This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

World: Meet SpaceX Dragon V2

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
May 29, 2014
Filed under ,

Images: SpaceX Reveals Dragon Version 2, SpaceRef
“This evening in short presentation which was delayed SpaceX CEO Elon Musk revealed the next-generation Dragon crewed spacecraft at the SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, California. These are the initial images. More to come.”
UPDATE: Here is the reveal if you missed it and flight animation.
Video: SpaceX Reveals Dragon Version 2
Video Animation: Flight of the SpaceX Dragon Version 2

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

209 responses to “World: Meet SpaceX Dragon V2”

  1. Dr. Malcolm Davis says:
    0
    0

    Very impressive – I think Orion will be left in Dragon’s dust…

  2. Chris says:
    0
    0

    With the absence of analog instruments it seems to have freed up a lot of space. But trust NASA to cram as much cargo as possible into the craft.

    Wonder how easily this could be modified for deep space missions etc.

    • Terry Stetler says:
      0
      0

      A poster at NSF attended last night and reported on the Q&A. He reported about 455kg of cago can fly in.the pressure vessel with the astronauts.

  3. William T Lloyd says:
    0
    0

    When he merely lifted the door up to step inside, I knew the 21st century had finally arrived to spaceflight.

  4. Jonna31 says:
    0
    0

    I’m completely stunned. What a presentation. What a vehicle. My only question are:
    -With the rapid re-usability of the capsule, is the intent for the service module “trunk” to be extremely low cost? What’s the rationale for it’s design fins and all?

    – What is the capsule + service module’s in-space propulsion? The same superdraco thrusters?

    -With the first stage on the path to re-usability before long, and the capsule designed to be highly reusable with zero maintenance, and assuming the service module is supposed to be cheap and disposable, where does that leave the upper stage? Does SpaceX accept the inherent single-use design of Falcon 9 upper stage and with it it kicking a reusable upper stage to the follow up vehicle that “won’t look much like these two capsule designs”? Or is a reusable upper stage even a possibility without making it basically, a mini-space plane?

    Call me extremely excited and extremely impressed. Boeing’s CST-100 suddenly fell very far behind the curve.

    • Terry Stetler says:
      0
      0

      Upper stage reuse is a work in.progress, and may not,happen with F9 but the BFR.

      SuperDracos also act as orbital maneuvering engines. The.propellant load was upped 31% from 1,290kg to 1,688kg.

      With the solar wings now just surface mounted panels the cost of the Trunk is greatly reduced. Recovery would cost more than the tin can itself.

      • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
        0
        0

        The 80:20 rule strikes again. The trunk and possibly the upper stage being the 20% it is too expensive to reuse.

      • Allen Thomson says:
        0
        0

        > With the solar wings now just surface mounted panels the cost of the
        Trunk is greatly reduced. Recovery would cost more than the tin can
        itself.

        I agree that, for now, the trunk is an affordable throw-away. But I’d keep an eye on it in the future; it might have some interesting growth possibilities.

        Would anybody like to calculate the power from its solar panels in an axis-normal-to-the-sun orientation?

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      above, tinker notes that the fins on the trunk will provide stability in the case of a launch abort scenario.

      the trunk, which is essentially an empty shell (though it is a load-bearing structure during launch as well) with mount points on the interior for unpressurized cargo and some power lines for cargo that requires power, should be fairly inexpensive.

      it’s pretty clear that SpaceX intends to keep the 2nd stage as expendable for now. it has always been clear that the re-use of the 2nd stage is the most difficult challenge that SpaceX has on its plate. it will probably take more effort to solve that problem than 1st stage reuse or capsule reuse, given the limited opportunities to test 2nd stage reentry profiles. i don’t think it’s impossible, but it is a complex problem and the solutions will take time to work out.

  5. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    I would like to have seen Dragon V2 next to Dragon V1 to compare sizes. I would also have liked it if Musk had surprised us with a date for the first flight. With all that said, I can’t wait to see Dragon V2 fly.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      the date for the first flight isn’t set in stone, it’s still “late 2015 or early 2016” – there are still a critical design review, structural testing and qualification, and two abort tests to do before it can fly.

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      P2:

      Here’s an image I cobbled together of both Dragons side by side. the common measurement is the 13 foot diameter heat shield. Dragon two is definitely taller.

      I can’t seem to upload an image so here’s a link to a Tweet where I posted it:

      https://twitter.com/John_Ga

      tinker

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        P2:

        Here it is…

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        P2:

        Here is the image

        t

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          Interesting. There appears to be a significant difference in volume. Thanks.

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

            P2:

            Glad you finally got to see it. I guess I just had to refresh the page to see the images, now there are to many!

            A good point to make is that human cargo is light! A full compliment of seven, in suits, would weigh about a metric tonne. Making Dragon slightly larger wouldn’t add much mass either. The major source of mass on Dragon 2 will be the extra fuel needed for abort or landing (whichever comes first :)).

            tinker

      • drboyd says:
        0
        0

        Tinker,

        Thanks, great comparison. I think the difference in height is because of the different docking systems used. Both capsules are 15 degree sidewall cones. With the same base diameter the height of each cone is the same. The 50 inch common berthing mechanism used on V1 needs to be closer to the base of the cone than the 27 inch NASA docking system used on V2, hence V2 can be a little taller. Put the nose cap on V1 and I’ll bet they’re almost identical in height.

        drb

  6. DamnSkippy says:
    0
    0

    V1 looks like a capsule, but this looks like a true ship. And though it might be silly of me, I am really geeking out about the fins on the trunk! Am I the only one?

    Seriously though, if this is actual flight hardware like it’s reported to be, I am genuinely excited about the future of spaceflight for the first time in a long while. Keep up the stellar work SpaceX!

  7. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Didn’t anyone else notice the fins on the Dragon 2’s trunk in the video?

    It means that the trunk will stay with Dragon 2 during launch abort. The fins will help stabilize the spacecraft as pull away from a stricken booster, even at Max Q. At high altitudes, the trunk’s mass will lower the centre of gravity making it easier to control by thrust vectoring the Super-Dracos. Once they are free and clear, they can jettison the trunk and parachute into the ocean. Propulsive landings won’t happen during launch abort because the fuel will be gone and they’ll be over water anyway.

    tinker

    • VLaszlo says:
      0
      0

      I wondered about those, and certainly appreciated the aesthetics. Always love when function can be so beautiful.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      T: I wondered about that myself but couldn’t find any data on how much fuel would be used in a launch pad abort (well, other than common sense: as much as it takes).

      I also wondered how high the SDracos would take the capsule during an abort; high enough for parachutes? or a very hard landing?

      • Terry Stetler says:
        0
        0

        The pad abort EIS says it’ll carry a 1,688 kg prop load.

      • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
        0
        0

        in an abort, the Super Dracos will fire at 100% thrust for 5 seconds, expending nearly all of their available fuel. this will allow them to pull clear of an explosion. they will then coast to an altitude of probably about a mile or a little more, similar to altitudes achieved in previous abort tests. this is plenty of altitude for parachute deployment.

    • Jeff Havens says:
      0
      0

      Tinker, that brings up a question in my mind.. for manned Dragon flights, does the trunk still have the unpressurized cargo space that Dragon cargo has? I’m just wondering that, if yes, how cargo can change the flight characteristics of an abort.

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        Jeff:

        Unpressurized cargo in the trunk will simply lower the centre of gravity even more. Don’t worry about the mass, even a few hundred kilogram won’t slow Dragon 2 + trunk down during abort with 50,000 kg of thrust behinh it. They’ll lose the unpressurized cargo when the trunk is jettisoned after the abort burn, but whether it’s there or not is a non-issue.

        Also, Dragon 2 will have closed loop avionics which means it will adapt to circumstance to do it’s job, not be programmed to do just one thing. That’s a big part of rapid reusability, You don’t have to reprogram the flight computer every flight, just tell in where you want it to go.

        tinker

  8. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    That looks pretty.

    The side hatch is above head hight. I hope it comes with a ladder, otherwise the passengers will have to wait for someone to bring one.

    • richard_schumacher says:
      0
      0

      Rope ladder inside, perhaps.

      • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
        0
        0

        Available from your local ship’s chandlers.

        I suggest SpaceX fits a fire proof rope ladder before the FAA requires the fitting of an escape slide as used on passenger aircraft.

        • richard_schumacher says:
          0
          0

          It will be interesting to see what they choose for for self-contained egress.

  9. RocketScientist327 says:
    0
    0

    Somethings can be accelerated with money. Some things late 2015 crewed flight if we want it.

    • Terry Stetler says:
      0
      0

      Before they do the DragonFly V2 landing testbed has to do its scheduled test flights (30) and the pad & maxQ abort tests have to be completed.

      Pad abort later this year, maxQ early next year, and DragonFly may not hop until the F9R Dev program moves to SpacePort America which is supposed to happen later this year.

  10. Tom Sellick says:
    0
    0

    I ask; where is the toilet?

  11. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Isn’t it curious that when a product is designed well, it usually has visual appeal too, a certain elegance. I see that here. Love the fins BTW. Also the Tesla-like dashboard, multiplied by 5.

  12. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    And it can land safely in a cornfield! :_>

  13. chrisfoster says:
    0
    0

    This was touted to not be a mockup. After these pictures of the interior, I’m calling shenanigans.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      the interior may not have been completely finished for human occupation, but it is likely that will be a flight test article. you don’t need the interior to have padded walls on a flight test article.

      • Saturn1300 says:
        0
        0

        I looked at the bare metal and thought:don’t touch. It could be +or- 300deg. Then I think maybe very good outside insulation.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          or they don’t have the interior done, because it’s a flight test article. hmm. which is more likely?

  14. Jeff Havens says:
    0
    0

    At first glance, my thought was “make it a different color, and it’s a Dr. Zharkov capsule from the 1980 Flash Gordon movie! (Please note, that is not a bad thing — I loved that movie!)

  15. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    While the Boeing CST 100 looks like an updated Apollo CM, so a bit 20th Century as compared with the Dragon V2, what is most notable is the nonexistence of the NASA Lockheed Orion, like Mr. Musk decided to show everyone that spaceflight is not that different from creating a new aircraft or automobile, while NASA and Boeing like to keep the public transfixed on the mysteries of spaceflight, even though those mysteries largely evaporated 50 years ago. Its all just basic physics. We know how to do these things. NASA and its contractors like to try and make them look like mysteries in the hopes of more money.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      It is also based on past experience. When you have things like a capsule with people on board start spinning requiring an emergency landing, you develop steps to assure redundancy and safe operation. This goes beyond “basic physics”. Some of this is stated in documents, some is in people’s memory.

  16. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    The capsule is very minimalist, as people here have pointed out, and roomy. This will likely change as crew equipment, etc is added!

    I also am frequently surprised how uncomfortable Elon is for these presentations. He fumbled around, repeated himself, etc. If Steve Jobs could have done that presentation – Charlie Bolden would have jumped up to volunteer for the flight!

    • Odyssey2020 says:
      0
      0

      True dat! Alas there will only ever be one Steve Jobs.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      Well, to be fair to Mr. Musk, he had a lot to remember. public speaking isn’t easy, it’s just that those who are good at it make it look easy. also, he seemed very excited, so that may have been part of it. he was practically giddy when he climbed into the Dragon capsule!

    • mfwright says:
      0
      0

      >He fumbled around, repeated himself, etc.

      Elon’s strengths seem more about getting really smart people to design and build something interesting, though he may not be good at presentations. Kind of like Howard Hughes was good at innovation in aerospace technology but terrible at public presentations.

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      Importantly, unlike Jobs, he does not need a tap dance act to appease shareholders or analysts.

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      My guess one of the last act as NASA administrator, Charlie Bolden will make a farewell inspection tour of the ISS. All former shuttle crew would step forward for a ride up.

    • James Lundblad says:
      0
      0

      He’s more like Woz, typical engineer. Armstrong was very soft-spoken as well.

      • SouthwestExGOP says:
        0
        0

        I agree here, Elon started as a software engineer and like Woz is most comfortable there.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      I think His presentations work great.
      He makes me feel like he is just another Joe which makes me feel like hey I could have done that.
      It works!
      Joe Q Public

  17. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    It sticks in my mind that Al Worden(Apollo 15 CM pilot ) stated the spacecraft sent to the moon were built using 50’s technology because it was proven flight hardware.

    I think Elon and SpaceX are very confident in their technology, I just wonder how many years(5? 10?) of rigorous testing it will take to get their human crewed spacecraft certified.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      Depends what you mean by “certified”

      they only have 4 more Commercial Crew milestones – a critical design review, the results of structrual testing of the crew capsule, and two abort tests, one pad-abort and one in-flight abort. after those are done and the data from them is analyzed, they are pretty much good to go.

      SpaceX has said they could be flying people by late 2015 or early 2016.

      • Allen Thomson says:
        0
        0

        Speaking of 2016, though not in the Dragon context, the FEIS on the Brownsville/Boca Chica site the FAA released yesterday talks about operations there in 2016.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          that sounds plausible. SpaceX has said before that from breaking ground on the site to completion would be 24 months (2 years)

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Were the actual Super Draco thrusters on this prototype?

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          you mean were they installed on the vehicle that Musk presented last night? probably. i highly doubt it was fueled, though :p

      • Odyssey2020 says:
        0
        0

        SpaceX also has 10+ flights scheduled on their manifest for the rest of 2014, and 15+ for next year. They probably won’t launch 1/2 or even 1/3 in this time-frame.

        SpaceX may say they can fly people in the next couple of years..and hopefully it will happen. It might be a little too optimistic though.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          their schedule has slipped a few times this year. they definitely won’t be able to launch everything on their manifest. they’ll have some catching up to do, but they do have another site to launch from, the recently leased LC-39A, which is where they will be doing all crew launches. they may be able to do some commercial launches from there as well. once they have LC-39A refurbished and up and running, we also have the Brownsville, TX site to look forward to – that will be completed sometime in 2016. so SpaceX should be able to spread out their commercial launches across 4 different launch sites to increase their launch rate, and keep on pace with their timeline for crew launches as well.

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        Those milestones are for the current contract. I would suspect that an unmanned flight to orbit would be required for certification, plus anything else specified for an actual contract for crew ferry by NASA.

  18. Cincy says:
    0
    0

    Elon once again gives a great and interesting presentation.

    So did P. T. Barnum.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      I agree

      For his next trick let’s all see him make a video of a first stage booster go from hypersonic speed it hovering on water, there by changing Spaceflight forever.

      See you then Cincy

  19. SpaceMunkie says:
    0
    0

    Using rocket engines for full descent is not optimal and needs too much fuel. Why they didn’t go for combination of parachutes and rocket engines is a mystery. All that extra fuel needed could have been replaced by useful cargo.

    • Mike says:
      0
      0

      That fuel is not extra, its needed for the launch abort system, it would have to be launched anyway.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      they don’t need the rockets on during the entire descent , just for the landing phase. they will let the atmosphere slow them down, and then light the Super Dracos only when they need to land.

    • MattW2 says:
      0
      0

      Go play KSP and you will understand.

    • Kelly McDonald says:
      0
      0

      I’m really surprised with all the folks that keep bringing this up. There have been several hundred engineers thinking this through for the past couple years, yet one arm chair amateur apparently has some wildly brilliant idea that none of them thought of. Glad we’ve got you around, or else SpaceX would have made this colossal error. It’s not like they NEED to carry all this fuel already as part of the Launch Escape System.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        In fairness, Mr. McDonald, while the denizens here are all certifiable space nuts, many of us are neither engineers nor NASA/ space industry employees. That includes me, gripping my arm chair with wonder as the true engineers continue the magic show.

        • Kelly McDonald says:
          0
          0

          I understand that, but it puzzles me how people seem to think that the hundreds of engineers working on Dragon 2, somehow missed looking at Soyuz (parachute with landing rockets) or the Apollo Block 3 proposals before deciding on their propulsive landing approach. I have to assume that they looked at these other approaches and dismissed them..

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        The fuel requirements for powered descent and for launch abort are different and depend on the thrust profile. Abort requires less than 10 seconds at maximum thrust, after which the vehicle coasts to a mile or so altitude and deploys parachutes. If the powered descent is performed by igniting the engines at even a modest altitude (say a mile or two) and descending at constant rate, “gravity losses” (i.e. thrust required to support the vehicle against gravity) will rapidly exceed the total fuel required for a launch abort.

        Conversely, if a parachute is used to control descent rate and the engines ignited at low altitude (say 100m) then there will be time to make a comfortable precision landing with only about ten seconds of engine operation. Plus there is a safety factor in that even if the rockets fail the landing will be survivable.

        • Kelly McDonald says:
          0
          0

          My understanding is that the fuel capacity on Dragon v2 was determined specifically from the requirements of a launch abort. The difference is, precisely as you say, thrust profile. Launch abort requires full thrust (16,000lbs x 8 = 128,000 lbs thrust total) for ~10 seconds as you need to pull the Dragon, the trunk (plus any cargo in the trunk) away from the Falcon at 3+ Gs to escape a potential shock wave. During landing, it’s not like they are burning down from high altitude on a pillar of flame. We’re talking about decelerating from ~250 mph (terminal velocity of the capsule) at perhaps 1.1 – 1.2 Gs.with no trunk. During landing the Super Dracos will be running at 10%-20% thrust for perhaps 30 second tops

      • SpaceMunkie says:
        0
        0

        Ok Mr Knowitall, give me one irrefutable argument for using rocket engines instead of steerable parachute and rocket engines?

        • Kelly McDonald says:
          0
          0

          I just did. They already NEED to carry the engines and fuel as part of the launch escape system. A system that already needs to be highly reliable in the event of an abort. Why add another separate landing system when you’ve already got one.

          • SpaceMunkie says:
            0
            0

            They don’t NEED to carry all that fuel if they used parachutes, they NEED about 5 seconds worth of fuel to get the capsule away from the carrier, instead they CHOSE to use this system. All that extra fuel needed is a waste of potential cargo load and makes whatever is being carried up as cargo twice as expensive.

          • Kelly McDonald says:
            0
            0

            The fuel requirements of the LES is driven by the needs of the abort scenario. While the Super Draco’s will only fire for 5-10 seconds in the event of an abort, they will be firing at FULL thrust (16,000lbs x 8 engines) as they need to pull the Dragon, the trunk and any cargo mounted in the trunk away at 3+ Gs in order to escape a possible shockwave. SpaceX has stated that during an abort, ALL the Super Draco fuel will be consumed. During landing, however, they only need to fire the Super Dracos for 20-30 seconds at 15%-20% thrust to slow the capsule down from terminal velocity (~200 mph). I find it astonishing that you think a company, with hundreds of engineers focused on 1 thing (reducing the cost of getting into space) chose this option simply because they thought it was cool. That they somehow missed obvious alternatives (such as the parachute and rocket combination used by Soyuz and proposed for Apollo Block III) and that, after watching a video in your armchair, you know better. You should really send in your resume to SpaceX, think of it, they could save millions of dollars simply by firing all of those dumb engineers they’ve hired and replace them all with you.

  20. mdocur01 says:
    0
    0

    Anyone have info on the flight schedule for this bad puppy?

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      they have 4 more Commercial Crew milestones – a critical design review, the results of structural testing of the crew capsule, and two abort tests, one pad-abort and one in-flight abort. after those are done and the data from them is analyzed, they are pretty much good to go. There has been some speculation about whether or not there will be an unmanned flight test.

      SpaceX has said they could be flying people by late 2015 or early 2016.

      • mdocur01 says:
        0
        0

        Thank you! Do you suppose initial crew will be SpaceX or NASA astronauts?

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          the initial flight tests would be a SpaceX crew. the NASA-chartered crew flights to the ISS would most likely have a combination of NASA and SpaceX crew.

          • mdocur01 says:
            0
            0

            This is super interesting… so if the first flight is as early as 2015 – is SpaceX actively training their own astronauts at the moment?… Is there a SpaceX astronaut corps we (atleast I) haven’t heard about?

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            we can safely assume they do have a group of people who are preparing to fly the manned Dragon. i know that SpaceX has hired a number of former NASA astronauts in the past, though whether or not they are actively interested in piloting the Dragon capsule or are serving more as technical advisors, i don’t know.

          • Terry Stetler says:
            0
            0

            Former NASA astronaut Garrett Reisman is managing their crew safety program, and AIUI there are a couple more. Those are your natural candidates.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            The price NASA pays will be instructive and I don’t think Ive seen it mentioned anywhere.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Why am I not surprised to find you over here at Nasawatch Doug E. making brilliant statements about SpaceX. Space.coms comment section isn’t big enough for my brain either.

  21. SciFiFanLA says:
    0
    0

    While I am not sold on SpaceX yet, all I can say when looking at the pictures was….cool. That looks a lot more impressive than the old Shuttle Cockpit.

  22. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    SpaceX has told NASA in CCP that they would use parachutes and rockets to soft land. That was false. They will land with rockets. When this first came out 2 years ago I said I would not support it, unless the main parachutes were ballistic. I have not changed my mind. Elon said it would check the system and decide to use rockets or parachutes. That is not a backup. It will have to descend very close to the ground before firing the rockets to have enough fuel after all the fuel burned to get to ISS and back. At some point using ballistic pilot,drogues parachutes there will not be enough time to pull and inflate the mains, before hitting the ground hard enough to hurt somebody. They should do it the way they said, and in their bid, they would do it. Parachutes with rocket assist. This is not safe. It is too radical and there is no reason to do it. It may be illegal to say land with parachutes then do something else. This is one reason NASA paid them the money. They got the money under false pretenses. The odds should be as bad as the Shuttle to crash. What are the odds NASA? NASA has said they will not have another system without a backup. This does not have a backup.
    If this is not stopped, I will write the President, my Senators and Representative complaining about it.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      It seems like the plan is to initially use both parachutes and rockets to touch down on land, then switch over to rockets only once the DragonFly tests in McGregor, TX have validated the rockets-only landing method.

      also Musk did mention testing the SD engines at high altitude first, and if there was a problem with them, then they would deploy parachutes. the parachutes do remain as a backup landing system.

      • Saturn1300 says:
        0
        0

        As I said the parachutes are backup to certain point. At some point they will not have enough time. Say 50′. A ballistic system saves small airplanes now, so 3 should have enough capacity. SpaceX ran a parachute test last year, but they and NASA did not give results. If they had I would know at what minimum altitude the system they have works compared to a ballistic main. Maybe they are the same.

        • John Gardi says:
          0
          0

          S13:

          Here’s the video of the commercial crew parachute test this January:

          https://www.youtube.com/wat

          tinker

          • Saturn1300 says:
            0
            0

            Thanks. How far do you think it fell before the mains inflated? 500′? If Dragon is near hover, there will be very little wind to pull the chutes out or inflate them SpaceX just got an approval of their plan, so it must be OK with NASA. What I point out will not make any difference. Never has. I was right though in the early days when SpaceX said the parachutes were in the Trunk and I pointed out that the Trunk would be dropped off. Somebody not fact checking on the web site. I sure hope there are no problems. Elon says 2 years and 800,000 -1 billion $ he will get it done. With 1/2 already spent and NASA paying 70-90%. In CC they said they could fly in ’15. So it drops another year. Remember when we said it would be easy and cheap just to modify Dragon? I guess most of the money will be in the test flights.
            NASA did not approve. They paid millions for a report. If SpaceX has not met the rules that NASA came out with several years ago, then NASA may not hire them. They are either correct or not. NASA does not tell them.If it takes 500′ for the parachutes to deploy, then if the deploy is started 400′ it will fail. NASA rules say their has to be a back up. In this case no backup. A complete another system NASA may accept. Another set of Super Draccos. Separate fuel supply, manual control or separate computer and battery. Or just ignore the rules and possible failures as everyone wants to do.
            No pin point landings either. Even if it can move far enough every time from at the edge of the start point. The parachutes are non-steerable. Landing at KSC, one would not want to land on top of the VAB. The landing would still have to be with miles available. May not be able to land with the landing gear either. DragonFly is landing on a pad that is 40’x40′. But it will take 1000 cubic yards of concrete. Very thick. Land any where else and Dragons legs may sink up to the heatshield and damage it.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          any two Super Dracos can fail and the Dragon can still land safely – let’s hear it for multiple redundancy!

        • Chris Clardy says:
          0
          0

          Would this not be software driven, several parachute reefings could be expedited at lower altitudes and velocities in the event of SD failure?

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          What makes you think parachutes are safe?
          This powered system seems safer to me.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      I’m sure NASA is aware of any such alterations and, in fact, would SpaceX engineers have done so in the belief it was anything but an improvement over the initial design concept. Musk said some input in V2 came from employees with experience and expertise in the automobile and airline industries. By all means write to those individuals, who have shown only token interest in American HSF.

      • Saturn1300 says:
        0
        0

        Yes, but they did not tell us. I guess we don’t count.Then surprise, back to the original way. Maybe they know they will not get the ISS contract and are doing what ever they want.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          SpaceX has no obligation to tell the public anything. you may have noticed they don’t report Grasshopper tests until a few days after the fact.

        • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
          0
          0

          unless you are a shareholder they don’t owe you any information.

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        Hari:

        I agree. NASA has folks imbedded at SpaceX on a day to day basis. They would for sure know what ‘today’s flavour’ of landing scenario would be. I would be wary of SpaceX if they didn’t change their tune to changing data.

        tinker

    • Kelly McDonald says:
      0
      0

      I’m sure Elon stays up wide awake at night worrying about your approval.

      • Saturn1300 says:
        0
        0

        Certainly not and not yours either.

        • Kelly McDonald says:
          0
          0

          I’m not claiming his approach (well really the approach of the hundreds of engineers working on Dragon) is dangerous, unworkable and possibly illegal, requiring me personally write a letter to the President

          • Jafafa Hots says:
            0
            0

            You don’t understand, Kelly. Parachutes are foolproof. Lines never tangle.

          • Kelly McDonald says:
            0
            0

            I know, it’s interesting, but I was at a conference last week where Vladimir Komorov was talking about this very topic and the reliability of parachutes

    • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
      0
      0

      I didn’t realize you were a rocket scientist and on the review board that the president would return your emails because you read some snippets on the internet and were able to make a complete engineering assessment of the pros and cons of the system.

      • Saturn1300 says:
        0
        0

        I give opinions just like you and everybody that comments here. I will not change my mind. Safety first.

        • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
          0
          0

          unless you are part of the NASA review board your opinion means nothing. basing your worries on a few snippet of information without any engineering analysis to backup your fears is just a waste of bits. I choose to base my comments on real information and being an insider.

        • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
          0
          0

          Well perhaps no one should be allowed to fly nor drive nor …. Let’s just not do anything, that way we’ll all be SAFE or maybe not.
          ‘Safety first’. A meaningless comment from an uninformed and ignorant poster contributing nothing of any value to this discussion.
          Cheers

        • Jafafa Hots says:
          0
          0

          Google the name “Vladimir Komarov.”

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      S13:

      What can go wrong with hypergolic fuel? Mix it and it lights up. From terminal velocity at 150 meters per second (or 300 or so miles per hour), Dragon should have enough fuel margin to keep the Super Dracos running at 30% thrust for over 30 seconds (assuming a 6 second abort burn at 100% thrust). Lots of time to decelerate to touchdown.

      If they have to use the parachutes only, they may have an issue with touchdown on land. They can’t choose their landing spot and the velocity at touchdown would require multiple shock absorbing systems; chairs, landing legs and crush zones to guarantee crew safety.

      But hey, it’s spaceflight and it’s risky, let the folks that are flying make the call, not the lawmakers the have been holding us back for decades. They were the ones that sighed off on the unsafe Space Shuttle. remember?

      tinker

      • Saturn1300 says:
        0
        0

        They also include the crews. But people in charge got to protect people. Enough fuel even after burns to get to the station and back? The fuel left is the extra they put in over what Dragon uses now. Dragon had trouble with its’ thrusters, so they can go wrong. I had been told that it would land with parachutes. I guess the falsehoods by SpaceX and NASA kept me from worrying, but I can start again. I will never watch a Dragon V2 landing with people in it. They said they would use the thrusters to soften the landing. But they would need shock absorbing systems anyway for a little extra safety, even with a rocket landing. I forgot I will also write NASA and complain. They really mislead everyone.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          It sounds like the plan is to initially use both parachutes and rockets to touch down on land, just like they said they would.

          then later they would switch over to rockets only once the DragonFly tests in McGregor, TX have validated the rockets-only landing method.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wik

          also Musk did mention checking out the SD engines at high altitude first, and if there was a problem with them, they then would deploy parachutes – the parachutes do remain as a backup landing system.

          the landing legs on the Dragon are probably very similar to the landing legs on the F9R – pistons extended with compressed helium. if so, shock absorbers are built into them.

        • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
          0
          0

          “I will never watch a Dragon V2 landing with people in it. They said they would use the thrusters to soften the landing.”
          no you are just being silly with your irrational fear. how will the company survive without your viewership. I guess I missed your detailed entry descent and landing analysis of the parachute vs Super Draco engine including monte carlo runs and three sigma bad winds and 2 failure deep scenarios.

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          I think your reaction is way overblown, and the accusation that SpaceX lied has no foundation. You completely exclude the possibility of a change in plans as the result of engineering analysis.

          I’ll also remind you that a similar system was used before–6 times, in fact–on manned Moon landings. Those astronauts were also fuel limited and had no parachute backup.

          It should be noted that you’ve also completely ignored the testing that this system will go through, and by testing I mean the test flights they have scheduled, not any testing that they’ve already done that they haven’t told you about.

          • Saturn1300 says:
            0
            0

            As I remember, the ascent engine could be fired at any time, to return to orbit. So backup. Moon is a lot different. No air and a lot less gravity. I have suggested that Dragon Fly with the Trunk is a test to land on the Moon. The fuel for descent would be in the Trunk. For ascent or abort fuel in Dragon or a new design would be used.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            So? The LEM had two engines. Dragon V2 has 8 Super Dracos and can operate with only 6 of those 8. How many engines could the LEM have out? Oh, and Dragon V2 will still have a parachute if there is a problem detected in the Super Draco test during descent.

            You have yet to state a valid engineering concern or anything that engineers at SpaceX haven’t thought of. More pointedly, those SpaceX engineers have a lot testing (including a lot of flight testing) ahead of them, so there is still time to change things if such changes are needed. Hmmm. I wonder if that’s why there is such a thing as flight testing?

    • Odyssey2020 says:
      0
      0

      I’m sure SpaceX takes crew flight safety very seriously. We don’t even know the final design yet. Plus, SpaceX cannot afford any fatalities with their spacecraft anyway, it would be a too big of a blow to the company to recover from.

      In a nutshell: if they can work it out, they’ll fly. If not, they won’t. They’re not going to ignore engineers warnings like NASA did with the Space Shuttle.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        I don’t think it’s true that fatalities would be too big of a blow to the company to recover from. It would be a big blow, but that’s been the case for every space fairing agency. I think Elon Musk understands the risks and will forge ahead no matter what.

        • Odyssey2020 says:
          0
          0

          Maybe after a decade of successful launches. If anybody buys the farm before then the bad publicity/outrage/I told you so’s will be very tough to overcome.

  23. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    I still can’t get why hardly anyone has noticed the significance of having fins on Dragon 2’s trunk!

    With everyone (including me) trying to second guess Elon Musk prior to the Dragon 2 reveal, when he gives us a gift, like the Dragon 2 video, nobody is writing about the most important aspect of Dragon 2’s flight profile that it reveals… launch abort!

    The trunk, which wasn’t on display on stage, is the big story here because it tells us so much!

    The trunk serves four purposes:

    1: It’s the inter-stage between the second stage and the Dragon 2, just like it is for cargo Dragon now.

    2: It should be able to carry unpressurized cargo just like the cargo Dragon’s trunk.

    3: According to the video, the trunk will still supply some solar power, although probably not enough to keep the batteries fully charged. SpaceX has already stated that the flight profile to the ISS will take hours, not days and that Dragon 2 will carry more battery power to give them more power margin.

    4: Most importantly of all, the trunk will remain attached to Dragon 2 during pad abort and in-flight launch abort. At no or low altitude, the fins will provide aerodynamic stability and at higher altitude, the mass of the trunk will keep the centre of gravity low, making Dragon 2 much easier to control during any abort scenario.

    Another advantage to this configuration is that there is no need to have solar panel covers like cargo Dragon. Not only does this add less mass to the launch vehicle, not having uncontrolled disposed of objects will allow the second stage to insert Dragon 2 to a closer orbit to the ISS, saving Draco fuel margin and making the trip significantly shorter.

    So, fins on the trunk tell us a lot about Dragon 2’s flight profile during normal operations and emergencies! It’s a shame that the trunk still has to be thrown away, but it is much simpler than cargo Dragon’s trunk and less massive as well. Probably less expensive too.

    Compared to the trunk, there were no surprises regarding the Dragon 2 capsule… and everyone is writing about that!

    Sigh, sometimes I feel like I’m pounding sand! 🙂

    tinker

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      Yours is the only reasonable explanation for the fins that I can think of, though they should be able to maintain stability just by minutely throttling the Super Dracos, even in a launch abort situation. However, the fins do allow for a very simple abort scenario that has little that could go wrong with it, since the Super Dracos can all just blast away at 100% thrust without any need for active guidance. Even so, my guess is that the fins will probably be deleted at some point (to save weight), perhaps when the next generation of Super Dracos, with either better thrust or better micro-throttling ability, are developed, or perhaps if a robust active guidance system during launch abort is developed.

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        HD:

        The fins won’t be deleted. Soyuz has had drag panels on the escape shroud for decades and that’s a puller launch escape system. The fins on the Dragon 2s trunk are more important to stability since it uses pusher motors. Like Elon, I’m a ‘first priciples’ kind of folk and you can’t beat natural forces for their predictability. No amount of thruster control can make up for aerodynamic force and mass distribution.

        I was actually worried about Super Draco thrust vectoring as the only means of launch escape with no backup. Now, not so much. I had safety culture beaten into me at a young age. I was overjoyed when I saw those fins. Pure Elon at work.

        Mark my words, the fins will stay!

        tinker

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          They do allow for a very simple launch abort – worth keeping them around for that alone, I suppose.

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

            HD:

            The fins would weigh a fraction of cargo Dragon’s two disposable solar array covers. They would only be a small detriment to booster control for the first two minutes of flight but a huge help stabilizing Dragon 2 during abort. As a tradeoff, it looks pretty good.

            tinker

        • Dewey Vanderhoff says:
          0
          0

          I’m not the aerodynamicist here, but those fins on Dragon’s trunk reminded me of the forward foreplane fins , a/k/a/ canards , on a skinny Sidewinder missile, or modern supersonic jet fighters like the Sukhoi-27, Gripen, Rafael, Typhoon etc. which all have them ( but they are movable, not fixed )

          The new Falcon 9.1 is nothing if not overly tall and skinny. Maybe those fins also have some say in keeping the stack pointed in the right direction , even being so far in front of ( above) the center of pressure and center of gravity both.

          I am also buying into the theory here that they will help keep Dragon going straight away passively in the case of a launch abort.

      • drboyd says:
        0
        0

        Even with the fins, active guidance would still be needed to steer the Dragon towards the ocean in a pad or low altitude abort or away from the booster in a high altitude abort.

    • Steve Pemberton says:
      0
      0

      Well and also no one has mentioned the pop-open docking mechanism cover which I think is pretty neat, and how it closes back up after undocking to protect the docking mechanism during reentry. Was that a surprise also or was that known? Also has SpaceX previously revealed that Dragon V2 will be capable of autonomous docking at ISS?

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        Steve:

        The retractable nose cap was on the very first animations of the crew Dragon. Also, during a parachute drop test earlier this year, the nose cap was present for the first time.

        It was always assumed crew Dragon docking would be autonomous except during equipment failure. It only craft to manually dock to the ISS all the time was the Space Shuttle.

        tinker

    • Jeff Havens says:
      0
      0

      Tinker, one thing we didn’t see is animation of v2 being launched – only in flight after seperation from 2nd stage. Do you think that the trunk will be covered somehow during launch? I can’t recall anything that has launched with solar cells exposed right at liftoff.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Why throw it away if you have batteries too.
      Leave these. solar collecters at your bigelow station. or add a small ion engine to the trunk t get it some place useful or to be stored
      waste nothing
      Solar city

    • drboyd says:
      0
      0

      The trunk’s solar cells must have covers that are jettisoned at some point during launch.

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        Dr. B.

        No need to have a disposable covers for the solar arrays. They can easily survive the first couple of minutes of launch through thick air. From what Elon Musk has said about crew Dragon relying on larger battery capacity, I was surprised that they were there at all. Maybe the advantages outweighs the extra mass. (excuse the pun!)

        tinker

  24. LPHartswick says:
    0
    0

    I admit I’m impressed, but the proof will be in the pudding. What is the minimum altitude that the chutes can deploy as a backup? Will make the last minute of flight very “interesting”. As to reusability with just a fill up…well, we’ll see? Wonder how many cycles the SD engines will evolve through before a major overhaul is necessary? Inconel is good stuff we used it in pressurized water reactors; but having a high pressure, multiicycle, throttleable, reusable rocket engine right by your head is…different. But thats how you make progress I guess. I would want to run one of those through a lot of cycles to understand its failure modes. On the whole though, i would say bravo. Let’s keep Orion coming though until the Fat Lady sings.

    • richard_schumacher says:
      0
      0

      Modern jet engines handle gasses hotter than the melting points of the materials of which the engine is made. I sometimes fly with one of them a few feet from my head. The testability that comes with re-useability is a wonderful thing.

  25. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    Oh if only Elon Musk was half the showman of Tony Stark and 2/3rds of Steve Jobs. He could’ve really had some fun last night and put on a heckuva world premier of his Tesla Dragon spaceship.

    Five hot babes in Star Trek glam wear in the seats, with a 25 lb. wheel of cheese and adult beverages from Ten Forward served by Whoopi Goldberg in seat 7. Pink Floyd music playing on the 7.2 channel Bose sound system . Mood lighting.

    Dragon you say ? Were it me, I would have hired Emilia Clarke to do her drop dead gorgeous Daenaerys Targaryen khaleesi catwalk and show & tell as the sidekick presenter…Mother of Dragons from Game of Thrones and all that.

    Meanwhile, the guy in the Russian Circus Bear costume at stage right bouncing drunkly and falling off his trampoline…

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Russian Circus Bear costume lololololol

      Every time I think of that I crack up lol

      • Skinny_Lu says:
        0
        0

        HA! I get it. The reference to the Russian crisis drama. (Yes?, or did I laugh at my own joke?) I would like to see that parody. Saturday Night Live?

  26. AgingWatcher says:
    0
    0

    I haven’t felt this excited about human spaceflight since I was 9 and looking up at the moon with the knowledge that guys were walking around up there.

    A question about anomalous landing situations: If something goes haywire with Dragon’s thrusters and it has to land with parachutes only — and the destination is on land rather than water — will they be able to complete the landing without damage/injury to craft and crew?

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      I believe so. Apparently Dragon only needs 2 chutes to land successfully water or land. It’d be pretty rough but you still be in one piece so to speak.
      Cheers.

  27. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Very cool! Alan Boyle at NBC wrote up my ‘fin fact’ about the Dragon 2 trunk on his science blog!

    http://www.nbcnews.com/scie

    Finally, I it’s out there for everyone to mull over.

    tinker

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      Not much to mull over since it makes perfect sense and the experts on L2 over at NSF agree.
      Cheers.

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        BCFDU:

        It may be obvious to those L2 folk, but it was missed by most folks, Alan Boyle included.

        The difference between me and NSF is that I ‘sang it to the world’ as soon as I realized what the fins were for. L2 obviously (for some explicable reason I just don’t understand) didn’t find it in their hearts to tell anyone else. Not the first time this has happened either, but hey, they pay good money for keeping things under wraps.

        tinker

        • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
          0
          0

          Hi John. The reason they didn’t is that they weren’t authorised to by SpaceX. They wanted to keep their current excellent relationship hence no unauthorised exposures.
          Cheers.

  28. ASFalcon13 says:
    0
    0

    Sure, it’s shiny-looking, but that cockpit setup looks like a human-factors nightmare to me. Two things in particular:

    – The huge touchscreen. As a pilot, I can honestly say there are absolutely no avionics I hate more than touchscreens. Trying to push a “button” on a touchscreen in even mild turbulence is frustrating. It’s easy enough for Elon to interact with the screen while the capsule’s just sitting there not doing anything, but I imagine trying to interact with a touchscreen while experiencing rocket shock & vibe, pulling launch Gs, and wearing pressure suit gloves is going to be a pain in the ***.

    – Maybe it’s the camera angle, but it looked like the seats were tilted up at an angle. Why would anyone do that? In the high-g launch environment, you want the crew flat on their backs, so that the heart doesn’t have to pump uphill and so blood doesn’t pool in the lower extremities, causing the blood to drain from the head. Also, it avoids compressive loads on the spine during an aggressive abort or a hard landing.

    • Odyssey2020 says:
      0
      0

      It’s not the final design. This configuration was made as camera friendly as possible.

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        Of course it’s not the final design but I’ll bet it’s pretty close to the final excluding internal wall fit out , etc.
        The F9 uses liquid engines which are much smoother in operation than solids. We have examples of Shuttle that used solids and the rough ride uphill. Saturn V was also pretty rough but Merlins are smaller and we don’t know how smooth they run.
        Judging from the uphill recordings from the external cameras they look lots smoother. It could be that the touch screens will be quite satisfactory.
        Cheers

    • mattmcc80 says:
      0
      0

      Between the two touchscreens is a set of manual buttons for all the critical functions you’d need to access during ascent or descent.

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      The uncomfortable reality is that human pilots should not be pushing too many buttons in either ascent or descent phase of the flight in any case.

      Chuck Yeager and Gordon Cooper would not approve, but this is pretty much a “spam in a can” ride.

  29. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    The trunk is strong too with solar cells all around. Why not use them to tie two satellites together to make a station with gravity.

  30. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    With all of the tap about chutes vs engines to land I started thinking about the Soyuz recent ballistic entry, and wondered what would happen to Dragon if there were a similar loss of control. I suppose the scenario would be similar, depending on the chutes, but on the other hand Soyuz is designed for a fairly hard bump.

    • Steve Pemberton says:
      0
      0

      Ballistic entry just means the capsule doesn’t maintain a lift-producing angle of attack as it reenters the atmosphere, resulting in higher deceleration g-force of around 8 g compared to the normal g-force of just over 4 g for Soyuz. It also causes the landing to occur about 300 miles short of the normal landing site, for that reason a small backup recovery team is located in the ballistic landing area. However the final parachute descent and touchdown impact are the same as on a regular non-ballistic landing.

      What would affect a Soyuz landing impact is if the landing rocket didn’t fire at the last second, in which case they would hit the ground much harder. That is one reason that astronauts on Soyuz have custom seat liners to better distribute their body weight. As for Dragon, an emergency landing by parachute with failed thrusters would also result in a hard impact with the ground. The landing gear will provide some cushioning and there will be seat shock absorbers. I wonder if they will also consider using custom seat liners on Dragon? Probably they will look for ways to avoid that as it creates a complication for Soyuz, but then again as proven by Soyuz that complication is manageable.

      • Dewey Vanderhoff says:
        0
        0

        I believe the Soyuz retrotocket system is based on and not much different than the method the Soviets used to drop heavy military payloads out the back ramp of a cargo plane…” softlanding ” a T-72 tank behind enemy lines from an Ilyushin 76. They used one parachute more for accuracy than velocity reduction , and retros to do the deed of managing the G’s of the soft crash.

        It’s akin to being in a falling elevator , and jumping up as hard as you can a split second before the bottom.

        http://www.military.com/vid

        The Soyuz can take a heckuva beating on landing if those rockets don’t fire, and the seats are heavily mitigated with shock absorbers. But it would be rough , regardless. Russian engineering is stoic like that…

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Thanks, Stevo!

  31. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    According to the video the Dragon V2.0 has a third version of the heat shield. Can this version of the Dragon do a re-entry from lunar orbit?

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      AMS:

      The original version of the SpaceX PICAX heat shield could survive a re-entry from Mars, not just the Moon!

      SpaceX improved on the NASA PICA heat shield material that was used on the Stardust re-entry capsule, which still holds the record to this day for the fastest re-entry velocity of any spacecraft to actually survive.

      So, SpaceX is working on reusability now. Note that the heat shield of the X-37 is rapidly reusable already and the spaceplane that’s on orbit now has been in space once before.

      A hint is that the mockup’s heat shield was painted black, which makes me believe that SpaceX has been experimenting with laminating a carbon outer layer to the PICAX, much like the underside tiles of the Space Shuttle were.

      Also, if SpaceX could get Dragon 2 into lunar orbit, it would have enough delta V to land on it (but not to take off again).

      tinker

      • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
        0
        0

        NASA’s Project Morpheus vehicle is sized to act as the Ascent stage of a lunar lander, whose payload is a cabin of about 1.5-2 tonnes. The crew would need a way of getting back to Earth from low lunar orbit.

        • John Gardi says:
          0
          0

          AMS:

          Dragon descent stage, Morpheus upper stage?

          I’m following Morpheus as well because it’s methane fueled, which gives us some good data on the reliability of such an engine. They’ve flown a dozen time and the original engine is doing just fine.

          It’d be a lark of a mission, but great for SpaceX PR!

          tinker

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            Dragon descent stage, Morpheus upper stage?

            I can read your statement two ways but I am not certain which one you meant.

            Unmanned. Dragon as lunar descent stage with Morpheus as ascent stage to return some samples is a viable possibility. Re-entry would be performed by a little container.

            Manned. I was thinking of using Dragon V2 as the modern Apollo Command Module. The Dragon does not land on the Moon. Morpheus can only lift a very light cabin, too light for both a heat shield and several days oxygen. A large Morpheus descent stage would be needed to land the ascent stage, possibly made from 3 of the current vehicles.
            A way of getting something 2 * 12′ = 24 feet wide into a fairing will require thought. Several launches may be required to get everything to the Moon.

            Third option. Use a Morpheus to push the Dragon to lunar orbit. Morpheus would need a big stretch of its fuel tanks.

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

            AMS:

            I was thinking of an uncrewed lander that could be rapidly qualified and flown soon!

            Slice the top off a cargo Dragon at the service module and remove the heat shield. Use this as a descent module. Mount Morpheus on top and use it as the ascent module. Mount a small sample return capsule atop Morpheus to complete the package.

            It’d be a lark of a mission, but it would get a lot of attention considering China’s successful Lunar mission.

            tinker

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            That mission is do able during the term of the next US President.

            It will run into the Lunar CATALYST Initiative but that does not have any money.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            I’d prefer a sustainable program over something intended to just get attention.

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            Morpheus needs a cabin weighing no more than 1.5-2 tonnes. Life support for several days. NDS Docking Port, door to the ground, control panel and a way to find the orbiting spacecraft.

            You may recognise parts of the ALHAT.

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        IIRC, Dragon cargo is reusable as well. I think the issue was two fold with the CRS contract:
        1. SpaceX didn’t know how much refurbishment would cost so couldn’t accurately price their bid, and
        2. NASA wasn’t willing to bet on re-usability at that time given no history.
        But I may be wrong.
        Cheers

        • John Gardi says:
          0
          0

          BCFDU:

          Regardless of the reason, NASA contracted new Dragons for each flight. Your guess is a pretty good one. NASA didn’t trust a new spacecraft design to be reused. But, it also speeds up development as each new Dragon can be better than the last from the ground up. This is also in NASA’s interest.

          What it means is that SpaceX is going to have a dozen used Dragon’s (quite literally) hanging around the factory. Maybe some of them will be repurposed. I hope so!

          tinker

          • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
            0
            0

            I need to do something about my handle. Oh well!
            I hope they do as well. Perhaps they’ll be able to offer cheap flights for experiments, etc to uni’s and colleges or maybe even not so well of space agencies. That’s of course when they get their F9R up and running for real.
            Cheers.

    • Terry Stetler says:
      0
      0

      This version 3 PICA-X is good for up to 5,000-6,000°F (per Musk), so a reentry from Mars or elsewhere should be no problem. He added that the material itself isn’t the limiting factor, its supporting structures are.

  32. John Adley says:
    0
    0

    Is this thing for real or just a mockup? The control panel looks flimsy, probably will fall off during launch.

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      Elon said real flight hardware. As an example, the interior of the vehicle is the machined isogrid pressure hull. The hull starts out as a sheet of metal and sections between the ribs are machined away leaving the ribs. It’s the real deal. Not a mockup like CST-100 was shown with pretty interior, etc.

  33. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    When will Spacex use this new air frame to fly CARGO too ISS???

    Before this Dragon V2 show, I assumed that cargo dragon would slowly turn into dragon rider using the ISS as test for the changes?? Now I’m not so sure? After They fly a few dragonfly tests and the launch abort, would NASA let Spacex use this new air frame to fly cargo to ISS?? Or will all the ISS flights be flown by Dragon V1

    Going forward will Spacex have two Space capsules, a cargo version, Dragon V1 and human version, Dragon V2 or will they phase out V1 and start using a cargo version of Dragon V1 as soon as possible????

    V2 has more volume right?

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      I’m not sure. Elon IIRC said something like flying both for several years before transitioning to a single version for cargo and crew. It does look like V2 has more volume however that could be misleading since the interior certainly hadn’t been finished off.

      I believe that besides 7 crew, the V2 can carry approx. 450kg of cargo. That’s quite a lot more than simply personal items for sure. SpaceX seems to like commonality so going to a single vehicle seems likely.

      Finally, I’m not sure of the size of the docking hatches. I thought that the current one in use for cargo was larger than that used for humans on the Soyuz but they’re moving to a new configuration which may be larger. Not sure. I’ll have to do some investigation.

      Ok, done some. Docking refers to the situation where spacecraft actively maneuvers using it’s own propulsion to connect to another spacecraft whereas berthing requires the use of a robotic arm to connect the two craft.

      So the ISS has uses the APS89, 95 and a Hybrid systems to dock while using the CBM (common berthing mechanism) to berth the cargo vehicles. There’s a good discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik
      A new NASA Docking System NDS / LIDS is in the works for both cargo and crew and will be used for DragonV2.
      Unfortunately I can’t find any about relative sizes however since the NDS is for both, I’d imagine it’s sized to fit the existing systems.

      Cheers.

      • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
        0
        0

        The CBM is 50 inches in diameter where as the NASA Docking System is smaller at 27 inches diameter.

        • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
          0
          0

          Thanks Andrew.
          That seems to present a problem then for using a single vehicle for both cargo and crew. 27 inches doesn’t seem enough for some of the cargo they’ve been loading and unloading from Dragon Cargo.
          Any thoughts?
          Cheers

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            Wide cargo like science racks could continue going up on the Cygnus. Dragon V1 may stay in production longer than SpaceX expects. A Dragon V2b may appear with a CBM.

            The ISS will need to have at least one CBM for VV to berth at.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Bean

      Main reason I ask is I wonder if we will see a hydrid of the two fly on cargo missions soon. Fact that musk said couple years of both implies not.

      Mr. Uninformed lol

      Thanks!

      • Terry Stetler says:
        0
        0

        At the V2 event Q&A Musk said V1 will remain in use for a few years then phase out. Perhaps he meant until the end of CRS-1. NASA issued paper on CRS-2 proposals this year.

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        EM said he expected both versions for a couple of years. But the timeframe may depend on how successful Dragon V2 is.
        Cheers

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      I was not all that happy with Spacex choice to go with V2. Which vehicle would I would feel safer in today? Cargo dragon of course, flight tested!!!

      Seems Mr. Musk saw a fork in the road and has per Musk went with top of the line(the longer path!!!! 🙁 ).

      Why not throw some super Dracos in a cargo Dragon for abort use only, and let’s fly sooner????

      What if congress in their wisdom chooses just Boeing’s capsule. Then Spacex will be behind.

      Maybe Spacex should add super dracos, new docking hardware seats, air to version one as well?? Dragonfly could be used to test both versions and it shouldn’t cost all that much to flight abort test a cargo dragon if they put it on an F9R hopper Test. Right????

      I don’t want two wait two three years for USA to fly humans again!!!! I want to fly now!!!!!!!

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        Well EM is nothing if not a risk taker. But saying that I’d suggest he’s a thoughtful risk taker. He’s followed an evolutionary approach rather than a go for broke one.
        Hence Dragon V2 although being pretty out there by conventional standards and compared to Dragon Cargo, is still evolutionary:
        – same pressure hull essentially although may have been lengthened a bit
        – same manuveuring thrusters
        – SD based on original Dracos
        – still has parachutes
        – most likely a lot of the same electronics for flying the bird.
        – heat shield based on existing but upgraded
        In addition, he likes to keep vehicles clean and simple as a design philosophy so that’s how he’s designing and building Dragon V2.
        And his funds are limited. He’s used COTS to get his basic vehicle flying to and from LEO. He’s now using CC Program to get an upgraded and improved Dragon that he can use for other missions, not just to the ISS and/or Bigelow habitats.
        BTW Congress doesn’t get to choose the winners for CCtCap, NASA does. Just like the previous COTS Program and also the CC phases so far – fortunately.
        EM has a roadmap and is finding the most efficient and effective way to meet his and his company’s mission.
        JM2CW
        Cheers.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      In a Q&A after the roll-out, Elon said that the v.2 is capable of flying the cargo mission too but that the v.1 cargo variant is not likely to be phased out in the near term.

      The Q&A video is available here: http://forum.nasaspacefligh

  34. ex-utc says:
    0
    0

    I never thought people would fly into space on lawn chairs. seriously, those chairs dont look like they would hold someone in a spacesuit in place much less supply life support, waste management for a 2-3 day flight or telemtry to monitor lifesigns during launch.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      That’s because they’re chairs. chairs don’t need to supply life support, manage waste, provide telemetry, and monitor life signs. they’re chairs. there are other systems to do those other things.

      see Apollo Crew Couches. very minimal.

      http://history.nasa.gov/ap1

      and FYI SpaceX is planning on doing the “fast track” docking to the ISS. anything more than 6 hours in a capsule that small with 7 people in it would be rough.

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        HD:

        The Apollo capsule chairs had to fold, otherwise there wouldn’t have been much room to move around in micro-gravity.

        Also, most folks don’t realize that the Apollo capsule have a ‘mid-deck’ under the chairs that was pretty roomy.

        tinker

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          right you are, sir.

        • Steve Pemberton says:
          0
          0

          From what I understand the typical in-flight configuration was to flatten out the center couch and leave the outboard couches in the seated position, and fold the outboard couch armrests out of the way (center couch had no armrests attached to it, the four armrests were attached to the outboard couches).

          They could also stow the center couch underneath the commander’s couch.

          • Odyssey2020 says:
            0
            0

            There’s an interesting story about the hazards of stowing the center couch that happened while Apollo 15 was circling the moon lol.

        • Steve Pemberton says:
          0
          0

          Regarding roomy mid-deck – there was even enough room underneath the couches for two additional crewmembers in a rescue scenario. This almost happened on the second Skylab flight when a problem with the RCS on the CM raised concerns that the crew might not be able to safely deorbit. Vance Brand and Don Lind trained for a rescue mission which would have been able to bring the crew back if needed, which of course the problem was worked out and the rescue mission wasn’t needed.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Those chairs are also carbon fiber or some other composite structure. Not only can’t you gauge their strength just by looking at them, you can’t say anything about their strength when compared to seats used in the past.

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        Yep agreed. But I sort of think that they’ll end up widening them, perhaps only an inch or two (for wider crew) as well as providing arm rests maybe just in the centre for the pilot and co-pilot positions. It would probably allow for greater arm and hand control for the key override functions. Just a guess. 🙂
        Cheers

    • duheagle says:
      0
      0

      Life support, waste management and biological monitoring are all suit functions. They were so on all previous space vehicles too. None of that stuff was built into the seats. And the Dragon V2 is designed to do the same 6-hour ISS trip the Russians have pioneered over the last year or so. Nobody’s going to be in Dragon V2 for 2 or 3 days unless things go seriously pear-shaped.