29 ms·

SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down After Historic Test Flight

352 points by LinuxBender 8y ago

zaroth 8y ago
Is there any more technical data on performance during re-entry (was there any issue will roll?) and at splashdown (how did the parachutes perform?) Those were the two big question marks from what I understand.
- WestCoastJustin 8y ago
  There is a great 2h+ video, recorded live from earlier today, that soft-answers a couple of these questions. There was a panel discussion with NASA folks [2], where they talk about some successes of re-entry and parachutes deployment. You can watch the parachutes deployment yourself [3]. But, I think they will be sifting through this data for a few weeks before you have hard answers. Reddit is also a super active place for early news via https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex. It is also incredible that we can watch all this real-time too. Just amazing! [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aAe0GWIWGI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aAe0GWIWGI [2] https://youtu.be/8aAe0GWIWGI?t=6219 https://youtu.be/8aAe0GWIWGI?t=6219 [3] https://youtu.be/8aAe0GWIWGI?t=4303 https://youtu.be/8aAe0GWIWGI?t=4303
  - xvf22 8y ago
    I watched and and while to me it seemed like there was a whole lot of buffeting / oscillation it very well could have been much less or more than a Soyuz. Unsurprisingly I don't have the domain experience to judge it and would appreciate some perspective from those in the know.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
This is a better article on the recovery than the one I linked from TechCrunch. I would like to reiterate the point made before which is that SpaceX is on the verge of being in a place that no company has ever been before with regard to space. The are on the cusp of having a capsule that they can send into orbit for days and then return to Earth. They already have rockets capable of putting tons of material into every orbit level (Low, mid, and geo-stationary). SpaceX is also nearing completion of their own launch facility in Texas. When all of those things are added together, SpaceX can do space 'tourism' like nobody else. They could offer a 'day trip' on a Dragon into orbit. By partnering with Bigelow Aerospace[1] they could launch a habitat into orbit where they could ferry their own paying customers to spend a week in space. With their own launch facility they are freed from the scheduling hassles of the dozens of other clients who compete for space on those launch pads. That would definitely feel like living in the future to me. [1] https://www.bigelowspaceops.com/ https://www.bigelowspaceops.com/
- Tuna-Fish 8y ago
  They are unlikely to do this at this point. The big problem is that while the capsule will be reusable, since NASA killed the propulsive landing for Dragon 2, it now needs to splash down in saltwater and therefore is not considered safe for humans after the first use. This makes Dragon 2:s too expensive for large-scale space tourism. Unless there is suddenly a huge market for this, I think SpaceX would prefer to sell interested space tourism customers flights on Starship instead.
  - rsj_hn 8y ago
    That's interesting. I always assumed that most of the damage happened on re-entry and not the splashdown. Can you elaborate on why the splashdown kills re-use?
    - deedubaya 8y ago
      I'm guessing its the salt water that is the problem.
    - huehehue 8y ago
      "Although water retrieval has been attempted, it is not recommended due to the adverse effect that salt water has on avionics, electronics, and structures. This approach was abandoned due to the elevated cost associated with refurbishing salt water damaged components. By avoiding water retrieval, the engines would avoid maintenance that would have resulted from the corrosive nature of the salt water and thereby expedite turnaround time. When considering recovery of reusable systems, salt water is much more severe than returning to land at the launch site." https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170000606.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/201700...
      - varjag 8y ago
        This is related to rocket engines, not ballistic descent capsules.
yingw787 8y ago
And it's a wrap! A big congratulations for all those who made this possible, public and private entities. The United States has almost restored its ability to send manned crews to space, via re-usable, cheap, and privately funded/sustained spaceflight as a bonus. To LEO, the Moon, Mars, and beyond!
pageandrew 8y ago
How do they plan to land it when humans are aboard?
- willio58 8y ago
  Into the ocean just like the test. This is how it is always done with the exception of the space shuttle program I believe.
  - walrus01 8y ago
    In terms of capsule spacecraft, by volume of recoveries, mercury/gemini/apollo using the ocean are actually a statistical anomaly compared to the total number of successful land based Soyuz + Shenzhou recoveries.
  - avmich 8y ago
    In addition to standard landings of Soviet and Russian spacecrafts on land the spacecraft designer always assumes the emergency landing may happen anywhere on the planet. Dense forests or rocky ridges can be problematic, but there is still demand to handle a wide variety of landing situations.
phkahler 8y ago
I wish they wouldn't call it historic. What word will they use when it Carrie's actual people?
- lostapathy 8y ago
  That will also be historic. History is made every day.
oldgradstudent 8y ago
Could anyone explain what is historic about this test flight? Why is that so different from a bog standard Soyuz or Mercury/Gemini/Apollo?
- robbiep 8y ago
  If you read the article you’d probably be able to work it out, but essentially: - it marks the return of American human launch capabilities after a several year hiatus from the retirement of the space shuttle - it is being done on by a private company (with government funding), which is unprecedented - dragon crew is intended to be reusable (in opposition to Shuttle/mercury/Gemini/Apollo - the capsule is designed to have inflight abort capability, which is unprecedented and a differentiator from the Boeing effort (previous abort capability came from a ‘towed’ approach (the big pointy thing on top of Apollo) and was only available on the pad, not in-flight, so if something goes wrong during flight the crew is probably buggered) (Edit: removed Soyuz from list of non-in flight abort capsules)
  - geuis 8y ago
    Question about the inflight abort: Soyuz has this too. It was used a few months ago when a launch to the ISS went non-nominal. How is the one on Crew Dragon different?
    - robbiep 8y ago
      You’re right. I believe the Soyuz uses two modes, the first is architecturally similar to the Apollo system (ie uses the ‘towed’ mode) whereas the crew dragon has abort built into the capsule.
      - avmich 8y ago
        Soyuz has one "tower", which can work both before liftoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L and in flight.
  - 8y ago
sidcool 8y ago
SpaceX has single handedly revived the space industry over the past decade. Kudos and Good luck!
- isostatic 8y ago
  Rovers on asteroids, landing on comets, exploring rocks on the edge of the solar system, returning asteroid samples to earth, landing on the far side of the moon, orbiting mercury But sure, single handedly.
bangelo 8y ago
So I'm a fan of spacex in the sense that they're taking an atraditional approach to space exploration and colonization. However, our current ride to space has been operating reliably since 1978, we've been building and sending large space stations up since the early 70s. Spacex only very recently got their closed cycle engine working, the pinnacle of rocket efficiency, catching up to, again, early 1970s Russian technology. Taking the human out of the loop by automating Dragon is great, but remember, we sent three humans to the moon in, you guessed it, the 70s, with less computing power than my toaster oven. Hats off to the team for what they've done thus far. it's a momentous achievement for the private sector, but they have a ways to go before any kind of groundbreaking achievements. Fantastic marketing though |)
- bangelo 8y ago
  Credit also to reinvigorating the world's interest in space exploration, certainly the driving factor in humanity's explorations efforts thus far.
- agildehaus 8y ago
  I like how you list all these things and entirely leave out the landing an orbital class rocket, which no private company nor governmental agency has ever done. They're also pretty much doing it all themselves for a fraction of the price due to vertical integration, which is also unique. Raptor is a full-flow staged combustion engine. Others have been made, yes, but none have flown. Right now Raptor is the only methalox variety of such an engine to ever reach a test stand.
  - avmich 8y ago
    Agree. As it's usually the case, they achieve a lot by standing on the shoulders of giants, but they achieve nevertheless. Space Shuttle was splashing down solid boosters since early 80's - but SpaceX lands softly liquid first stages, which require much less pampering to prepare for the next flight. Capsules are built and flown since early 60's - but SpaceX first tests a capsule for more than 3 people. And reuses a cargo spacecraft after splashdowns. And has lots of launches per year of a rather heavy rocket (previously some years have seen similar activities with Soyuz rockets, but then a government was fully behind it). And all of that in commercial environment, not when a government first articulates the orders, even though SpaceX has to adapt to then a great deal.
basicplus2 8y ago
Film... https://youtu.be/gsIkeFaC1vg https://youtu.be/gsIkeFaC1vg
zaroth 8y ago
I am so damn proud of what SpaceX has accomplished! At the same time, it just seems a bit lame to watch this whiplashing splash down in the ocean with parachutes instead of a perfectly smooth VTOL landing on a pad. Particularly as the chutes seems to billow and twist, one seemed to trade positions with another which I’m sure is fine but in the moment seemed worrisome, and the craft bobbing and twisting at the end of the ropes... Is the ultimate longer term plan a Dragon that can land properly under its own power?
- grey-area 8y ago
  They thought about it, but no, the ultimate long term plan is that huge shining steel starships will take off and land on the same pad carrying lots more people or cargo. Some things are easier when you’re bigger.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    Apparently the SuperDracos have the necessary thrust and fuel to bring Dragon to a stop from terminal velocity, Dragon just lacks the landing gear. So then why not use that to slow down just before a splash down? Perhaps if you throttle them down to the point where the G-force is reasonable, the losses to gravity add up too quickly and you run out of thrust. Too bad :-(
    - Faark 8y ago
      The primary reasons they don't do this are likely economic, but the hypergolic fuel used by SuperDracos also isn't particularly healthy [0]. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/29qwj9/how_toxic_will_the_superdraco_exhaust_be/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/29qwj9/how_toxic_wi...
randomsearch 8y ago
SpaceX is an antidote to the idea that home food delivery is great innovation. It’s a beacon to nerds everywhere. You may not be able to build a space company, but spend at least some of your time and skills doing things that are truly new.
- Tade0 8y ago
  SpaceX is an antidote to the idea that home food delivery is great innovation. Not to mention all those time tracker/scheduler/todo/chat apps hailed as such as well.
- falcor84 8y ago
  Well, just to play devil's advocate, if the world as a whole switches to home food delivery, I think this would have profound repercussions for the world's economics. I believe this could catalyse a series of second-order effects on the order of those from the introduction of the shipping container.
- ric2b 8y ago
  Space is cooler than home deliveries, but pretty much all economic evolution comes from ordinary things getting much cheaper, not crazy things becoming possible but still absurdely expensive.
anovikov 8y ago
Who knows the actual weights? How much did the capsule weight dry? Consumables ex. fuel and pressurization gas for it? Fuel and pressurization gas? Trunk section? All data i can find is extremely contradictory and makes an impression that project went way way way out of it's initial mass budget and SpaceX is trying to conceal it to avoid losing face, as it exposes troubles managing the project. Ofc it's not a deal breaker, as F9 rocket has grown in capability a great log along the way too, but still?
Gravityloss 8y ago
Nice work, but they have flown and landed capsules for many years already. It's still well possible congress will find a way to prevent crewed flights. Or there might some Falcon 9 mishap.
8bitsrule 8y ago
Goin a little 'get off my lawn' : what's the big deal here? What's it leading to? Where is it taking us? What's the return on all of the investment (except further enriching a few of the right pockets)? We aren't going to the stars. We're not colonizing space. Do we need to mine resources off-planet because we waste so many resources on-planet? Our robotic solar system explorers don't really need any help. OTOH, we are destroying the spaceship we were born on, with so many indifferent tactics that it sometimes almost seems planned. Other, helpless species are disappearing regularly. So I find it hard to feel celebratory about these minor victories on the way to ... ???

352 points by LinuxBender 8y ago

Is there any more technical data on performance during re-entry (was there any issue will roll?) and at splashdown (how did the parachutes perform?) Those were the two big question marks from what I understand.

WestCoastJustin 8y ago
There is a great 2h+ video, recorded live from earlier today, that soft-answers a couple of these questions. There was a panel discussion with NASA folks [2], where they talk about some successes of re-entry and parachutes deployment. You can watch the parachutes deployment yourself [3]. But, I think they will be sifting through this data for a few weeks before you have hard answers. Reddit is also a super active place for early news via https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex. It is also incredible that we can watch all this real-time too. Just amazing! [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aAe0GWIWGI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aAe0GWIWGI [2] https://youtu.be/8aAe0GWIWGI?t=6219 https://youtu.be/8aAe0GWIWGI?t=6219 [3] https://youtu.be/8aAe0GWIWGI?t=4303 https://youtu.be/8aAe0GWIWGI?t=4303
- xvf22 8y ago
  I watched and and while to me it seemed like there was a whole lot of buffeting / oscillation it very well could have been much less or more than a Soyuz. Unsurprisingly I don't have the domain experience to judge it and would appreciate some perspective from those in the know.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

This is a better article on the recovery than the one I linked from TechCrunch. I would like to reiterate the point made before which is that SpaceX is on the verge of being in a place that no company has ever been before with regard to space. The are on the cusp of having a capsule that they can send into orbit for days and then return to Earth. They already have rockets capable of putting tons of material into every orbit level (Low, mid, and geo-stationary). SpaceX is also nearing completion of their own launch facility in Texas. When all of those things are added together, SpaceX can do space 'tourism' like nobody else. They could offer a 'day trip' on a Dragon into orbit. By partnering with Bigelow Aerospace[1] they could launch a habitat into orbit where they could ferry their own paying customers to spend a week in space. With their own launch facility they are freed from the scheduling hassles of the dozens of other clients who compete for space on those launch pads. That would definitely feel like living in the future to me. [1] https://www.bigelowspaceops.com/ https://www.bigelowspaceops.com/

Tuna-Fish 8y ago
They are unlikely to do this at this point. The big problem is that while the capsule will be reusable, since NASA killed the propulsive landing for Dragon 2, it now needs to splash down in saltwater and therefore is not considered safe for humans after the first use. This makes Dragon 2:s too expensive for large-scale space tourism. Unless there is suddenly a huge market for this, I think SpaceX would prefer to sell interested space tourism customers flights on Starship instead.
- rsj_hn 8y ago
  That's interesting. I always assumed that most of the damage happened on re-entry and not the splashdown. Can you elaborate on why the splashdown kills re-use?
  - deedubaya 8y ago
    I'm guessing its the salt water that is the problem.
  - huehehue 8y ago
    "Although water retrieval has been attempted, it is not recommended due to the adverse effect that salt water has on avionics, electronics, and structures. This approach was abandoned due to the elevated cost associated with refurbishing salt water damaged components. By avoiding water retrieval, the engines would avoid maintenance that would have resulted from the corrosive nature of the salt water and thereby expedite turnaround time. When considering recovery of reusable systems, salt water is much more severe than returning to land at the launch site." https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170000606.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/201700...
    - varjag 8y ago
      This is related to rocket engines, not ballistic descent capsules.

yingw787 8y ago

And it's a wrap! A big congratulations for all those who made this possible, public and private entities. The United States has almost restored its ability to send manned crews to space, via re-usable, cheap, and privately funded/sustained spaceflight as a bonus. To LEO, the Moon, Mars, and beyond!

pageandrew 8y ago

How do they plan to land it when humans are aboard?

willio58 8y ago
Into the ocean just like the test. This is how it is always done with the exception of the space shuttle program I believe.
- walrus01 8y ago
  In terms of capsule spacecraft, by volume of recoveries, mercury/gemini/apollo using the ocean are actually a statistical anomaly compared to the total number of successful land based Soyuz + Shenzhou recoveries.
- avmich 8y ago
  In addition to standard landings of Soviet and Russian spacecrafts on land the spacecraft designer always assumes the emergency landing may happen anywhere on the planet. Dense forests or rocky ridges can be problematic, but there is still demand to handle a wide variety of landing situations.

phkahler 8y ago

I wish they wouldn't call it historic. What word will they use when it Carrie's actual people?

lostapathy 8y ago
That will also be historic. History is made every day.

oldgradstudent 8y ago

Could anyone explain what is historic about this test flight? Why is that so different from a bog standard Soyuz or Mercury/Gemini/Apollo?

robbiep 8y ago
If you read the article you’d probably be able to work it out, but essentially: - it marks the return of American human launch capabilities after a several year hiatus from the retirement of the space shuttle - it is being done on by a private company (with government funding), which is unprecedented - dragon crew is intended to be reusable (in opposition to Shuttle/mercury/Gemini/Apollo - the capsule is designed to have inflight abort capability, which is unprecedented and a differentiator from the Boeing effort (previous abort capability came from a ‘towed’ approach (the big pointy thing on top of Apollo) and was only available on the pad, not in-flight, so if something goes wrong during flight the crew is probably buggered) (Edit: removed Soyuz from list of non-in flight abort capsules)
- geuis 8y ago
  Question about the inflight abort: Soyuz has this too. It was used a few months ago when a launch to the ISS went non-nominal. How is the one on Crew Dragon different?
  - robbiep 8y ago
    You’re right. I believe the Soyuz uses two modes, the first is architecturally similar to the Apollo system (ie uses the ‘towed’ mode) whereas the crew dragon has abort built into the capsule.
    - avmich 8y ago
      Soyuz has one "tower", which can work both before liftoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L and in flight.
- 8y ago

sidcool 8y ago

SpaceX has single handedly revived the space industry over the past decade. Kudos and Good luck!

isostatic 8y ago
Rovers on asteroids, landing on comets, exploring rocks on the edge of the solar system, returning asteroid samples to earth, landing on the far side of the moon, orbiting mercury But sure, single handedly.

bangelo 8y ago

So I'm a fan of spacex in the sense that they're taking an atraditional approach to space exploration and colonization. However, our current ride to space has been operating reliably since 1978, we've been building and sending large space stations up since the early 70s. Spacex only very recently got their closed cycle engine working, the pinnacle of rocket efficiency, catching up to, again, early 1970s Russian technology. Taking the human out of the loop by automating Dragon is great, but remember, we sent three humans to the moon in, you guessed it, the 70s, with less computing power than my toaster oven. Hats off to the team for what they've done thus far. it's a momentous achievement for the private sector, but they have a ways to go before any kind of groundbreaking achievements. Fantastic marketing though |)

bangelo 8y ago
Credit also to reinvigorating the world's interest in space exploration, certainly the driving factor in humanity's explorations efforts thus far.
agildehaus 8y ago
I like how you list all these things and entirely leave out the landing an orbital class rocket, which no private company nor governmental agency has ever done. They're also pretty much doing it all themselves for a fraction of the price due to vertical integration, which is also unique. Raptor is a full-flow staged combustion engine. Others have been made, yes, but none have flown. Right now Raptor is the only methalox variety of such an engine to ever reach a test stand.
- avmich 8y ago
  Agree. As it's usually the case, they achieve a lot by standing on the shoulders of giants, but they achieve nevertheless. Space Shuttle was splashing down solid boosters since early 80's - but SpaceX lands softly liquid first stages, which require much less pampering to prepare for the next flight. Capsules are built and flown since early 60's - but SpaceX first tests a capsule for more than 3 people. And reuses a cargo spacecraft after splashdowns. And has lots of launches per year of a rather heavy rocket (previously some years have seen similar activities with Soyuz rockets, but then a government was fully behind it). And all of that in commercial environment, not when a government first articulates the orders, even though SpaceX has to adapt to then a great deal.

basicplus2 8y ago

Film... https://youtu.be/gsIkeFaC1vg https://youtu.be/gsIkeFaC1vg

zaroth 8y ago

I am so damn proud of what SpaceX has accomplished! At the same time, it just seems a bit lame to watch this whiplashing splash down in the ocean with parachutes instead of a perfectly smooth VTOL landing on a pad. Particularly as the chutes seems to billow and twist, one seemed to trade positions with another which I’m sure is fine but in the moment seemed worrisome, and the craft bobbing and twisting at the end of the ropes... Is the ultimate longer term plan a Dragon that can land properly under its own power?

grey-area 8y ago
They thought about it, but no, the ultimate long term plan is that huge shining steel starships will take off and land on the same pad carrying lots more people or cargo. Some things are easier when you’re bigger.
- zaroth 8y ago
  Apparently the SuperDracos have the necessary thrust and fuel to bring Dragon to a stop from terminal velocity, Dragon just lacks the landing gear. So then why not use that to slow down just before a splash down? Perhaps if you throttle them down to the point where the G-force is reasonable, the losses to gravity add up too quickly and you run out of thrust. Too bad :-(
  - Faark 8y ago
    The primary reasons they don't do this are likely economic, but the hypergolic fuel used by SuperDracos also isn't particularly healthy [0]. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/29qwj9/how_toxic_will_the_superdraco_exhaust_be/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/29qwj9/how_toxic_wi...

randomsearch 8y ago

SpaceX is an antidote to the idea that home food delivery is great innovation. It’s a beacon to nerds everywhere. You may not be able to build a space company, but spend at least some of your time and skills doing things that are truly new.

Tade0 8y ago
SpaceX is an antidote to the idea that home food delivery is great innovation. Not to mention all those time tracker/scheduler/todo/chat apps hailed as such as well.
falcor84 8y ago
Well, just to play devil's advocate, if the world as a whole switches to home food delivery, I think this would have profound repercussions for the world's economics. I believe this could catalyse a series of second-order effects on the order of those from the introduction of the shipping container.
ric2b 8y ago
Space is cooler than home deliveries, but pretty much all economic evolution comes from ordinary things getting much cheaper, not crazy things becoming possible but still absurdely expensive.

anovikov 8y ago

Who knows the actual weights? How much did the capsule weight dry? Consumables ex. fuel and pressurization gas for it? Fuel and pressurization gas? Trunk section? All data i can find is extremely contradictory and makes an impression that project went way way way out of it's initial mass budget and SpaceX is trying to conceal it to avoid losing face, as it exposes troubles managing the project. Ofc it's not a deal breaker, as F9 rocket has grown in capability a great log along the way too, but still?

Gravityloss 8y ago

Nice work, but they have flown and landed capsules for many years already. It's still well possible congress will find a way to prevent crewed flights. Or there might some Falcon 9 mishap.

8bitsrule 8y ago

Goin a little 'get off my lawn' : what's the big deal here? What's it leading to? Where is it taking us? What's the return on all of the investment (except further enriching a few of the right pockets)? We aren't going to the stars. We're not colonizing space. Do we need to mine resources off-planet because we waste so many resources on-planet? Our robotic solar system explorers don't really need any help. OTOH, we are destroying the spaceship we were born on, with so many indifferent tactics that it sometimes almost seems planned. Other, helpless species are disappearing regularly. So I find it hard to feel celebratory about these minor victories on the way to ... ???