costs a lot of money to lease dock space, buildings there, the crane, the ships, etc. and to pay the people to run the facilities and ships, maintain them, etc.

While "all it costs" to get the booster is ship time, people time, and fuel, there's a lot more going on behind the scenes (both before and after booster recovery) to add to that cost.

[whitelancer64]

Memory says the problem was the legs extending through the heat shield/making the heat shield available for the leg extensions.

If so, could the 1st stage landing leg technology be reduced to be attached to the outer mold line?

No. The landing legs / heatshield was never an issue. A few people speculated that it might be, and that speculation spread like wildfire and practically became gospel. Neither SpaceX nor NASA said the legs / heatshield was an issue.

[Kansan52]

Thanks!

[Cheapchips]

It's hard to see where the free option for an unmanned test would come from.  In it's absence, you'd be looking at $millions for an unmanned test flight vs $10,000's* each time for a sea recovery.  I can't see that they'd have enough flights to offset the test.

I have a feeling that sea recoveries are more likely in the six-figure range.

It can't be that far into the six figure range can it?  They already lease the boats and pay the crew.  There's just the fuel and grog to pay for.

It costs a lot of money to lease dock space, buildings there, the crane, the ships, etc. and to pay the people to run the facilities and ships, maintain them, etc.

While "all it costs" to get the booster is ship time, people time, and fuel, there's a lot more going on behind the scenes (both before and after booster recovery) to add to that cost.

The infrastructure all has to be there for Commercial Crew.  That's why I'm saying recovery is just operational cost.

I wasn't taking into account soggy Dragon refurbishment.  That does swing the needle a bit more towards doing a test flight. We need a proper cost for D2 refurbishment, internal F9 flight cost and potential customers to work out viability.

[TripleSeven]

It's hard to see where the free option for an unmanned test would come from.  In it's absence, you'd be looking at $millions for an unmanned test flight vs $10,000's* each time for a sea recovery.  I can't see that they'd have enough flights to offset the test.

I have a feeling that sea recoveries are more likely in the six-figure range.

It can't be that far into the six figure range can it?  They already lease the boats and pay the crew.  There's just the fuel and grog to pay for.

If a D2 goes in the ocean it will require strip down and cleaning of every Draco, SDraco, and inspection, clean and rework of any place salt water may have seeped in while bobbing around...
Not cheap and not quick... six figures sure...
Land landing... may be a quick clean and vacuum... clean the windows... Refill the hypos and a new trunk...
Inspect the heatshield and replace if needed based on condition...
Couple days instead of a couple months to turn one around... that is huge $$ savings...

IF the cost deference between the above is what I think it is...
...And if SpaceX could convince the FAA with just two unmanned test flights of a used D2... and the data from inspections post flight inspections...
$100 million or so (guess) for two self paid flights to prove it to FAA only... NOT NASA...
They could then go into paying flights with live cargo and price it to make it worthwhile...   

The irony someday could be private citizens stepping out on dry land and the NASA folks still getting seasick and SpaceX then bidding it will take $100 million more from NASA to fill out the mountains of paperwork you want if we do it now for you... 

it would probably take a lot more than that.

the biggest issue would be certifying the landing profile with  the rocket propulsion in normal mode, than  with various failure states...ie say one rocket on a side out,  and a failure of the rocket propulsion and than a profile with chute...and finally "the landing profile starts on rocket propulsion, that fails and the entire thing transitions to chutes."..and dealing with window where that transition is not possible...ie where if the rocket propulsion fails are you to low and to fast  to pop the chutes and land with people alive.

I suspect that the FAA would want to see all those failure modes demonstrated. 

[kevinof]

Wonder how gentle the d2 could land (on land) with the chutes and firing the SD's as the last moment. that way you come down nominally just like a sea splashdown - that will be slow enough and then a quick blast of the SD's to take the last m/s out of it.

I know you still have to deal with hypergolics and potential damage to the heatshield on but it would take a lot of the refurbishment out of the equation. You also wouldn't need legs and the complications that they bring.

[John Alan]

I suspect that the FAA would want to see all those failure modes demonstrated.

Why... this is experimental spacecraft ops...
Not Part 121 airline ops... Not even 135 on demand ops...
The requirements to show all failure modes with test flights is not required to my knowledge...

My guess is SpaceX has run simulations on ALL the things you have listed up above and can show the FAA the planned and pre-programmed mitigation strategies they will put in place in ECM memories for land landing ops... 
This may be good enough for this class of operations...   

[matthewkantar]

Why... this is experimental spacecraft ops...
Not Part 121 airline ops... Not even 135 on demand ops...
The requirements to show all failure modes with test flights is not required to my knowledge...

My guess is SpaceX has run simulations on ALL the things you have listed up above and can show the FAA the planned and pre-programmed mitigation strategies they will put in place in ECM memories for land landing ops... 
This may be good enough for this class of operations...   

That is all okay until SpaceX wants to have a paying customer aboard. No commercial ops under experimental designation, no?

[TripleSeven]

I suspect that the FAA would want to see all those failure modes demonstrated.

Why... this is experimental spacecraft ops...
Not Part 121 airline ops... Not even 135 on demand ops...
The requirements to show all failure modes with test flights is not required to my knowledge...

My guess is SpaceX has run simulations on ALL the things you have listed up above and can show the FAA the planned and pre-programmed mitigation strategies they will put in place in ECM memories for land landing ops... 
This may be good enough for this class of operations...   

there is no experimental aircraft that I am aware of that can charge for a flight.

PLUS even if you could get around that with liability waivers...and I dont think you can.  if an event happened where some well heeled person was "Titaniced" ie killed by one of these scenarios unfolding any lawyer of any quality would take SpaceX apart for not "testing" this.   AND it would be a PR nightmare.

[John Alan]

Why... this is experimental spacecraft ops...
Not Part 121 airline ops... Not even 135 on demand ops...
The requirements to show all failure modes with test flights is not required to my knowledge...

My guess is SpaceX has run simulations on ALL the things you have listed up above and can show the FAA the planned and pre-programmed mitigation strategies they will put in place in ECM memories for land landing ops... 
This may be good enough for this class of operations...   

That is all okay until SpaceX wants to have a paying customer aboard. No commercial ops under experimental designation, no?

Early FAA sanctioned space ops with paying customers MAY involve the person signing a legal document indicating they understand the risks and they accept them...
FAA is working with industry to set the rules for this new class of operations... a work in progress last I knew...
Just saying everything in the current regs for 122. 135 or even 91 needs to NOT be a template for how this new class of operation will be handled... 

[John Alan]

PLUS even if you could get around that with liability waivers...and I dont think you can.  if an event happened where some well heeled person was "Titaniced" ie killed by one of these scenarios unfolding any lawyer of any quality would take SpaceX apart for not "testing" this.   AND it would be a PR nightmare.

Sure it will be a PR nightmare... it's what will drive SpaceX to cross their T's and dot their I's and not cut corners.
But a properly written, explained to the customer by an attorney in person, signed and witnessed release form will hold up in court if they are sued for damages... 

On edit... early passenger planes were not safe in the sense of what we know today and yet people paid money...got in them and flew... and sometimes died...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft#1919

[TripleSeven]

Why... this is experimental spacecraft ops...
Not Part 121 airline ops... Not even 135 on demand ops...
The requirements to show all failure modes with test flights is not required to my knowledge...

My guess is SpaceX has run simulations on ALL the things you have listed up above and can show the FAA the planned and pre-programmed mitigation strategies they will put in place in ECM memories for land landing ops... 
This may be good enough for this class of operations...   

That is all okay until SpaceX wants to have a paying customer aboard. No commercial ops under experimental designation, no?

Early FAA sanctioned space ops with paying customers MAY involve the person signing a legal document indicating they understand the risks and they accept them...
FAA is working with industry to set the rules for this new class of operations... a work in progress last I knew...
Just saying everything in the current regs for 122. 135 or even 91 needs to NOT be a template for how this new class of operation will be handled... 

I am quite certain that they will not be anything like the current regs for 121 or anything in the FAR's because the regs today are nothing like they were when the CAA first wrote them...they evolve with technology

the work is in progress and good people on both sides of the industry are working to make them effective as well as not stifling.

Having said that I will say two things

I am not the lawyer in the family, my father is and a pretty good one; and his line on "waivers of risk" is that under no circumstances are they "bullet proof" and they are easily penetrable by negligence, lack of due diligence, and demonstrated error.  Nor is federal regulation a "shield"

Second if a well heeled person were to die (or his phrase be "Titaniced" ) there would 1) be very bad publicity, 2) massive legal action by the heirs and 3) more federal regulation.  Particularly if it was found out that the deaths were caused or not stopped by inappropriate remedial actions of failures which HAD NOT been actually tested.

I know one reason a major US aircraft company that is in the commercial space transportation business (or will be soon) is willing to consider paying passengers with "spare seats" is the enormous amount of pre litigation work that was done when Charlie Walker (I think I recall his name correctly the McDee guy) was an industry "guest" ont he shuttle.  And the complex but known legal ground of a vehicle operated by and/or for the US GOvernment which worked out when Greg JArvis died on the shuttle...

because it was a US government manged vehicle...the USGov stepped up ....and is an impenetrable shield

latter good night

[TripleSeven]

On edit... early passenger planes were not safe in the sense of what we know today and yet people got in them and flew... and died...

thank fully safety standards for both actual operations and litigation are not retroactive...because safety standards and technology both evolve with each other.

The Ford Trimotor would never pass certification today, but the certification requirements CHANGED because of a couple of crashes...the Knute crash in particular

I suspect 100 years from now, things will be different with airplanes and almost everything else as well.

none of this changes the definition of negligence, lack of due diligence and demonstrated error.  I suspect that Virgin has scrubbed their procedures and controls pretty hard based on what that crash showed.  had people been on board...they would have been laid flat by litigation.