SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

parapente · Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:03 pm

Manoeuvring (above).I agree.Of course yes having wider three point landing legs will give greater stability on landing -particularly on unprepared lunar or Martian surfaces -so that's a plus right there.But that is a 'tail' not a (simple) fin.So it clearly has a use for manoeuvres-but of course we find out on Monday.Their is only one place with a thick enough atmosphere for a tail to have any use -Earth...
Having said that perhaps the change from 6 to 7 engines is an even bigger engineering change.Also they all look the same so either they are all atmospheric engines -nope! So therefore all vacuum engines .......And only one in the middle (no back up as in previous concept.

Something odd here.Cant wait for Monday -he is a tease.Is it a totally different third variant?? One designed to Shuttle stuff about but not land on Mars/Moon? Don't tell me it's got an undercarriage...

Tugger · Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:45 pm

parapente wrote:
But that is a 'tail' not a (simple) fin.

?? Not quite sure if you are missing the fact that in the image provided in the Teslarati link there are two other identical "tails", each placed at 120 degrees from the other. It does appear they are all equal "fins" or "tails".

Tugg

parapente · Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:37 pm

Really?
Is that what you see? It's not what I see.Look at the angles of the tail vs the 2 'wings'.But happy to be 100% wrong.Would make life simpler.
What about the engines and odd 'things' that surround them (black).?

DarkKnight5 · Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:04 pm

I honestly think it's just not a very well-proportioned drawing. The fin behind the engines looks twice as long as the one nearest the viewer, and about 50% longer than the one on top. Spent too much time on the lighting effects and the moon's surface and not enough time on the ship.

Based on the spacing I would guess three equally sized and spaced fins, probably containing extending landing posts. /Wild specuculation

zanl188 · Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:57 am

Yusaku Maezawa, founder of Zo Zo, is planning to fly to the Moon in 2023 on BFR/BFS. 6 to 8 invited artists will accompany him.

zanl188 · Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:34 am

Press conference with Musk & Maezawa to announce moon flight in 2023:

https://youtu.be/zu7WJD8vpAQ

ZaphodHarkonnen · Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:24 am

I like the consideration of adding artists to the launch. Even as someone firmly in the STEM industries I appreciate the value that art brings us as people and cultures.

JetBuddy · Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:48 pm

zanl188 wrote:
Yusaku Maezawa, founder of Zo Zo, is planning to fly to the Moon in 2023 on BFR/BFS. 6 to 8 invited artists will accompany him.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
I like the consideration of adding artists to the launch. Even as someone firmly in the STEM industries I appreciate the value that art brings us as people and cultures.

I agree with this. However, I believe they mentioned there would be about a dozen people going. So Mr. MZ as he likes to be called, plus his 8 guests leaves 3 seats. I would guess those would be distributed to crew - maybe a Commander / Pilot, a medical professional and possibly a rocket engineer or scientist. Maybe someone who's already an astronaut.

Zeppi · Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:02 pm

Amazing news and I'm surprised at so many civilian pax going on a first flight. Or did I miss that there will be trials before the actual "tourist" flight?
Now put a realistic price tag on it and then shut up and take my money

trpmb6 · Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:10 pm

Elon doesn't seem passionate about his own ambitions. He struggled through that speech.

JetBuddy · Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:10 pm

Zeppi wrote:
Amazing news and I'm surprised at so many civilian pax going on a first flight. Or did I miss that there will be trials before the actual "tourist" flight?
Now put a realistic price tag on it and then shut up and take my money

I believe they are going to launch trials before launching humans.

I might have misunderstood this, but did Elon Musk say the program cost would be about $5 Billion? No more than $10 Billion and no less than $2 Billion or something like that.

And that the customer contributed about 5% to the overall cost? If that's the case, Mr. MZ has paid about $250 million for this journey with his guests. Seems like a reasonable number for the first private launch to the Moon. At least this was my impression of the numbers involved.

Trololzilla · Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:28 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Elon doesn't seem passionate about his own ambitions. He struggled through that speech.

I doubt that he lacks passion about anything he does. He has some well-documented public speaking issues, so that's far more likely to have been the culprit.

trpmb6 · Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:01 pm

Trololzilla wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Elon doesn't seem passionate about his own ambitions. He struggled through that speech.

I doubt that he lacks passion about anything he does. He has some well-documented public speaking issues, so that's far more likely to have been the culprit.

Yeah I commented about this to a group of friends and they mentioned the same. I wasn't actually aware (I think this is one of the few speeches I've watched of his). I kind of feel bad for mentioning it now. :covereyes:

parapente · Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:07 am

Are there any further (technical) presentations scheduled?
Clearly much has changed but many questions were left unanswered.The journalists (imho) did a very poor job simply asking about the money.
When the illustrations came out the more knowledgeable people (certainly not me) noticed that the engines shown on the se one stage were not vacuum engines.A mistake? Unlikely.Also viewers instantly notes the ring of black (meta?) 'hear shiels flaps' surrounding the cluster of engines.Whats that all about? And the number of engines has changed ,nor is there a 'back up' central engine as was previous.

Obviously the three 'wings/tail' is a huge change.But the previous design had the all important 'end to end' mating for refusing.This must now be highly unlikely with the three 'wings' in the way.

The way this aircaft 'flies' through the atmosphere is interesting.But for a thick atmosphere like (the all important) Earth.The late manoeuvre into the vertical position (at ballistic speeds) would be challenging so say the least.
So many questions.I appreciate that this was more about the announcement of the space tourists but I feel he should do a separate presentation on the whole rocket (s).

GDB · Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:45 pm

parapente wrote:
Are there any further (technical) presentations scheduled?
Clearly much has changed but many questions were left unanswered.The journalists (imho) did a very poor job simply asking about the money.
When the illustrations came out the more knowledgeable people (certainly not me) noticed that the engines shown on the se one stage were not vacuum engines.A mistake? Unlikely.Also viewers instantly notes the ring of black (meta?) 'hear shiels flaps' surrounding the cluster of engines.Whats that all about? And the number of engines has changed ,nor is there a 'back up' central engine as was previous.

Obviously the three 'wings/tail' is a huge change.But the previous design had the all important 'end to end' mating for refusing.This must now be highly unlikely with the three 'wings' in the way.

The way this aircaft 'flies' through the atmosphere is interesting.But for a thick atmosphere like (the all important) Earth.The late manoeuvre into the vertical position (at ballistic speeds) would be challenging so say the least.
So many questions.I appreciate that this was more about the announcement of the space tourists but I feel he should do a separate presentation on the whole rocket (s).

Did you notice that the one really pertinent technical question was from a Tim Dodd (The Everyday Astronaut), an enthusiast who has a lot of content on You Tube, as well as other platforms, to the extent it's become his job as well as passion.
After a hack from the LA Times managed to ask the same question Musk had just answered!
The way Space X covers events and it's style of launch coverage must encourage people like Tim Dodd, which in turn creates interest in not just Space X but STEM generally.

trpmb6 · Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:57 pm

parapente wrote:
Are there any further (technical) presentations scheduled?
Clearly much has changed but many questions were left unanswered.The journalists (imho) did a very poor job simply asking about the money.
When the illustrations came out the more knowledgeable people (certainly not me) noticed that the engines shown on the se one stage were not vacuum engines.A mistake? Unlikely.Also viewers instantly notes the ring of black (meta?) 'hear shiels flaps' surrounding the cluster of engines.Whats that all about? And the number of engines has changed ,nor is there a 'back up' central engine as was previous.

Musk answered a lot of these questions in the presentation.

The Second stage engines are not vacuum engines at this time to reduce risk. They will be the current "sea level" raptor engine design as that's what they'll need to be used for early on in development. Later on they'll introduce vacuum optimized engines. The ring of black "heat shield flaps" surrounding the engine cluster is a spot that Musk described could allow for future vacuum rated engines later on so they could have a ring of vacuum engines on the outside with the sea level engines on the inside for landing. He noted that they can lose 3, and in some case 4, engines and still have a successful mission, including landing. He didn't indicate how that's possible. I'm guessing through a change in the flight profile with more atmospheric burn earlier on.

I'm a little curious how they intend to shed speed in the upper atmosphere via heat shield etc. Also concerned that they have integrated the landing legs into the "wings" because if you lose a wing in the upper atmosphere you're now down a leg as well.

parapente · Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:49 am

I must go back and re look!
I did notice later one of the illustrations refers to the ring of 'black boxes - it now appears' around the engine cluster.As additional cargo external holds.All a bit odd so maybe they will add more motors -who knows.
Another illustration ( orbiting the moon) gives you some idea just how huge the canard wings are.Enormous.All the other illustrations are side on so you can't really see them.
As above.It appears the engineers have made a major change in direction ( no pun intended) in the way the BFR flys flies through atmospheres.The weight penalty of the three fins -two are all moving for Christs sake! And all moving giant canards,must be enormous.And weight in rockets is deadly stuff.
My own uneducated view is that they are hoping to use far less fuel on the orbit-landing part.Relying on stable air breaking/flying over a much longer 'flight path' .Thus only flipping the BFR at the last moment for rocket powered vertical landing.

mxaxai · Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:58 am

trpmb6 wrote:
The Second stage engines are not vacuum engines at this time to reduce risk. They will be the current "sea level" raptor engine design as that's what they'll need to be used for early on in development. Later on they'll introduce vacuum optimized engines. The ring of black "heat shield flaps" surrounding the engine cluster is a spot that Musk described could allow for future vacuum rated engines later on so they could have a ring of vacuum engines on the outside with the sea level engines on the inside for landing. He noted that they can lose 3, and in some case 4, engines and still have a successful mission, including landing. He didn't indicate how that's possible. I'm guessing through a change in the flight profile with more atmospheric burn earlier on.

I don't quite get why you need the sea-level engines at all (except if your vacuum engines aren't ready yet). The spacecraft will do most maneuvers in (near) vacuum, save for the final atmospheric landing burn. Surely it's better to accept increased losses for those ~300 m/s than for the >3,000 (+-) m/s delta_v you need to get into earth orbit, to the moon and back.

trpmb6 wrote:
I'm a little curious how they intend to shed speed in the upper atmosphere via heat shield etc. Also concerned that they have integrated the landing legs into the "wings" because if you lose a wing in the upper atmosphere you're now down a leg as well.

If you lose a wing you're f****d anyway. But those (moving!) wings & canards most certainly come with a huge drag & weight penalty.

Also, the one barrel that was shown looked like aluminum, or another metal. I'm curious why you wouldn't choose CFRP for a reusable, clean-sheet design.

trpmb6 · Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:37 pm

mxaxai wrote:
If you lose a wing you're f****d anyway. But those (moving!) wings & canards most certainly come with a huge drag & weight penalty.

Haha, good call on the losing wing. Guess it wouldn't really matter would it >.<

Also, the one barrel that was shown looked like aluminum, or another metal. I'm curious why you wouldn't choose CFRP for a reusable, clean-sheet design.

CFRP isn't all it's cracked up to be. So we saw at one point aluminum bulkheads. I would expect those to be aluminum. But the big fairing section it was a little more difficult to tell exactly what it was. I think you're right and it was aluminum but it could have just been CFRP in weird lighting. It could just be that they haven't figured out how to cure such a big fairing yet. Or they didn't want to worry about thermal mismatch between the aluminum bulkheads and the fairing just yet.

As noted with the decision to go with "sea level" engines and not "vacuum" rated engines, the above material choices may also be a risk reduction decision at this stage.

parapente · Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:16 am

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-bfr-ro ... k-renders/
More high def' renders and additional comments (where have the grid fins gone).

Sadly I feel there has been a big 'back to the drawing board' moment and that's the second time.Its expensive.
The reason (imho) they tested that all carbon fuel tank to destruction (other than being a good idea anyway) is that it was built to the origonal wider diameter fuselage so was effectively useless.ie too quick,too much,too soon.
It's the same when it is noted as a 'small' point that V3 is now 'X' meters taller.That is huge massive change and changes everything from a structural engineering point of view.All the stresses throughout the whole vertical stack change.One can't help but notice that this additional length and associated weight did not add payload Mmmmm. Did they get their origonal calculations wrong?Its not impossible.This is a two stage rocket far far harder to pull off than a three or four stage veichle where you are constantly shedding the 'hateful' mass.

As above only in one illustration do they show the canards.This is a truly massive change!Not just the weight and drag.These are all moving fins operating at Mach xx.With actuators powerful enough.Imagine the stresses on that part of the nose.Again it must require a total engineering restructure - it has to.This is not children's lego.The same of course is true for the (now) all moving twin tail fins.Its an enormous structural change.Added to that they now have to take the huge loads of landing this enormous craft on a solid surface.
Everybody has seen the landing legs of the F9 ( and shepherd).Designed to absorb huge impact loads - because they will have to.
Even the origonal Moon lander way back was effectively all legs with a light bit in the middle.Its a critical component (like MLG on aircraft)..
These new all moving fins are the landing legs and from the illustrations there is no 'give' mechanism.Mmmmm.

Having said all that.These Spacex guys and girls are the best in the business and have NASA to fall back on when required.What they are proposing must be right.

Final word.I love Elon's sense of fun.Thus he really should paint the upper body check red and white with red tail fins a la Tintin's rocket that would be so cool!

DarkKnight5 · Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:19 pm

parapente wrote:
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-bfr-rocket-spaceship-more-real-than-ever-4k-renders/
More high def' renders and additional comments (where have the grid fins gone).

Sadly I feel there has been a big 'back to the drawing board' moment and that's the second time.Its expensive.
The reason (imho) they tested that all carbon fuel tank to destruction (other than being a good idea anyway) is that it was built to the origonal wider diameter fuselage so was effectively useless.ie too quick,too much,too soon.
It's the same when it is noted as a 'small' point that V3 is now 'X' meters taller.That is huge massive change and changes everything from a structural engineering point of view.All the stresses throughout the whole vertical stack change.One can't help but notice that this additional length and associated weight did not add payload Mmmmm. Did they get their origonal calculations wrong?Its not impossible.This is a two stage rocket far far harder to pull off than a three or four stage veichle where you are constantly shedding the 'hateful' mass.

As above only in one illustration do they show the canards.This is a truly massive change!Not just the weight and drag.These are all moving fins operating at Mach xx.With actuators powerful enough.Imagine the stresses on that part of the nose.Again it must require a total engineering restructure - it has to.This is not children's lego.The same of course is true for the (now) all moving twin tail fins.Its an enormous structural change.Added to that they now have to take the huge loads of landing this enormous craft on a solid surface.
Everybody has seen the landing legs of the F9 ( and shepherd).Designed to absorb huge impact loads - because they will have to.
Even the origonal Moon lander way back was effectively all legs with a light bit in the middle.Its a critical component (like MLG on aircraft)..
These new all moving fins are the landing legs and from the illustrations there is no 'give' mechanism.Mmmmm.

Having said all that.These Spacex guys and girls are the best in the business and have NASA to fall back on when required.What they are proposing must be right.

Final word.I love Elon's sense of fun.Thus he really should paint the upper body check red and white with red tail fins a la Tintin's rocket that would be so cool!

I think it just comes down to iterative development. I doubt they had much of the engineering design work done when they published the images a year ago, so it’s not like they engineered and then scrapped and then reengineered again and are just burning money.

I highly recommend Everyday Astronaut’s video on BFS where he addresses this exact issue. http://youtu.be/CbevByDvLXI

It just seems like they’re very early in the project lifecycle, refining requirements and defining their concept of what the vehicle really needs to do. At this stage big changes are relatively cheep and easy to incorporate, relative to changes later in the project.

parapente · Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:23 am

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-south- ... usel-84321

If I have linked it correctly this is a good illustration of the revised BFS design and more importantly (I think) just how large the new canard 'wings' are.Clearly a very important change in how the craft will be controlled to re enter atmospheres.

Zeppi · Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:37 am

That's really going to be one big f****** rocket!

Makes total sense to go in that direction with additional canards, I guess even the fuselage will be an entire airfoil shaped lifting body. Every joule of energy you can shed by aerodynamic braking is a bonus after entering an atmosphere, the less fuel will be required for the overall landing effort.
Imagine the sight and sound of that beast entering the atmosphere somewhere above you, damn... Can't wait so see it fly, hopefully it'll really happen next year.

parapente · Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:53 am

As a total amateur it seems ( to me) that they have accepted that the shuttle route of scrubbing of speed/energy was and is still the best route.The obvious difference is that their craft does not need to 'fly' as it touches down using 'their' vertical rocket engine powered route -which they know and understand.
However it is 100% new to them.I guess NASA will give them all their Shuttle knowledge in this regard.I imagine technology has moved on regarding thermal 'tiles' that the Shuttle used.It needs to have ,as that was a major headache for refurbish the Shuttle each time.

Spacex have a very 'fast Tracy' method of doing things.With the F9 this led to a multitude of landing failures .It was Musk's famous statement that the (fourth was it?) attempt had to work or they were bust! Although they did have one further failure with the FH core failure.
The reason I mention this is they can't afford such a failure rate with the BFS ( I'm sure the BFR will be fine as that is known technology for them).
It's not their style to do scaled prototyping but I wonder (naively) whether they could not build a one off scaled version using the F9 second stage a starting point? Ie adding the tails/canards to the second stage -with whatever heat dispersion technology to the lower exterior and try landing it.
Ok I know it's a stupid idea but it might save a bigger loss further down the line.

trpmb6 · Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:00 pm

I think it comes down to the question of how do you fit that many people into a craft and still shed speed without overheating anything. That's a lot of mass. But it's also very big. Shedding speed in the upper atmosphere is the best way to slow down. But you can't slow down too fast either or you'll be in bigger trouble. You can't do the traditional apollo style heat shield type of cabin because it's too massive. The heat shield would have to be many diameters bigger than the diameter of the rocket and you'd never get off the ground. So you use the body like the space shuttle to take that heat. So then you figure you can save weight by aero braking along with it so you get some wings. Last you figure, well if i have to have wings, might as well put my landing legs inside those.

I can see quite well how the design iterations happened. As they continue to mature I am sure we'll see some more tweaks and refinements but I think we're nearing the point where they can start producing most of it. (indeed it seems they've already started cutting chips on some stuff)

Trololzilla · Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:52 am

parapente wrote:
It was Musk's famous statement that the (fourth was it?) attempt had to work or they were bust!

Just to clarify: he was referring to how the fourth Falcon 1 flight had to succeed, not that the fourth landing attempt had to.

parapente · Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:56 am

Yup that's correct.My point was that this method of 'trial and error' v nearly bust the company.With something like the BFS it surely would do ( if it had a similar early failure rate).Not only financially but also that clearly no one would want to get in it!
NASA did many many years of study and prototyping before the shuttle was created (and then many low altitude tests which cannot be done with this ballistic method).
I just wonder whether they could do a 'proof of concept' veichle with F9 as a basis.

parapente · Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:07 am

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-bfr-sp ... -skydiver/

Sorry just saw this ,answers the question.No prototyping.Grasshopper tests instead with full BFS.

zanl188 · Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:10 am

SAOCOM 1A launch coming up in about 10 minutes. Falcon 9 1st stage will attempt first boost back landing at Vandenberg AFB.

zanl188 · Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:38 am

Good launch and 1st stage landing.

vikkyvik · Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:59 am

Quite spectacular here in SoCal...

parapente · Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:45 am

Did the first stage land perpendicular? Looked a bit 'leaning tower of Pisa' but could simply be the way it was shot.Hope it wasn't a 'hard' landing.Any news on fairing recovery attempt?

zanl188 · Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:25 pm

Fairing recovery was not attempted on this mission.

Schmave · Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:51 pm

I caught some good video of the launch last night and edited it together with the SpaceX webcast footage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN8gceUElqo

parapente · Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:08 am

Re fairing recovery.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-mr-ste ... ing-catch/

Perhaps they changed their mind?

Nomadd · Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:28 am

parapente wrote:
Re fairing recovery.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-mr-ste ... ing-catch/

Perhaps they changed their mind?

The weather changed it's mind.

parapente · Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:06 am

Fair enough!

I note the race to colonise the moon just got a third entrant.
https://spacenews.com/bezos-outlines-vi ... ar-future/

So NASA and the usual mob.
Spacex BFR/BFS
Now Bezos and Blue Origin.

Gonna get quite crowded! But all great!

parapente · Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:38 am

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-second ... e-arrival/

Exiting stuff.Comments please from 'our man on the spot'!

Nomadd · Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:46 pm

It's hard to tell much from that photo. The guy who lives about 100 feet from the tanks is in Slovenia at the moment.

Francoflier · Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:10 pm

Closer to Earth - both metaphorically and literally - SpaceX has bagged 2 launch contracts for Falcon Heavy in the last couple of weeks...

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-new-fa ... stabilize/

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon ... ts-9-days/

Good news for the FH programme.
Bring on those dual synchronized booster landings...

parapente · Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:41 pm

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-500m-l ... tment-aid/

Just out.No surprises that they will need capital for BFR and Starlink.It may sound silly but $500 nm really doesn't sound that much when you compare it with NASA's expenditure for a cobbled together rocket of old parts!

DarkKnight5 · Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:44 pm

SpaceX has static-fire tested the booster for the un-crewed Crew Dragon demonstration flight. Unclear if there will be more static-fire tests or if the booster will be moved to the Cape.
http://www.space.com/42284-spacex-fires-rocket-commercial-crew-test-flight.html

parapente · Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:14 pm

https://advanced-television.com/2018/09 ... m-on-hold/

Been a lot in the press over the last week about the firing of 7 senior members of staff for the Starlink project.Some have speculated that it's because ( as usual) Elon wants it done faster.Could be.But to get a minimum amount of LEO Sat's up there in his timeframe he will need to be launching one rocket a fortnight apparently! Is that really feasible-and does he have the prodigious amount of money it would require?
The link above ( and there are others) are speculating that the project may be on the back burner with a new revenue target of space tourism.

This ties in with next year's acceptance by NASA of the 7 seater Dragon2.Going to orbit is far cooler than a 10 min trip up and down in a Virgin craft.But obviously would cost more.
Interesting times in 2019 methings.As ever Elon is never dull!

DarkKnight5 · Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:57 pm

Story about Go Searcher, SpaceX’s capsule recovery ship which had been upgraded with a helipad and medical facilities.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/5/18064396/spacex-commercial-crew-dragon-astronauts-go-searcher-boat-recovery
Apparently in an optimal situation the capsule will be lifted out of the sea with the astronauts on board by the crane at the back of the ship. In medical emergencies the helicopter can retrieve the crew from the capsule in the water.

zanl188 · Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:01 pm

DarkKnight5 wrote:
Story about Go Searcher, SpaceX’s capsule recovery ship which had been upgraded with a helipad and medical facilities.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/5/18064396/spacex-commercial-crew-dragon-astronauts-go-searcher-boat-recovery
Apparently in an optimal situation the capsule will be lifted out of the sea with the astronauts on board by the crane at the back of the ship. In medical emergencies the helicopter can retrieve the crew from the capsule in the water.

I have to believe the crew will be flown off the ship via helo - even if they don’t need medical services.

DarkKnight5 · Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:16 pm

zanl188 wrote:
DarkKnight5 wrote:
Story about Go Searcher, SpaceX’s capsule recovery ship which had been upgraded with a helipad and medical facilities.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/5/18064396/spacex-commercial-crew-dragon-astronauts-go-searcher-boat-recovery
Apparently in an optimal situation the capsule will be lifted out of the sea with the astronauts on board by the crane at the back of the ship. In medical emergencies the helicopter can retrieve the crew from the capsule in the water.

I have to believe the crew will be flown off the ship via helo - even if they don’t need medical services.

Why?

As part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, SpaceX has been developing the Crew Dragon capsule to take astronauts to the ISS. And the company is also responsible for getting these crews safely back to Earth. When astronauts need to return home, the plan is for the Crew Dragon to splash down in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida. During an ideal mission, Go Searcher will lift the Crew Dragon out of the water with a crane, attached to the end of the boat, according to NASA. The capsule will then be hauled onto the deck of Go Searcher, and the astronauts will be evaluated by doctors from SpaceX and NASA.

DigitalSea · Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:40 pm

DarkKnight5 wrote:
As part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, SpaceX has been developing the Crew Dragon capsule to take astronauts to the ISS. And the company is also responsible for getting these crews safely back to Earth. When astronauts need to return home, the plan is for the Crew Dragon to splash down in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida. During an ideal mission, Go Searcher will lift the Crew Dragon out of the water with a crane, attached to the end of the boat, according to NASA. The capsule will then be hauled onto the deck of Go Searcher, and the astronauts will be evaluated by doctors from SpaceX and NASA.

That's pretty cool! I hope things keep going well for SPACE X.

parapente · Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:09 am

And no doubt a very thorough wash down of the capsule with fresh water (and no doubt more!).
Reusing these babies is going to be quite a breakthrough in economics.One assumes the heat shield will be replaced each time?
Why is it the Russians could always land on land? I assume the greater space available.It must make things so much easier for them.

zanl188 · Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:53 am

DarkKnight5 wrote:
zanl188 wrote:

I have to believe the crew will be flown off the ship via helo - even if they don’t need medical services.

Why?

A. The recovery ship has a helo pad. This is not strictly needed for medical evacuation purposes.
B. Depending on the location of the recovery area, it could be days before the recovery ship can return to port.

DarkKnight5 · Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:03 pm

zanl188 wrote:
DarkKnight5 wrote:
zanl188 wrote:

I have to believe the crew will be flown off the ship via helo - even if they don’t need medical services.

Why?

A. The recovery ship has a helo pad. This is not strictly needed for medical evacuation purposes.
B. Depending on the location of the recovery area, it could be days before the recovery ship can return to port.

A. The helo is there for emergencies and probably monitoring the capsule while the boat approaches.
B. The helo is awfully helpful if there is a need to get the crew to shore more quickly than the boat can manage.
C. The article says the preferred strategy is to pick the capsule up using the boat and the helo is for emergencies.

If you think about it, the capsule should float without much risk of sinking as long as it stays sealed. But when you open that door it’s like popping a bubble and all that buoyancy disappears if water gets in. It’s much safer to egress the crew on a dry deck.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net