15 ms·

Dragon V2 Unveil – Webcast

339 points by nkoren 12y ago

arrrg 12y ago
So. How far along is that thing? I assume they never really tested it as a whole (since that would kind of imply showing it to the world), so there’s lots of potential for reality crashing into this. Hard. Right now it’s basically vapourware, right? I mean, I guess they have to show it off, but this feels more like a concept study than an actual thing.
- Osmium 12y ago
  I think "vapourware" is a bit harsh. They have a roadmap, and so far they've done pretty well with it. This is the next step. Tests of the landing mechanism are planned: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/elon-musks-spacex-plans-dragonfly-landing-tests-n111386 http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/elon-musks-spacex-plans... But considering how well their first-stage landing tests have gone so far, it's not unreasonable to think they'll manage this too.
  - arrrg 12y ago
    Seems pretty accurate to me. Lots of things don’t actually work out.
    - simonh 12y ago
      It's not vaporware if they've actually built one. By definition.
    - ufmace 12y ago
      Vaporware would apply to something that the company clearly doesn't have the technical skill or financial means to pull of. The Mars One mission is an excellent example. SpaceX has already flown multiple missions to the ISS and has demoed soft-landing their first stage under power. This may not work 100% right now, but there's every reason to believe that SpaceX has the technical skill, the financing, and the will to make it work.
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  Pretty far along. They have an in process application with the FAA for running tests on a "DragonFly" vehicle which is basically a Dragon 2 capsule designed for testing the landing system (which, according to the permit) they plan to do a lot of tests on. Also, they will test the in flight abort system in two separate unmanned tests this year. One on the launch pad and another with a full scale launch with the escape system activating at Max-Q (maximum dynamic pressure on the rocket, the most extreme test possible for the system). Many of the components share engineering heritage with the unmanned cargo Dragon such as the pressure hull, heat shield, RCS thrusters, and so on. Nobody outside SpaceX would know how far along they are in terms of every single component and with integration but every indication is that they are quite far along indeed and most of what they need to do at this point is validate their design through testing and eventually operational flights.
- manicdee 12y ago
  They've been testing the superdraco rockets for a while, and there was a pad abort test scheduled for December 2013, I don't know whether that actually happened. There was an in-flight abort test scheduled for April 2014, again I don't know if that actually happened.
  - Karellen 12y ago
    They put out a press release[0] a couple of days ago about having completed "qualification testing" of the SuperDracos. Also "The pad abort will be the first test of SpaceX’s new launch escape system and is currently expected to take place later this year." [0] http://www.spacex.com/press/2014/05/27/spacex-completes-qualification-testing-superdraco-thruster http://www.spacex.com/press/2014/05/27/spacex-completes-qual...
- jccooper 12y ago
  They say it's "actual flight design hardware". Probably not quite ready to chuck at the ISS, but all the pieces are there. The main differences from the already-operational Dragon seem to be: - improved heat shield (presumably a minor iteration) - docking hardware (OTS) - Super-Draco thrusters (recently flight-qualified) - seats (apparently extant) - piloting controls (apparently extant, may require additional software) - life support system (?) - software for propulsive landing (will require testing, but they can already do it for a 10-story F9) - software for autonomous docking (unknown, but if Soyuz can do it, so can SpaceX) Most of the hardware seems to be ready to go; the software may not be, but that can be done a lot faster than hardware, and nothing here is beyond their already-demonstrated abilities. There is certainly plenty of testing to be done on the novel things like launch abort and propulsive landing (much of which is already scheduled!), as well as on-orbit tryout of a few things. But it looks like it's pretty far along, and I bet we'll see it in space within 12 months.
- ak217 12y ago
  The guy has a track record of making his designs survive encounters with reality...
xur17 12y ago
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what happens to the solar panels that are shown in the animation when it docks to the ISS? They are disconnected before returning to earth. All of the stages are reused - are the solar panels thrown away?
- dnautics 12y ago
  2nd stage and trunk are not reused (I think). Cost-wise solar panels are not that expensive, they're mostly silicon doped with germanium (and other elements).
- XorNot 12y ago
  You gotta wonder if you couldn't just keep hooking them up to the ISS. Just send up more and more solar panels.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    IIRC Chris Hadfield recently noted in a Reddit IMA that power isn't an enormously constrained resource for them on the ISS. The hassle of saving and installing them might not be worth it.
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  There are still throwaway parts to the stack at present. The 2nd stage isn't reused and the trunk is disconnected and burns up in the atmosphere. For now that's not such a huge deal, as both are fairly inexpensive components comparatively.
carbocation 12y ago
> "This will be the first time that a printed rocket engine sees flight." Is printing engines a tactic for making return flights from Mars more plausible?
- krasin 12y ago
  These engines are built from Inconel [1] superalloy, which is very hard for machining. 3d printing allows to cut the costs, and also enables more intricate shapes, thus improving the engine efficiency. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel
  - nickff 12y ago
    The space shuttle's engines are made up of a series of thin inconel sheets sandwiched together, to avoid the problems with machining metals. The most significant machining issue is drill 'walk', which is not specific to inconel, and causes non-straight holes on the plate, which could cause uneven mixture of fuel and oxidizer, thus creating dangerous 'hot-spots'.
- cdash 12y ago
  If by cheaper then yes and if by printing on mars then probably not.
- Crito 12y ago
  No. Not with those particular engines anyway. The idea is to make methane/LOX on Mars, but those engines burn MMH/N2O4.
  - avmich 12y ago
    Which is really pity, but you can't expect too much. Watching the presentation, I felt that Elon wants to make an impression of XXI-century spacecraft - but he doesn't want to get into shoes of Doug Engelbart making a thing so great nobody will pay him to fully use that. No, Elon firmly wants not the perfect, but profitable solution. Which is very understandable. There are multiple places where SpaceX could really try to do better. The problem is, they'd spend much more money and time and get much less predictable results. Considering they already pushing envelope pretty hard, it's likely a wise decision to also use some more proven technologies.
lutorm 12y ago
The suspense is killing me!
dag11 12y ago
15 minutes and it hasn't started yet. I wonder what's happening? Edit: Started at 22 after. Edit2: Holy cow, it's basically a flying Tesla! This is fantastic. And I love the redundancy.
enraged_camel 12y ago
Having the original V1 hanging above the audience is a brilliant, brilliant move.
- lutorm 12y ago
  It always hangs there, you'll see it if you go on a tour.
  - dnautics 12y ago
    seconded. You can also see the Falcon 9 v1.1 engine fairing in the background; the front part of the factory right by where you go in is where those engine units are assembled, so that's not a 'show', either.
  - dave1619 12y ago
    How can one get a SpaceX tour?
Mithaldu 12y ago
Short version: The V2 has chutes as a fallback, but is meant to land using 8* rockets and buffered legs. More: It has seats for 7 people and the controls seem to have taken lessons from the Tesla cars: Large touchscreens, with fallback buttons for critical functions. * corrected from impressions of the animation
- peeters 12y ago
  Bold choice on the touch screens. If there's any time you'd think you'd want unambiguous, tactile buttons it'd be when you have spine-wrenching vibrations coursing through your entire body and have 3 Gs pulling your arm back towards your body. But I guess pretty much the only thing astronauts are potentially required to do during launch is abort, and they have the physical buttons for that. So maybe it's not actually an issue.
  - XorNot 12y ago
    I suppose it depends on the probability of a fault which could kill the read out on a single physical control vs. the change of a fault killing a touchscreen. You'd want to make sure you could field-service the backlight on those things.
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    I'm honestly really surprised at the choice of touch screens; traditionally, for safety reasons, launches of other spacecraft have involved crew in bulky pressurized suits that A) don't feel like they fit those seats and B) probably aren't conducive to the use of touch controls. I'd be incredibly surprised if they had a suit with the level of fine motor control in the fingers that touch would require, but I'd also be incredibly surprised to see crew at launch not in suits.
    - valarauca1 12y ago
      Just adding a tiny bit of conductive material to the tips of the fingers would allow for touch screens to work. This is how touch screen capable gloves were first made, using bits of silver on the finger tips.
skizm 12y ago
I'm 25, if I join the air force now, do I still have a shot at being an astronaut if I work my tail off?
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  In the coming decades the cost of flying humans and cargo to orbit will drop by about a factor of 100, which will result in a rapidly burgeoning population of inhabitants and habitable structures in space. There have never been more than 13 people in orbit at any one time in history, within 2 decades, at the latest, that record will be shattered, and soon tens then hundreds then thousands of people will take trips to space each year and who knows how many people will permanently live and work on orbit. If you really want to go into space don't become an astronaut, figure out how to acquire the skills which will make you so indispensable that it would be easy to find a job on orbit. It's hard to say what those are today but I think a fair bet would be becoming an expert on systems unique to spacecraft. But, you know, realistically it could also be something like becoming a zero-g chef, learning how to cook in zero-g and make food that is uniquely appetizing given the constraints and given the changes to taste in that environment.
- callahad 12y ago
  John Glenn flew on STS-95 at age 77, so it's physiologically possible.
- frankydp 12y ago
  ISS is only projected until 2020, but will obviously go longer. I am not sure you will be competitive within 10 years. Flight hours alone may limit your true chances. It is also not uncommon to be certed to fly and still wait 3-5+ years.
  - timthorn 12y ago
    The Russian position on the ISS starting open longer is not positive at this point.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
peeters 12y ago
This thing looks so...empty! I imagine it will be a welcome change to the incredibly cramped Soyuz. Does anybody know if the second row of seating is meant to be replacable? I assume a 7 person crew won't be the norm for the usual ISS crew rotation missions, so it seems like that row would usually be better spent on filling up with supplies.
- danieldrehmer 12y ago
  the fish-eye lens gives the impression that the inside is much larger than it actually is, though
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    There's also the time and relative dimensions in space engineering.
- Osmium 12y ago
  > This thing looks so...empty! I imagine it will be a welcome change to the incredibly cramped Soyuz. I agree, though I wonder what it'll look like when it's full of cargo too!
- dba7dba 12y ago
  > This thing looks so...empty! I doubt they would stuff cargo into the same space the crew sits in. I think it wouldn't be that safe. They will probably continue using dedicated Dragon for resupply.
  - nickff 12y ago
    Why would putting cargo into the crew compartment be unsafe? on the way up, there is no danger of the cargo falling on them... quite the contrary...
    - avmich 12y ago
      Because fundamentally, if a craft is safe to send humans to orbit you want to send humans - not cargo, which is cheaper to send with a craft which is less safe.
mikeash 12y ago
Dragon 2 is reusable. Falcon 9's first stage is going to be ready for reuse just about any day now. All that's left is the second stage. Propulsive landing is a big deal. I thought this was going to be along the lines of, "We added chairs and oxygen, hooray!" And I was all ready to be excited by that. I'm impressed.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
moskie 12y ago
Amazing stuff. Some screencaps of Musk sitting inside the thing: http://i.imgur.com/U2wkPV6.png http://i.imgur.com/U2wkPV6.png, http://i.imgur.com/KHM0Phn.png http://i.imgur.com/KHM0Phn.png 21st century spacecraft indeed.
- Osmium 12y ago
  Here's a high-res image of the control panel: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bo0_-6iCMAAmCL8.jpg:orig https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bo0_-6iCMAAmCL8.jpg:orig Very retro chic with some 2001 vibes. Some interesting speculation on the touch screens and vibration damping over on reddit too: http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/26tb6o/dragon_v2_controls/chuavcu http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/26tb6o/dragon_v2_con...
  - moskie 12y ago
    The image there shows the physical controls he mentioned that act (if I understood correctly) as failsafes if the touchscreen breaks down.
  - MichaelAO 12y ago
    From the reddit discussion: "I read an article on the SLS/Orion. They had a problem with vibrations making screens unreadable. It would have cost millions of dollars to dampen the pod vibrations so the pilots could read their instruments. Then a scientist realized that if you changed the monitor refresh rate to match the vibrations, the screens looked perfectly clear. The million dollar fix was abandoned for a 10 cent accelerometer that adjusted the refresh rate automatically. I see no reason why spacex couldn't use this solution to make the screens useful in the rigor of flight."
    - rbanffy 12y ago
      The SLS/Orion used a solid-rocket first stage. Vibrations were, at one point, risking the lives of the crew. IIRC, a very heavy dampener was added to the original design, further reducing effective launch capacity. I assume the liquid fuel engines on the F9 offer a much less bumpy ride.
outworlder 12y ago
"You can just reload propellant and fly again." While I am sure this has some exaggeration, I wonder what the actual expected turnaround time is.
- avmich 12y ago
  During rocket racing several years ago, XCOR participated with a rocketplane - a plane which only has a rocket engine as the sole mean of motion. They did two back-to-back flights. Between wheels stop and wheels start they had to prepare the rocketplane for the next flight. They did that in under 9 minutes - about 20 people simultaneously working on the plane, checking and loading with pressurized gases, fuel (ethanol, I think) and oxidizer (LOX). I doubt Dragon will have turnaround in minutes. But in days, under a week - I think it's quite possible, as a routine operation.
- jccooper 12y ago
  Doubtless they will take their time in the beginning, and learn exactly what it does take to relaunch. (They'll have plenty of time, as their current sole customer probably won't want more than four a year for at least a few years.) The Shuttle was originally also intended to be quickly reused, but it failed spectacularly at doing so. However, the Dragon is not the STS, and SpaceX is not NASA. It's a much simpler and less compromised vehicle, and when they discover pain points during recycle, I expect they will be engineered away, and quickly too. I wouldn't bet against it being "gas-and-go" in 2-3 years (by which I mean requiring no more than the usual pre-flight checks.)
  - XorNot 12y ago
    Well they don't have to deal with the air force asking pony's and unicorns that they'll never actually want to use or pay for either.
    - jccooper 12y ago
      Yeah, that's where the "compromised" is from. STS was killed in the cradle by politics, and operated its whole life as a zombie. A nearly impossible and quite capable zombie, but still a zombie. An amazing feat to be sure, but it would have been better to let it go once it became clear it could meet nothing like its original goals. An STS2 might have been a decent system, but running the original so long seems to have damaged the very concept of reusability in NASA and other space agencies. But even the best possible government-designed-and-operated system just doesn't have the right incentives to be really efficient like the SpaceX system is aiming for. The incentives being "making money" and "Elon really wants to go to Mars".
ChuckMcM 12y ago
There haven't been a lot of things that left me in awe in the past couple of decades but that did. That thing looks like something right out of a movie. Does anyone have a direct link to the flight testing program? I agree with others that the vibration environment may be challenging. Most of the ships and ship mockups I've seen had a lot of work to avoid randomly hitting switches, it would not do to have an atmospheric bump cause you to make some mistake in commanding it. Presumably the entire thing can be flown on automatic so the first flight can be with just flight test dummies rather than people. My other initial impression is that it makes NASA's efforts with the Orion project look somewhat kludgy in comparison. Sort of the 'go kart' versus an actual car. I'm sure a lot of that is just the resonance that Orion has with the Apollo capsule from the 60's and the modern look of Dragon 2 but the difference between propulsive landing vs parachutes is huge. Cost of operations goes waaay down if you land people on the ground. I really feel like somebody from the future popped into the present and 'snuck' in design that wouldn't normally be seen for 50 years or so. I am massively impressed with what they've done so far. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29
- jccooper 12y ago
  You aren't hitting anything other than "abort" during launch. And for a modern system, the space of problems where the computer hasn't already done it and you're not already dead must be pretty small. It doesn't particularly need to have a "pilot", even. It's entirely capable of autonomous/ground-controlled operation, as witness the several unmanned Dragon flights. But it probably makes the passengers feel better to have some token control. And I suppose it gives them some options if things go wrong.
  - trose 12y ago
    They'll just be playing angry birds while waiting for the ship to dock with the ISS
  - dba7dba 12y ago
    As early as during the period of Gemini project (50 years ago!), the engineers wanted to put in computer controlled flight system and not add in any human controllable flight control. The test pilots who were going to sit in them objected though.
dba7dba 12y ago
Just an observation. I think Elon is one man who is not motivated and driven by money. One who's driven to make money for the sake of having money often ends up not being happy and often self destruct, because there's always more money to make. And then there are those are driven to achieve a goal, other than money or possession. There aren't many such people around and it's especially refreshing to see someone who not only has such dreams (other than making money) but is achieving them.
- baq 12y ago
  he's very open about his motivations: he wants to put people on Mars, himself included. he obviously needs truckloads of money to do that so he's involved in things that make money. now that spacex can more or less pay for itself he's in a great position to proceed with his goal.
- tjmc 12y ago
  There's plenty of people around who aren't motivated by money and most of them have not much of it! The rare thing about Musk is he's someone who made his fortune (from PayPal) and then went on to pursue some really transformative goals. Bill Gates is probably another.
  - devcpp 12y ago
    Post-Microsoft Bill Gates* I will never completely excuse him in my mind for what he did as the CEO of Microsoft in the 90s in the name of profit. No matter how much he gives back. After all, we still suffer from it today.
buro9 12y ago
Elon Musk is starting to look more like a Thomas Newton (The Man Who Fell To Earth) than a Tony Stark. That module immediately made me think of the one David Bowie sat in and that appears on the front of the album Station to Station.
- andygates 12y ago
  "I just want to go [back] to Mars..."
BrandonMarc 12y ago
I couldn't shake the feeling that Elon seemed a bit nervous. The pressure of expectations when you're already successful, perhaps. I wonder: the chairs do seem awkward, especially for someone who's spent 6 months in space (from what I've read, they can barely walk ... or is that less true these days?). I'm sure SpaceX knows a helluva lot more than me, though. The inside ... it looks so roomy ... and pretty ... such a far cry from Soyuz, Apollo, or hell the Shuttle even. Like someone said, a spaceworthy Tesla, giant touchscreens and all. Question: let's say an anomaly occurs, and it has to land using the chutes .. on land. How's that going to feel? Or, will they aim for a coastal area on purpose, and use the chutes to splash in the water if they have to?
- nardi 12y ago
  Haha, Elon always seems nervous. Have you seen him in other videos? I think that's just his normal persona.
  - josefresco 12y ago
    I agree. When I first started watching him I thought he was nervous but after seeing him on increasingly larger, and more important stages I think it's just his mannerisms that give that impression. Dude can handle himself.
  - azernik 12y ago
    His mild (very suppressed) stutter probably makes him seem more nervous than he is.
    - MPSimmons 12y ago
      I watched this and thought, "If this guy had Robert Downey Jr's presentation as Tony Stark, he could rule the world."
  - grecy 12y ago
    For reasons I can't explain I get the feeling Elon struggles to explain things in Layman's terms. He obviously a genius and wants to tell us all the details.. but instead he simplifies it.. but then he corrects himself because he doesn't like being so inaccurate.
oska 12y ago
Video is up now on their official YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQrmDoIRO8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQrmDoIRO8
aunty_helen 12y ago
Scroll to the image of the seat with the spacex logo embroidered. We have begun a new chapter of space.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
bayesianhorse 12y ago
So you can go up and down to the space station again and again? Sounds almost like the trampolin Russia suggested to the NASA to use for access to the ISS.
macmac 12y ago
Does anyone know what the thinking behind the ability to sustain the crew for several days is? Is this just a step on the way to being able to sustain a crew for lunar/Mars flights or does it have any immediate utility?
- theguycalledtom 12y ago
  If something goes wrong with the precision manoeuvres on the way to the ISS, you can get long delays while the orbit is adjusted: http://www.space.com/20030-spacex-dragon-space-capsule-problem.html http://www.space.com/20030-spacex-dragon-space-capsule-probl... I kinda wish they showed off a toilet :P
  - macmac 12y ago
    SpaceX branded crap bags will be a much sought after souvenir soon.
  - exDM69 12y ago
    > If something goes wrong with the precision manoeuvres on the way to the ISS, you can get long delays while the orbit is adjusted: http://www.space.com/20030-spacex-dragon-space-capsule-probl.. http://www.space.com/20030-spacex-dragon-space-capsule-probl.... I kinda wish they showed off a toilet :P For the past few years, manned missions to the ISS take only 6 hours in ascent, all the rendez-vous maneuvering is being done in the duration of 4 orbits. It used to take a few days, though. However, the crews take a pre-flight enema [0] and go through a diet to avoid having to go #2. There's a story that the Soyuz toilet has been used only once in ISS missions after a Cosmonaut had been eating prunes prior to departure back to earth [sorry, can't find a link]. So for orbital operations to/from the ISS, there's not much use for a space toilet. So little, that I wouldn't be surprised if there's no toilet at all and the fallback plan is to soil your pants, as crude as it sounds. [0] http://gizmodo.com/5245218/the-trouble-with-space-toilets http://gizmodo.com/5245218/the-trouble-with-space-toilets
    - soperj 12y ago
      Not really true, Expedition 35 definite took a couple of days to get to the ISS.(as per Commander Chris Hadfield's book.)
Shivetya 12y ago
He would make such a great Bond villain, I wonder if one day they will name equipment for him? A common trope of science fiction is the naming of ships, propulsion systems, and other devices, for people from history.
- Karellen 12y ago
  He'd make a scarily effective Bond villain. If he ever grows a goatee and starts carrying a white cat around, the rest of the world will seriously need to start worrying.
richardw 12y ago
They printed the engines! That has to be up there on the coolest stuff printed so far.
phkahler 12y ago
It's amazing how little propellant is needed for landing vs getting to orbit.
- BrandonMarc 12y ago
  Good point. Why is this so? Or does the friction with the heat-shield count as part of the "propellant" needed for landing? I guess with cars, there's gasoline + engine for moving and brakes + air resistance (a little) for stopping.
grecy 12y ago
Did anyone else catch the bit where Elon said "for docking with the ISS... or potentially other things" [1] I wonder what "other things" Elon has in mind. [1] 7:08 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPzlQF7ziBQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPzlQF7ziBQ
- MrZongle2 12y ago
  Perhaps the Bigelow Commercial Space Station? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Commercial_Space_Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Commercial_Space_Statio...
- BrandonMarc 12y ago
  ... and i thought I heard him say something about it landing on Earth, "or other places". Did I hear that right? Does he believe this craft could land elsewhere? A subsequent version, sure, especially if purpose-built, but this version ... that would be pretty special.
wuliwong 12y ago
I get super jazzed by everything SpaceX does, this was no different. My one question was about the idea that it could just refuel and take off again. I see two issues. First, it appears that it sustains some pretty significant damage upon re-entry, I'm guessing there are probably some repairs needed before relaunching. Second, it seems to launch with some sort of first stage rocket which is detached and presumably is lost or at very least, dropped into an ocean with a parachute? So, although the Dragon can land anywhere, it still needs this other stage to be recovered and attached. With regards to reusability, it doesn't appear to be a huge leap beyond the space shuttle. I'm sure the process of repairing, reattaching, and refueling are more efficient with the dragon v2 vs the space shuttle but the presentation making the specific claim that the dragon v2 just needs to be refueled and it can launch again seemed false.
- smackfu 12y ago
  It all comes down to, "Do you need to tear the thing to pieces between every flight to do inspections?" SpaceX says they don't, NASA did do that for the Shuttle (at least for the main engines).
Gravityloss 12y ago
Looks like a really early mockup. For example, the buttons don't have any physical accidental press protection. The labels are tiny. All shapes, sizes and colors are identical. The seats look that they don't support the crew at high g forces at all. In a nominal launch that might be ok, but in case of problems, you'd need a better seat. No life support systems shown. etc.

339 points by nkoren 12y ago

arrrg 12y ago

So. How far along is that thing? I assume they never really tested it as a whole (since that would kind of imply showing it to the world), so there’s lots of potential for reality crashing into this. Hard. Right now it’s basically vapourware, right? I mean, I guess they have to show it off, but this feels more like a concept study than an actual thing.

Osmium 12y ago
I think "vapourware" is a bit harsh. They have a roadmap, and so far they've done pretty well with it. This is the next step. Tests of the landing mechanism are planned: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/elon-musks-spacex-plans-dragonfly-landing-tests-n111386 http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/elon-musks-spacex-plans... But considering how well their first-stage landing tests have gone so far, it's not unreasonable to think they'll manage this too.
- arrrg 12y ago
  Seems pretty accurate to me. Lots of things don’t actually work out.
  - simonh 12y ago
    It's not vaporware if they've actually built one. By definition.
  - ufmace 12y ago
    Vaporware would apply to something that the company clearly doesn't have the technical skill or financial means to pull of. The Mars One mission is an excellent example. SpaceX has already flown multiple missions to the ISS and has demoed soft-landing their first stage under power. This may not work 100% right now, but there's every reason to believe that SpaceX has the technical skill, the financing, and the will to make it work.
InclinedPlane 12y ago
Pretty far along. They have an in process application with the FAA for running tests on a "DragonFly" vehicle which is basically a Dragon 2 capsule designed for testing the landing system (which, according to the permit) they plan to do a lot of tests on. Also, they will test the in flight abort system in two separate unmanned tests this year. One on the launch pad and another with a full scale launch with the escape system activating at Max-Q (maximum dynamic pressure on the rocket, the most extreme test possible for the system). Many of the components share engineering heritage with the unmanned cargo Dragon such as the pressure hull, heat shield, RCS thrusters, and so on. Nobody outside SpaceX would know how far along they are in terms of every single component and with integration but every indication is that they are quite far along indeed and most of what they need to do at this point is validate their design through testing and eventually operational flights.
manicdee 12y ago
They've been testing the superdraco rockets for a while, and there was a pad abort test scheduled for December 2013, I don't know whether that actually happened. There was an in-flight abort test scheduled for April 2014, again I don't know if that actually happened.
- Karellen 12y ago
  They put out a press release[0] a couple of days ago about having completed "qualification testing" of the SuperDracos. Also "The pad abort will be the first test of SpaceX’s new launch escape system and is currently expected to take place later this year." [0] http://www.spacex.com/press/2014/05/27/spacex-completes-qualification-testing-superdraco-thruster http://www.spacex.com/press/2014/05/27/spacex-completes-qual...
jccooper 12y ago
They say it's "actual flight design hardware". Probably not quite ready to chuck at the ISS, but all the pieces are there. The main differences from the already-operational Dragon seem to be: - improved heat shield (presumably a minor iteration) - docking hardware (OTS) - Super-Draco thrusters (recently flight-qualified) - seats (apparently extant) - piloting controls (apparently extant, may require additional software) - life support system (?) - software for propulsive landing (will require testing, but they can already do it for a 10-story F9) - software for autonomous docking (unknown, but if Soyuz can do it, so can SpaceX) Most of the hardware seems to be ready to go; the software may not be, but that can be done a lot faster than hardware, and nothing here is beyond their already-demonstrated abilities. There is certainly plenty of testing to be done on the novel things like launch abort and propulsive landing (much of which is already scheduled!), as well as on-orbit tryout of a few things. But it looks like it's pretty far along, and I bet we'll see it in space within 12 months.
ak217 12y ago
The guy has a track record of making his designs survive encounters with reality...

xur17 12y ago

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what happens to the solar panels that are shown in the animation when it docks to the ISS? They are disconnected before returning to earth. All of the stages are reused - are the solar panels thrown away?

dnautics 12y ago
2nd stage and trunk are not reused (I think). Cost-wise solar panels are not that expensive, they're mostly silicon doped with germanium (and other elements).
XorNot 12y ago
You gotta wonder if you couldn't just keep hooking them up to the ISS. Just send up more and more solar panels.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  IIRC Chris Hadfield recently noted in a Reddit IMA that power isn't an enormously constrained resource for them on the ISS. The hassle of saving and installing them might not be worth it.
InclinedPlane 12y ago
There are still throwaway parts to the stack at present. The 2nd stage isn't reused and the trunk is disconnected and burns up in the atmosphere. For now that's not such a huge deal, as both are fairly inexpensive components comparatively.

carbocation 12y ago

> "This will be the first time that a printed rocket engine sees flight." Is printing engines a tactic for making return flights from Mars more plausible?

krasin 12y ago
These engines are built from Inconel [1] superalloy, which is very hard for machining. 3d printing allows to cut the costs, and also enables more intricate shapes, thus improving the engine efficiency. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel
- nickff 12y ago
  The space shuttle's engines are made up of a series of thin inconel sheets sandwiched together, to avoid the problems with machining metals. The most significant machining issue is drill 'walk', which is not specific to inconel, and causes non-straight holes on the plate, which could cause uneven mixture of fuel and oxidizer, thus creating dangerous 'hot-spots'.
cdash 12y ago
If by cheaper then yes and if by printing on mars then probably not.
Crito 12y ago
No. Not with those particular engines anyway. The idea is to make methane/LOX on Mars, but those engines burn MMH/N2O4.
- avmich 12y ago
  Which is really pity, but you can't expect too much. Watching the presentation, I felt that Elon wants to make an impression of XXI-century spacecraft - but he doesn't want to get into shoes of Doug Engelbart making a thing so great nobody will pay him to fully use that. No, Elon firmly wants not the perfect, but profitable solution. Which is very understandable. There are multiple places where SpaceX could really try to do better. The problem is, they'd spend much more money and time and get much less predictable results. Considering they already pushing envelope pretty hard, it's likely a wise decision to also use some more proven technologies.

lutorm 12y ago

The suspense is killing me!

dag11 12y ago

15 minutes and it hasn't started yet. I wonder what's happening? Edit: Started at 22 after. Edit2: Holy cow, it's basically a flying Tesla! This is fantastic. And I love the redundancy.

enraged_camel 12y ago

Having the original V1 hanging above the audience is a brilliant, brilliant move.

lutorm 12y ago
It always hangs there, you'll see it if you go on a tour.
- dnautics 12y ago
  seconded. You can also see the Falcon 9 v1.1 engine fairing in the background; the front part of the factory right by where you go in is where those engine units are assembled, so that's not a 'show', either.
- dave1619 12y ago
  How can one get a SpaceX tour?

Mithaldu 12y ago

Short version: The V2 has chutes as a fallback, but is meant to land using 8* rockets and buffered legs. More: It has seats for 7 people and the controls seem to have taken lessons from the Tesla cars: Large touchscreens, with fallback buttons for critical functions. * corrected from impressions of the animation

peeters 12y ago
Bold choice on the touch screens. If there's any time you'd think you'd want unambiguous, tactile buttons it'd be when you have spine-wrenching vibrations coursing through your entire body and have 3 Gs pulling your arm back towards your body. But I guess pretty much the only thing astronauts are potentially required to do during launch is abort, and they have the physical buttons for that. So maybe it's not actually an issue.
- XorNot 12y ago
  I suppose it depends on the probability of a fault which could kill the read out on a single physical control vs. the change of a fault killing a touchscreen. You'd want to make sure you could field-service the backlight on those things.
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  I'm honestly really surprised at the choice of touch screens; traditionally, for safety reasons, launches of other spacecraft have involved crew in bulky pressurized suits that A) don't feel like they fit those seats and B) probably aren't conducive to the use of touch controls. I'd be incredibly surprised if they had a suit with the level of fine motor control in the fingers that touch would require, but I'd also be incredibly surprised to see crew at launch not in suits.
  - valarauca1 12y ago
    Just adding a tiny bit of conductive material to the tips of the fingers would allow for touch screens to work. This is how touch screen capable gloves were first made, using bits of silver on the finger tips.

skizm 12y ago

I'm 25, if I join the air force now, do I still have a shot at being an astronaut if I work my tail off?

InclinedPlane 12y ago
In the coming decades the cost of flying humans and cargo to orbit will drop by about a factor of 100, which will result in a rapidly burgeoning population of inhabitants and habitable structures in space. There have never been more than 13 people in orbit at any one time in history, within 2 decades, at the latest, that record will be shattered, and soon tens then hundreds then thousands of people will take trips to space each year and who knows how many people will permanently live and work on orbit. If you really want to go into space don't become an astronaut, figure out how to acquire the skills which will make you so indispensable that it would be easy to find a job on orbit. It's hard to say what those are today but I think a fair bet would be becoming an expert on systems unique to spacecraft. But, you know, realistically it could also be something like becoming a zero-g chef, learning how to cook in zero-g and make food that is uniquely appetizing given the constraints and given the changes to taste in that environment.
callahad 12y ago
John Glenn flew on STS-95 at age 77, so it's physiologically possible.
frankydp 12y ago
ISS is only projected until 2020, but will obviously go longer. I am not sure you will be competitive within 10 years. Flight hours alone may limit your true chances. It is also not uncommon to be certed to fly and still wait 3-5+ years.
- timthorn 12y ago
  The Russian position on the ISS starting open longer is not positive at this point.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

peeters 12y ago

This thing looks so...empty! I imagine it will be a welcome change to the incredibly cramped Soyuz. Does anybody know if the second row of seating is meant to be replacable? I assume a 7 person crew won't be the norm for the usual ISS crew rotation missions, so it seems like that row would usually be better spent on filling up with supplies.

danieldrehmer 12y ago
the fish-eye lens gives the impression that the inside is much larger than it actually is, though
- stcredzero 12y ago
  There's also the time and relative dimensions in space engineering.
Osmium 12y ago
> This thing looks so...empty! I imagine it will be a welcome change to the incredibly cramped Soyuz. I agree, though I wonder what it'll look like when it's full of cargo too!
dba7dba 12y ago
> This thing looks so...empty! I doubt they would stuff cargo into the same space the crew sits in. I think it wouldn't be that safe. They will probably continue using dedicated Dragon for resupply.
- nickff 12y ago
  Why would putting cargo into the crew compartment be unsafe? on the way up, there is no danger of the cargo falling on them... quite the contrary...
  - avmich 12y ago
    Because fundamentally, if a craft is safe to send humans to orbit you want to send humans - not cargo, which is cheaper to send with a craft which is less safe.

mikeash 12y ago

Dragon 2 is reusable. Falcon 9's first stage is going to be ready for reuse just about any day now. All that's left is the second stage. Propulsive landing is a big deal. I thought this was going to be along the lines of, "We added chairs and oxygen, hooray!" And I was all ready to be excited by that. I'm impressed.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

moskie 12y ago

Amazing stuff. Some screencaps of Musk sitting inside the thing: http://i.imgur.com/U2wkPV6.png http://i.imgur.com/U2wkPV6.png, http://i.imgur.com/KHM0Phn.png http://i.imgur.com/KHM0Phn.png 21st century spacecraft indeed.

Osmium 12y ago
Here's a high-res image of the control panel: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bo0_-6iCMAAmCL8.jpg:orig https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bo0_-6iCMAAmCL8.jpg:orig Very retro chic with some 2001 vibes. Some interesting speculation on the touch screens and vibration damping over on reddit too: http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/26tb6o/dragon_v2_controls/chuavcu http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/26tb6o/dragon_v2_con...
- moskie 12y ago
  The image there shows the physical controls he mentioned that act (if I understood correctly) as failsafes if the touchscreen breaks down.
- MichaelAO 12y ago
  From the reddit discussion: "I read an article on the SLS/Orion. They had a problem with vibrations making screens unreadable. It would have cost millions of dollars to dampen the pod vibrations so the pilots could read their instruments. Then a scientist realized that if you changed the monitor refresh rate to match the vibrations, the screens looked perfectly clear. The million dollar fix was abandoned for a 10 cent accelerometer that adjusted the refresh rate automatically. I see no reason why spacex couldn't use this solution to make the screens useful in the rigor of flight."
  - rbanffy 12y ago
    The SLS/Orion used a solid-rocket first stage. Vibrations were, at one point, risking the lives of the crew. IIRC, a very heavy dampener was added to the original design, further reducing effective launch capacity. I assume the liquid fuel engines on the F9 offer a much less bumpy ride.

outworlder 12y ago

"You can just reload propellant and fly again." While I am sure this has some exaggeration, I wonder what the actual expected turnaround time is.

avmich 12y ago
During rocket racing several years ago, XCOR participated with a rocketplane - a plane which only has a rocket engine as the sole mean of motion. They did two back-to-back flights. Between wheels stop and wheels start they had to prepare the rocketplane for the next flight. They did that in under 9 minutes - about 20 people simultaneously working on the plane, checking and loading with pressurized gases, fuel (ethanol, I think) and oxidizer (LOX). I doubt Dragon will have turnaround in minutes. But in days, under a week - I think it's quite possible, as a routine operation.
jccooper 12y ago
Doubtless they will take their time in the beginning, and learn exactly what it does take to relaunch. (They'll have plenty of time, as their current sole customer probably won't want more than four a year for at least a few years.) The Shuttle was originally also intended to be quickly reused, but it failed spectacularly at doing so. However, the Dragon is not the STS, and SpaceX is not NASA. It's a much simpler and less compromised vehicle, and when they discover pain points during recycle, I expect they will be engineered away, and quickly too. I wouldn't bet against it being "gas-and-go" in 2-3 years (by which I mean requiring no more than the usual pre-flight checks.)
- XorNot 12y ago
  Well they don't have to deal with the air force asking pony's and unicorns that they'll never actually want to use or pay for either.
  - jccooper 12y ago
    Yeah, that's where the "compromised" is from. STS was killed in the cradle by politics, and operated its whole life as a zombie. A nearly impossible and quite capable zombie, but still a zombie. An amazing feat to be sure, but it would have been better to let it go once it became clear it could meet nothing like its original goals. An STS2 might have been a decent system, but running the original so long seems to have damaged the very concept of reusability in NASA and other space agencies. But even the best possible government-designed-and-operated system just doesn't have the right incentives to be really efficient like the SpaceX system is aiming for. The incentives being "making money" and "Elon really wants to go to Mars".

ChuckMcM 12y ago

There haven't been a lot of things that left me in awe in the past couple of decades but that did. That thing looks like something right out of a movie. Does anyone have a direct link to the flight testing program? I agree with others that the vibration environment may be challenging. Most of the ships and ship mockups I've seen had a lot of work to avoid randomly hitting switches, it would not do to have an atmospheric bump cause you to make some mistake in commanding it. Presumably the entire thing can be flown on automatic so the first flight can be with just flight test dummies rather than people. My other initial impression is that it makes NASA's efforts with the Orion project look somewhat kludgy in comparison. Sort of the 'go kart' versus an actual car. I'm sure a lot of that is just the resonance that Orion has with the Apollo capsule from the 60's and the modern look of Dragon 2 but the difference between propulsive landing vs parachutes is huge. Cost of operations goes waaay down if you land people on the ground. I really feel like somebody from the future popped into the present and 'snuck' in design that wouldn't normally be seen for 50 years or so. I am massively impressed with what they've done so far. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29

jccooper 12y ago
You aren't hitting anything other than "abort" during launch. And for a modern system, the space of problems where the computer hasn't already done it and you're not already dead must be pretty small. It doesn't particularly need to have a "pilot", even. It's entirely capable of autonomous/ground-controlled operation, as witness the several unmanned Dragon flights. But it probably makes the passengers feel better to have some token control. And I suppose it gives them some options if things go wrong.
- trose 12y ago
  They'll just be playing angry birds while waiting for the ship to dock with the ISS
- dba7dba 12y ago
  As early as during the period of Gemini project (50 years ago!), the engineers wanted to put in computer controlled flight system and not add in any human controllable flight control. The test pilots who were going to sit in them objected though.

dba7dba 12y ago

Just an observation. I think Elon is one man who is not motivated and driven by money. One who's driven to make money for the sake of having money often ends up not being happy and often self destruct, because there's always more money to make. And then there are those are driven to achieve a goal, other than money or possession. There aren't many such people around and it's especially refreshing to see someone who not only has such dreams (other than making money) but is achieving them.

baq 12y ago
he's very open about his motivations: he wants to put people on Mars, himself included. he obviously needs truckloads of money to do that so he's involved in things that make money. now that spacex can more or less pay for itself he's in a great position to proceed with his goal.
tjmc 12y ago
There's plenty of people around who aren't motivated by money and most of them have not much of it! The rare thing about Musk is he's someone who made his fortune (from PayPal) and then went on to pursue some really transformative goals. Bill Gates is probably another.
- devcpp 12y ago
  Post-Microsoft Bill Gates* I will never completely excuse him in my mind for what he did as the CEO of Microsoft in the 90s in the name of profit. No matter how much he gives back. After all, we still suffer from it today.

buro9 12y ago

Elon Musk is starting to look more like a Thomas Newton (The Man Who Fell To Earth) than a Tony Stark. That module immediately made me think of the one David Bowie sat in and that appears on the front of the album Station to Station.

andygates 12y ago
"I just want to go [back] to Mars..."

BrandonMarc 12y ago

I couldn't shake the feeling that Elon seemed a bit nervous. The pressure of expectations when you're already successful, perhaps. I wonder: the chairs do seem awkward, especially for someone who's spent 6 months in space (from what I've read, they can barely walk ... or is that less true these days?). I'm sure SpaceX knows a helluva lot more than me, though. The inside ... it looks so roomy ... and pretty ... such a far cry from Soyuz, Apollo, or hell the Shuttle even. Like someone said, a spaceworthy Tesla, giant touchscreens and all. Question: let's say an anomaly occurs, and it has to land using the chutes .. on land. How's that going to feel? Or, will they aim for a coastal area on purpose, and use the chutes to splash in the water if they have to?

nardi 12y ago
Haha, Elon always seems nervous. Have you seen him in other videos? I think that's just his normal persona.
- josefresco 12y ago
  I agree. When I first started watching him I thought he was nervous but after seeing him on increasingly larger, and more important stages I think it's just his mannerisms that give that impression. Dude can handle himself.
- azernik 12y ago
  His mild (very suppressed) stutter probably makes him seem more nervous than he is.
  - MPSimmons 12y ago
    I watched this and thought, "If this guy had Robert Downey Jr's presentation as Tony Stark, he could rule the world."
- grecy 12y ago
  For reasons I can't explain I get the feeling Elon struggles to explain things in Layman's terms. He obviously a genius and wants to tell us all the details.. but instead he simplifies it.. but then he corrects himself because he doesn't like being so inaccurate.

oska 12y ago

Video is up now on their official YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQrmDoIRO8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQrmDoIRO8

aunty_helen 12y ago

Scroll to the image of the seat with the spacex logo embroidered. We have begun a new chapter of space.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

bayesianhorse 12y ago

So you can go up and down to the space station again and again? Sounds almost like the trampolin Russia suggested to the NASA to use for access to the ISS.

macmac 12y ago

Does anyone know what the thinking behind the ability to sustain the crew for several days is? Is this just a step on the way to being able to sustain a crew for lunar/Mars flights or does it have any immediate utility?

theguycalledtom 12y ago
If something goes wrong with the precision manoeuvres on the way to the ISS, you can get long delays while the orbit is adjusted: http://www.space.com/20030-spacex-dragon-space-capsule-problem.html http://www.space.com/20030-spacex-dragon-space-capsule-probl... I kinda wish they showed off a toilet :P
- macmac 12y ago
  SpaceX branded crap bags will be a much sought after souvenir soon.
- exDM69 12y ago
  > If something goes wrong with the precision manoeuvres on the way to the ISS, you can get long delays while the orbit is adjusted: http://www.space.com/20030-spacex-dragon-space-capsule-probl.. http://www.space.com/20030-spacex-dragon-space-capsule-probl.... I kinda wish they showed off a toilet :P For the past few years, manned missions to the ISS take only 6 hours in ascent, all the rendez-vous maneuvering is being done in the duration of 4 orbits. It used to take a few days, though. However, the crews take a pre-flight enema [0] and go through a diet to avoid having to go #2. There's a story that the Soyuz toilet has been used only once in ISS missions after a Cosmonaut had been eating prunes prior to departure back to earth [sorry, can't find a link]. So for orbital operations to/from the ISS, there's not much use for a space toilet. So little, that I wouldn't be surprised if there's no toilet at all and the fallback plan is to soil your pants, as crude as it sounds. [0] http://gizmodo.com/5245218/the-trouble-with-space-toilets http://gizmodo.com/5245218/the-trouble-with-space-toilets
  - soperj 12y ago
    Not really true, Expedition 35 definite took a couple of days to get to the ISS.(as per Commander Chris Hadfield's book.)

Shivetya 12y ago

He would make such a great Bond villain, I wonder if one day they will name equipment for him? A common trope of science fiction is the naming of ships, propulsion systems, and other devices, for people from history.

Karellen 12y ago
He'd make a scarily effective Bond villain. If he ever grows a goatee and starts carrying a white cat around, the rest of the world will seriously need to start worrying.

richardw 12y ago

They printed the engines! That has to be up there on the coolest stuff printed so far.

phkahler 12y ago

It's amazing how little propellant is needed for landing vs getting to orbit.

BrandonMarc 12y ago
Good point. Why is this so? Or does the friction with the heat-shield count as part of the "propellant" needed for landing? I guess with cars, there's gasoline + engine for moving and brakes + air resistance (a little) for stopping.

grecy 12y ago

Did anyone else catch the bit where Elon said "for docking with the ISS... or potentially other things" [1] I wonder what "other things" Elon has in mind. [1] 7:08 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPzlQF7ziBQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPzlQF7ziBQ

MrZongle2 12y ago
Perhaps the Bigelow Commercial Space Station? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Commercial_Space_Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Commercial_Space_Statio...
BrandonMarc 12y ago
... and i thought I heard him say something about it landing on Earth, "or other places". Did I hear that right? Does he believe this craft could land elsewhere? A subsequent version, sure, especially if purpose-built, but this version ... that would be pretty special.

wuliwong 12y ago

I get super jazzed by everything SpaceX does, this was no different. My one question was about the idea that it could just refuel and take off again. I see two issues. First, it appears that it sustains some pretty significant damage upon re-entry, I'm guessing there are probably some repairs needed before relaunching. Second, it seems to launch with some sort of first stage rocket which is detached and presumably is lost or at very least, dropped into an ocean with a parachute? So, although the Dragon can land anywhere, it still needs this other stage to be recovered and attached. With regards to reusability, it doesn't appear to be a huge leap beyond the space shuttle. I'm sure the process of repairing, reattaching, and refueling are more efficient with the dragon v2 vs the space shuttle but the presentation making the specific claim that the dragon v2 just needs to be refueled and it can launch again seemed false.

smackfu 12y ago
It all comes down to, "Do you need to tear the thing to pieces between every flight to do inspections?" SpaceX says they don't, NASA did do that for the Shuttle (at least for the main engines).

Gravityloss 12y ago

Looks like a really early mockup. For example, the buttons don't have any physical accidental press protection. The labels are tiny. All shapes, sizes and colors are identical. The seats look that they don't support the crew at high g forces at all. In a nominal launch that might be ok, but in case of problems, you'd need a better seat. No life support systems shown. etc.