SpaceX Falcon 9 / Dragon 2 : SpX-DM2 - EOM/Return: August, 2020 : DISCUSSION

[Kabloona]

Maybe the Navy can add some "visual deterrence" with one or two of these.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/u-s-navy-gets-new-heavily-armed-port-patrol-boat

[mn]

Confirmation Dragon uses Iridium

https://twitter.com/iridiumboss/status/1290141957843374081

Best use of our service I’ve heard of in awhile.  Too funny.

No this has nothing to do with Dragon. The crew has a iridium sat phone in case of emergency (dragon comm failure after landing), part of the dm-2 objectives was to test the sat phone, and so they tested it to the fullest.

Edit: and this really belongs in the discussion thread...

[ThePonjaX]

I'm very happy as anyone about the results of these mission but I have to say I don't understand why the video quality was so bad. 
I understand the most important is the mission and recover the crew and Dragon, but what's difficult to see that videos in a big screen.

Let's say the upload link was bad, ok. Why we don't still have high-res videos ?

[Mapperuo]

I'm very happy as anyone about the results of these mission but I have to say I don't understand why the video quality was so bad. 
I understand the most important is the mission and recover the crew and Dragon, but what's difficult to see that videos in a big screen.

Let's say the upload link was bad, ok. Why we don't still have high-res videos ?

Looked to me like the GO Navigator was sending a quad split screen of 4 camera views as one feed, Which looked SD to me. NASA TV are then zooming into one quadrant to make it full screen so it's all very low res.

No doubt theres a local recording on the ship but it won't be a high priority to get that processed.

[ThePonjaX]

I'm very happy as anyone about the results of these mission but I have to say I don't understand why the video quality was so bad. 
I understand the most important is the mission and recover the crew and Dragon, but what's difficult to see that videos in a big screen.

Let's say the upload link was bad, ok. Why we don't still have high-res videos ?

Looked to me like the GO Navigator was sending a quad split screen of 4 camera views as one feed, Which looked SD to me. NASA TV are then zooming into one quadrant to make it full screen so it's all very low res.

No doubt theres a local recording on the ship but it won't be a high priority to get that processed.

I think is a PR opportunity lost. It's difficult engage people with bad video quality, my children go away because of that.
The only good think about the wayward boats is they provided a good video of Dragon in the water.

[Elvis in Space]

First of all this is the best thing to come out of 2020 thus far. Let's keep it going.

Regarding the boaters in the landing zone - They don't call this the "Redneck Riviera" for nothing. I wasn't surprised it happened and I'm more surprised that others didn't anticipate it. Has nobody ever been there before? The solution is pretty simple - If Elon or President Trump or anyone with a public voice will make a request for everyone to mind their manners and keep back then it will happen. You'll notice that everyone backed off within reason once they were asked. No need for mines or lawyers or F-18's just tell everyone that the NOTAM includes not only keeping clear until they are in the water but after as well. This may seem obvious to all of us but spaceflight has become part of making America great again and it's going to get a celebration. Just going to have to move the party a bit. No big deal.

[gaballard]

I'm very happy as anyone about the results of these mission but I have to say I don't understand why the video quality was so bad. 
I understand the most important is the mission and recover the crew and Dragon, but what's difficult to see that videos in a big screen.

Let's say the upload link was bad, ok. Why we don't still have high-res videos ?

Looked to me like the GO Navigator was sending a quad split screen of 4 camera views as one feed, Which looked SD to me. NASA TV are then zooming into one quadrant to make it full screen so it's all very low res.

No doubt theres a local recording on the ship but it won't be a high priority to get that processed.

I think is a PR opportunity lost. It's difficult engage people with bad video quality, my children go away because of that.
The only good think about the wayward boats is they provided a good video of Dragon in the water.

Could be a good chance to teach your children about looking at something's content instead of its presentation. Good life skill to have, especially these days.

It could have been twice as blurry and who cares? We're watching live footage of a historic event! You can always go watch the HD shots after the fact.

[punder]

And that makes it even more capable for LEO operations. Moon landings are tough for Starship though due to its high dry mass, as the design relies highly on atmospheric drag to slow it down for landings and also skip the capture maneuver, both which are required for lunar landings. So for Artemis, having the proposed Moon<->Gateway-only Starship is a really good compromise, but it requires not only refueling at/near the gateway, but also swapping cargo with an Earth<->Gateway Starship. Still, if that works out as planned, it'd be a really cost effective way to deliver large amounts of cargo to the Moon as the system is fully reusable.

The most obvious Starship connection is Lunar SS. That’s the only version NASA is involved with at the moment.

[Spindog]

On the boats, I think it was an unusual situation. That landing zone was right in the middle of 2 popular fishing areas the 'edge' and the 'Trysler grounds'. Combine that with very calm water and a weekend day in the summer and there are going to be 100's of boats in the area fishing that become curious onlookers when the action happens. Also, there was plenty of advance notice on the splashdown site but I dont think that made much difference. Everyone I know that was out there was there for fishing and just happened upon the commotion.

[JMS]

I'm old enough to remember watching Apollo coverage on a black and white TV... mostly animations and plastic models.
You kids don't know how good you've got it. And... get off my lawn.

[dkovacic]

I'm puzzled as to why the reentry blackout was 6 minutes long.

This puzzles me because Apollo lunar return blackouts were just over 3 minutes, if I read it right and remember it correctly.

Given the higher velocity of Apollo, why would their blackout be roughly half of Dragon's?

Because the Dragon's reentry is at a *much* shallower angle,
thus allowing for lower peak g-force.

Apollo's nominal reentry hit 6.3-6.7g (Apollo 16 sniffed at 7.2g)

So on average, Apollo had 11km/s reentry speed and 180s to decelerate, leading to average 61m/s2 deceleration.
Now Crew Dragon had to kill 8km/s in 360s, which has an average of 22.2 m/s2. This seems rather gentle compared to either Apollo or Soyuz.

I guess for space tourism, keeping max g force at both descent and ascent around 3-3.5G would really help user experience:) What is the peak Dragon g-force expected during a nominal reentry?

[Thorny]

I'm old enough to remember watching Apollo coverage on a black and white TV... mostly animations and plastic models.
You kids don't know how good you've got it. And... get off my lawn.

They really could have used a plastic model to two, though. Something they could point to and say "this is the claw that holds the trunk to the capsule" or "this is where the Draco rockets are", or "the parachute compartment is right here" would have made the broadcast a lot less static.

They had models and animations for the first Shuttle launches, too. It really surprised me that no one at NASA or SpaceX thought of it for DM-2. Another victim of COVID-19 isolation maybe? If I recall correctly, SpaceX got an Emmy for its DM-1 coverage. There is no danger of that happening with DM-2, alas.

[mlindner]

I've been thinking about the recent invasion into the area of the splashdown by all the private vessels some more.

While I agree that it was dangerous for them to do so because of the risk of hypergolics in the air/water, they probably were not aware that such a danger was there. Remember this hasn't happened since the 70s and never in Pensacola. Additionally, this landing site was only chosen less than a week ago so it's obvious that SpaceX hasn't had time to educate the public. Given that, I think the boaters basically didn't think there wasn't any danger.

Given that they didn't think there was any danger, I think their behavior is more or less understandable. They wanted to get up close to see the landed spacecraft so they approached reasonably close, but never got in the way of the recovery craft, at least not that I've seen in any of the video streams or later videos.

I think given the above lack of information and the honest curiosity, I think people are blaming these folks way too much. (Including some rabid twitter/reddit people saying that the coast guard should have fired warning shots or weapons at these innocent people.) The coast guard was there primarily to protect the public from the vehicle, not protect the vehicle from the people. Same as they do for rocket launches.

To be honest, if there wasn't risk of dangerous chemicals/explosions I would have done the same thing were I in their situation, but maybe stayed back a further 100 meters or so so as to not get the SpaceX people too nervous.

[mlindner]

I'd love to hear a lawyer break down what the actual laws are in this case. There's tons of misinformation flying around with some claiming very assuredly that the Coast Guard both doesn't have jurisdiction to do anything, but others claiming also very assuredly that the Coast Guard can do literally anything (like firing weapons at the boaters) because they're acting as pirates. The real story is somewhere in-between, but if someone could actually come out with some sources that would be great as I can then link that around.

[mn]

I'd love to hear a lawyer break down what the actual laws are in this case. There's tons of misinformation flying around with some claiming very assuredly that the Coast Guard both doesn't have jurisdiction to do anything, but others claiming also very assuredly that the Coast Guard can do literally anything (like firing weapons at the boaters) because they're acting as pirates. The real story is somewhere in-between, but if someone could actually come out with some sources that would be great as I can then link that around.

Did you see the statement from the Coast Guard posted here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51600.msg2115028#msg2115028

[zubenelgenubi]

A moderator caution re: NASA, the Coast Guard, SpaceX, and the Boatniks (my expression):

Think before you post. Do you have anything substantive AND on-topic to add to the discussion? Maybe a "like" will do.

We also have a party thread.

[mlindner]

I'd love to hear a lawyer break down what the actual laws are in this case. There's tons of misinformation flying around with some claiming very assuredly that the Coast Guard both doesn't have jurisdiction to do anything, but others claiming also very assuredly that the Coast Guard can do literally anything (like firing weapons at the boaters) because they're acting as pirates. The real story is somewhere in-between, but if someone could actually come out with some sources that would be great as I can then link that around.

Did you see the statement from the Coast Guard posted here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51600.msg2115028#msg2115028

Yeah I did, but that's the Coast Guard's perspective. Statements in someone's own defense obviously can never show the full situation.

[AS_501]

Changing the subject for a moment with some questions:
-   How is the removal of the reentry heat scorch marks handled?  Just plain old scrubbing, replacement of skin panels, or some of both?
-   How does saltwater not get into the Draco thruster ports etc.?  Isn't salt water incursion the key problem with reusing water-landing spacecraft?

Thanks!

[mlindner]

Changing the subject for a moment with some questions:
-   How is the removal of the reentry heat scorch marks handled?  Just plain old scrubbing, replacement of skin panels, or some of both?
-   How does saltwater not get into the Draco thruster ports etc.?  Isn't salt water incursion the key problem with reusing water-landing spacecraft?

Thanks!

The backshell is covered in SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material (SPAM) which is what all the previously white material is. Those will all get replaced. The part that yellows in space around the screw joints I think is even injected like a putty and they need to scrape it off to access the screws.

[gemmy0I]

IMO, both.

Mentioning "the tweet" from last year, and explicitly saying SpaceX has indeed delivered, I think Bridenstine is personally and publicly burying the hatchet. But I also believe that the success of the DM-2 has brought SpaceX to greater public attention than ever before.

Starship isn't designed for LEO; it's designed to go to Mars. I think more and more folks are starting to look at this company and think, 'well hell, they might actually pull this off'. And I think a lot of entities, NASA first and foremost, will want to be on board for that.

Exciting times.

Indeed.

In fact, this may be confirmation of a theory many had when Bridenstine first made "the tweet": that he was really quite supportive of SpaceX behind the scenes (then as now), but was "setting them up for success" by giving them a "tough" challenge he was confident they could rise to. If that was his intention, it was a very savvy political move.

It's worth remembering the political context at the time he sent the tweet. SpaceX had not too long previously blown up the DM-1 capsule during that static fire mishap, and the investigation/remediation work was still very much ongoing. IFA hadn't happened yet and wouldn't for nearly a half year. And - perhaps most importantly from a political perspective - Boeing had yet to royally screw up their Starliner OFT (which wouldn't happen until December). The pro-Boeing forces in Congress and op-ed columns were being as outrageous as ever in trying to get NASA to subscribe to their fantasy world where they could produce multiple SLSes a year and have EUS ready in time to launch an integrated lander for a 2024 landing. Dragon being in the middle of an unresolved accident investigation for an issue that could've resulted in LOC if uncaught played perfectly into their "leave this to the professionals" narrative.

From the start, Bridenstine's biggest battle has been to ensure that Congress respects him as an unbiased, even-handed administrator whose word they can believe when he says "give us billions, trust us to spend it the way we believe is most effective instead of the way Congress prefers to, and trust that we can deliver with that". He's been known from the start as an instinctively pro-commercial administrator and the risk is that the "old mindset" advocates in Congress will simply brush him off and decline to show any interest whatsoever in funding his plans for NASA - which is what's happened far too often in past decades. Congress has no obligation whatsoever to give a NASA administrator what he asks for, and they know it. Few voters will change their votes based on space policy, and in the era of omnibus budget appropriations, no President would veto a major spending bill simply because Congress didn't play along with NASA's budget request. So NASA's biggest challenge is to keep Congress from following the path of least resistance and simply ignoring them.

The only way NASA can get Congress to pay attention is to achieve bold, publicly-noticed successes that exceed expectations. Hence "the tweet". It set high expectations, but also set up a narrative that lowballed the belief that they could be delivered on. (It's like Scotty's old maxim from Star Trek - tell the captain your one-hour job will take four hours, so when he tells you you have one and you pull it off anyway, you look like a miracle worker. )

It acknowledged the then-predominant narrative of skepticism about Commercial Crew, in light of its continued schedule slips and recent history of mishaps (not just the Dragon static fire explosion, but the overall issues with parachutes and also Starliner's abort propulsion problems). Even to us fans who were more sympathetic to Commercial Crew, most of us were quite frustrated to see the program slipping more and more each year. (Remember when DM-1 was penciled in for 2018 with DM-2 just a few months after?)

But it was also clearly a call to action to both Commercial Crew providers. It channeled the frustration most of us felt with the glacial, ever-slipping pace of modern space programs, as we looked back to the exciting days of Apollo and thought "we've done it before, why can't we do it again?" As unfair as it felt to us fans to see SpaceX singled out for criticism, "it's time to deliver" was exactly the sentiment many of us had been feeling for a long time.

Fast-forward to today. SpaceX has now clearly, unequivocally "delivered" on its Commercial Crew promises. And they have done so without substantial schedule slips since the time of "the tweet". Not saying one caused the other, but the timing worked out great for both Bridenstine and SpaceX to look good as a result.

Meanwhile, Boeing has utterly failed to "deliver" on that call to action. OFT was a cosmic embarrassment, and Starliner will be lucky to do a mere repeat mission by the end of the year. And SLS continues to slip, somehow managing to lose time nearly day-for-day during the pandemic even though SpaceX managed to escape that through their designation as an "essential" aerospace contractor, a designation that Boeing could have equally well sought for SLS work if they had cared to. (And it wasn't just SpaceX. ULA did an outstanding job keeping its operations going during the pandemic without losing ground, and without endangering its workers, as Tory Bruno has been justly proud of in public statements.) Somehow, the one major program that's "on the clock" via the 2024 moon landing target, unlike Commercial Crew which had a softer "as soon as possible" target, managed to lose the most time.

The successful completion of DM-2 fully cemented SpaceX's place as "the professionals" who lead the industry and can be trusted to deliver - the place that Boeing long held but has now lost. Earlier this year, NASA shocked everyone by including Starship as a third selection in HLS, a program that was expected to yield no more than two, and possibly just one selectee. (SpaceX was expected to bid, but with a more traditional Falcon-based architecture, not Starship.) Not one of those three selections was Boeing's fantasy SLS-based lander, which was rejected out of hand for not even trying to meet the requirements. (Although I suspect Dynetics' inclusion was a peace offering to Senator Shelby, who, while SLS's biggest champion, is more of an Alabama partisan than a Boeing partisan; he's shown a willingness to throw Boeing under the bus before if a different contractor is willing to manufacture in his state.) At the time, the HLS selection was seen as politically risky and it was unclear how well it would go over in Congress, which has indeed been reluctant to fully fund it so far. It's no accident that Bridenstine keeps repeating his call for full funding of Artemis in his post-DM-2 press conferences. The message is clear: SpaceX is the new incumbent leader, and the burden of proof is now on the skeptics to make the case why they shouldn't be the leading contender in NASA's future endeavors. If Congress wants to see results they can show off to their constituents, they should pony up the money and consider it well spent. If they don't, they should be prepared to look like fools when SpaceX succeeds anyway on its own dime and they go down in history as having opposed it. Voters don't generally change their votes based on space policy, but they are influenced by general perceptions of competence and success, and high-profile space missions can be a big part of that.

The way Bridenstine brought up Starship in his remarks was brilliant. "We need to get Starliner flying, we need to get Orion flying, and we need to get Starship flying." That one sentence simultaneously throws shade on Starliner and Orion for not flying when they were supposed to be the "safe" programs, while boosting Starship by putting its highly ambitious goals on an equal footing of expectation.