Author Topic: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3  (Read 176591 times)

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4556
  • Liked: 1805
  • Likes Given: 1500
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #480 on: 12/08/2018 11:42 pm »
In these photos, the astronauts are in sharp focus while the hardware is out of focus.
Just saying......
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 293
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 405
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #481 on: 12/09/2018 12:09 am »
In these photos, the astronauts are in sharp focus while the hardware is out of focus.
Just saying......
It's called ITAR Retracted....

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8948
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6170
  • Likes Given: 2085
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #482 on: 12/09/2018 04:54 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2018 04:54 pm by woods170 »

Offline Slarty1080

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • UK
  • Liked: 382
  • Likes Given: 163
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #483 on: 12/10/2018 10:40 am »
Yes the photo technique is known as bokeh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
The first words spoken on Mars: "Humans have been wondering if there was any life on the planet Mars for many decades … well ... there is now!"

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #484 on: 12/18/2018 02:43 pm »
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.

Online Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • UK
  • Liked: 242
  • Likes Given: 374
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #485 on: 12/18/2018 03:02 pm »
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.

Offline jerangrove87

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #486 on: 12/19/2018 01:48 am »
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


Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11502
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 6980
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #487 on: 12/19/2018 04:44 am »
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.
Quote
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.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10717
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2929
  • Likes Given: 1189
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #488 on: 12/19/2018 12:28 pm »
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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1436
  • Liked: 1381
  • Likes Given: 442
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #489 on: 12/19/2018 01:19 pm »


Is there any protection for the solar cells during launch?
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3135
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1256
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #490 on: 12/19/2018 02:12 pm »
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.
Needing a copy of 'Tales of Suspense #39'

Offline whitelancer64

Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #491 on: 12/19/2018 02:33 pm »
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.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline whitelancer64

Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #492 on: 12/19/2018 02:36 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2018 03:16 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • United States
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 77
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #493 on: 12/19/2018 03:06 pm »
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?

Online jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1436
  • Liked: 1381
  • Likes Given: 442
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #494 on: 12/19/2018 03:10 pm »
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.
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1462
  • Likes Given: 1101
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #495 on: 12/19/2018 03:13 pm »
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.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #496 on: 12/19/2018 03:15 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2018 03:16 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11502
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 6980
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #497 on: 12/19/2018 03:36 pm »
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?
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10209
  • UK
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 208
SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #498 on: 12/19/2018 03:49 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2018 03:50 pm by Star One »

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1938
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 2955
  • Likes Given: 373
Re: SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 3
« Reply #499 on: 12/19/2018 06:30 pm »
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...
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Tags: