> Not even for emergencies? Clearly not. NASA was already not keen about the superdraco system. The explosion that destroyed the Dragon 2 capsule that was sl

> Not even for emergencies? Clearly not. NASA was already not keen about the superdraco system. The explosion that destroyed the Dragon 2 capsule that was slated for the In-flight Abort test killed any chance of it being used for human-rated flights. > Does that mean that it is officially not there This is life-critical hardware/software. You don't go putting functionality in there that isn't approved by NASA, and most importantly the crew who're going to fly it. Finding out that there's undocumented features and easter-eggs, even if they might in some very remote scenario help save life is certain to be outweighed by the risk that having it in there might somehow contribute to someone's death. Could it be used for propulsive landing? Perhaps, but they'll first have to prove to NASA that it's safe - just like they proved to NASA that reused launch vehicles were safe, and reused Dragon 1 capsules were safe. SpaceX seems to have given up on the idea of it anyway. They deleted landing legs from the capsule, and propulsive landing at sea as an emergency backup for the failure of all four parachutes (and you'd need to include a way to detect the failure, cut the chutes and then use the superdraco thrusters) seems a shitload of work which is probably going to only increase risk. For propulsive landing of humans/cargo, it seems Spaceship their focus.