SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3

[Tomness]

In these photos, the astronauts are in sharp focus while the hardware is out of focus.
Just saying......

It's called ITAR Retracted....

[woods170]

In these photos, the astronauts are in sharp focus while the hardware is out of focus.
Just saying......

It's called ITAR Retracted....

Nope. That has nothing to do with it. Everything Falcon 9 we see in the photos has been photographed many, many times before on previous launches in much greater detail.
The focus of these images was, quite literally, on the astronauts. Not on the hardware.

[Slarty1080]

Yes the photo technique is known as bokeh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

[Markstark]

Has SpaceX discussed the possibility of doing space tourism using Dragon 2 and Falcon 9 after they’ve met their commercial crew program obligations? Not necessarily flights to ISS (just a few orbits in LEO).

If this has already been discussed earlier in the thread or elsewhere in the forum, would really appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

[Cheapchips]

Has SpaceX discussed the possibility of doing space tourism using Dragon 2 and Falcon 9 after they’ve met their commercial crew program obligations? Not necessarily flights to ISS (just a few orbits in LEO).

If this has already been discussed earlier in the thread or elsewhere in the forum, would really appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

As far as I know, the only Dragon tourist mission they've announced was the moonshot that became the Dearmoon.

[jerangrove87]

I know this has probably been covered in a past discussion or thread, but what is the reason that they chose the water landing technique in the the ocean rather than a propulsion landing via the Draco Engines?


Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk

[Lar]

Hello and welcome to the forum!

I know this has probably been covered in a past discussion or thread, but what is the reason that they chose the water landing technique in the the ocean rather than a propulsion landing via the Draco Engines?

(IMHO) NASA had a low appetite for risk and was going to require water landings initially anyway so there wasn't a lot of point, since it would get very few uses. This has been covered very extensively in the past. Our search function isn't the greatest but I think in previous editions of this thread, as well as in dedicated threads.  You will find a lot of other opinions on why.

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk

Please go into Tapatalk settings and turn that off. It's low value add and wastes space. Thank you.

[clongton]

I know this has probably been covered in a past discussion or thread, but what is the reason that they chose the water landing technique in the the ocean rather than a propulsion landing via the Draco Engines?

Hello and welcome to the forum. Water landing was always going to be the backup mode. But NASA chose to disallow the propulsive landing for Commercial Crew. There are probably lots of contributing factors that led to that decision but my sources tell me that the major reason was they were afraid of it. Because it was a NASA contract and they were calling the shots SpaceX had no alternative but to comply.

[jpo234]

Is there any protection for the solar cells during launch?

[wannamoonbase]

I know this has probably been covered in a past discussion or thread, but what is the reason that they chose the water landing technique in the the ocean rather than a propulsion landing via the Draco Engines?


Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk

Most precise comment I recall seeing was that NASA wasn't very excited about intentionally putting holes in the heat shield.

[whitelancer64]

I know this has probably been covered in a past discussion or thread, but what is the reason that they chose the water landing technique in the the ocean rather than a propulsion landing via the Draco Engines?


Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk

Most precise comment I recall seeing was that NASA wasn't very excited about intentionally putting holes in the heat shield.

NASA has worked with landing-gear holes in the heat shield for decades, it's a non-issue. There never was any statement to that effect, only internet speculation.

[whitelancer64]

I know this has probably been covered in a past discussion or thread, but what is the reason that they chose the water landing technique in the the ocean rather than a propulsion landing via the Draco Engines?

Hello and welcome to the forum. Water landing was always going to be the backup mode. But NASA chose to disallow the propulsive landing for Commercial Crew. There are probably lots of contributing factors that led to that decision but my sources tell me that the major reason was they were afraid of it. Because it was a NASA contract and they were calling the shots SpaceX had no alternative but to comply.

NASA did not do that. SpaceX chose to not do propulsive landing. NASA wanted full-up from rentry to landing tests to qualify propulsive landing, which would have been prohibitively expensive. Combined with the imminent onset of the BFS / BFR, SpaceX decided to forego propulsive landing. To emphasize, it was a SpaceX decision, not a NASA decision.

[mn]

I know this has probably been covered in a past discussion or thread, but what is the reason that they chose the water landing technique in the the ocean rather than a propulsion landing via the Draco Engines?

Hello and welcome to the forum. Water landing was always going to be the backup mode. But NASA chose to disallow the propulsive landing for Commercial Crew. There are probably lots of contributing factors that led to that decision but my sources tell me that the major reason was they were afraid of it. Because it was a NASA contract and they were calling the shots SpaceX had no alternative but to comply.

NASA did not do that. SpaceX chose to not do propulsive landing. NASA wanted a full-up from rentry to landing test to qualify propulsive landing, which would have been prohibitively expensive. Combined with the imminent onset of the BFS / BFR, SpaceX decided to forego propulsive landing. To emphasize, it was a SpaceX decision, not a NASA decision.

Why would it be prohibitively expensive? wouldn't it be part of DM1?

[jpo234]

Why would it be prohibitively expensive? wouldn't it be part of DM1?

Just look at the parachute drama. Propulsive landing would have been much, much worse.

[RonM]

I know this has probably been covered in a past discussion or thread, but what is the reason that they chose the water landing technique in the the ocean rather than a propulsion landing via the Draco Engines?

Hello and welcome to the forum. Water landing was always going to be the backup mode. But NASA chose to disallow the propulsive landing for Commercial Crew. There are probably lots of contributing factors that led to that decision but my sources tell me that the major reason was they were afraid of it. Because it was a NASA contract and they were calling the shots SpaceX had no alternative but to comply.

NASA did not do that. SpaceX chose to not do propulsive landing. NASA wanted a full-up from rentry to landing test to qualify propulsive landing, which would have been prohibitively expensive. Combined with the imminent onset of the BFS / BFR, SpaceX decided to forego propulsive landing. To emphasize, it was a SpaceX decision, not a NASA decision.

Why would it be prohibitively expensive? wouldn't it be part of DM1?

Like booster landings, testing Dragon 2 propulsive landings would take multiple flights.

If I remember correctly, SpaceX wanted to use Dragon 2 for cargo missions to test propulsive landing, but NASA didn't like that idea since it would put important downmass at risk.

[whitelancer64]

I know this has probably been covered in a past discussion or thread, but what is the reason that they chose the water landing technique in the the ocean rather than a propulsion landing via the Draco Engines?

Hello and welcome to the forum. Water landing was always going to be the backup mode. But NASA chose to disallow the propulsive landing for Commercial Crew. There are probably lots of contributing factors that led to that decision but my sources tell me that the major reason was they were afraid of it. Because it was a NASA contract and they were calling the shots SpaceX had no alternative but to comply.

NASA did not do that. SpaceX chose to not do propulsive landing. NASA wanted full-up from rentry to landing tests to qualify propulsive landing, which would have been prohibitively expensive. Combined with the imminent onset of the BFS / BFR, SpaceX decided to forego propulsive landing. To emphasize, it was a SpaceX decision, not a NASA decision.

Why would it be prohibitively expensive? wouldn't it be part of DM1?

From what I understand, it would have had to have been a series of up to 4 demonstration landings.

[Lar]

NASA did not do that. SpaceX chose to not do propulsive landing. NASA wanted full-up from rentry to landing tests to qualify propulsive landing, which would have been prohibitively expensive. Combined with the imminent onset of the BFS / BFR, SpaceX decided to forego propulsive landing. To emphasize, it was a SpaceX decision, not a NASA decision.

That's one way to spin it, yeah. Or, NASA forced inane requirements on SpaceX who declined to comply in the interests of actually launching people prior to 2022.... We've had this whole discussion before. More than once. Maybe we shouldn't?

[Star One]

I know this has probably been covered in a past discussion or thread, but what is the reason that they chose the water landing technique in the the ocean rather than a propulsion landing via the Draco Engines?

Hello and welcome to the forum. Water landing was always going to be the backup mode. But NASA chose to disallow the propulsive landing for Commercial Crew. There are probably lots of contributing factors that led to that decision but my sources tell me that the major reason was they were afraid of it. Because it was a NASA contract and they were calling the shots SpaceX had no alternative but to comply.

Interestingly in the recent program on Apollo 8 on BBC Radio 4. Linked to in the relevant thread on this forum. Helen Sharman talks about the two types of landings, as obviously Apollo was water and Soyuz on land, and she said she much preferred from an Astronaut’s prospective land landing as it was her belief that ground was better at absorbing the force of landing. Plus she felt land was generally a more certain thing to land on than the ever changing ocean.

[Johnnyhinbos]

I know this has probably been covered in a past discussion or thread, but what is the reason that they chose the water landing technique in the the ocean rather than a propulsion landing via the Draco Engines?

Hello and welcome to the forum. Water landing was always going to be the backup mode. But NASA chose to disallow the propulsive landing for Commercial Crew. There are probably lots of contributing factors that led to that decision but my sources tell me that the major reason was they were afraid of it. Because it was a NASA contract and they were calling the shots SpaceX had no alternative but to comply.

NASA did not do that. SpaceX chose to not do propulsive landing. NASA wanted full-up from rentry to landing tests to qualify propulsive landing, which would have been prohibitively expensive. Combined with the imminent onset of the BFS / BFR, SpaceX decided to forego propulsive landing. To emphasize, it was a SpaceX decision, not a NASA decision.

Oh good - we're back on this debate. I was afraid it had been discussed to death already...

[Welsh Dragon]

<snip>
Oh good - we're back on this debate. I was afraid it had been discussed to death already...

Yup, SpaceX had as much choice in this matter as someone who has a gun pointed at their head choosing to hand over their wallet.