Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Completes Dragon Parachute Test
mattclar writes "SpaceX just released footage and pictures of last week's Dragon parachute drop test. Using an Erickson Air-Crane, the Dragon capsule was carried to 14,000 feet, then released. After a few seconds of freefall, the drouge chutes appeared, followed by the main chutes. The test concluded with a gentle touchdown within the target area to conclude a test described by SpaceX as '100% successful.'"
Very nice. Now, about that 'getting people up to space in the first place for less than $10k/lb' part...
Seriously though, it's good to see things coming along.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
One wit(l/n)ess said "The chute was a pretty shade of rogue, and it slowed down like a sports car hitting the breaks!"
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
As someone who wasn't alive during the Apollo years, it's pretty exciting for me to see a company that might actually make travel to space sustainable.
I may follow Elon in retiring to Mars yet.
It seems designed to hit feet first, a bit like gemini, rather than slapping directly into the water with the heat shield completely level. With the parachutes attached on the side of the hatch, heads would presumably be towards the hatch.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
What is a Drouge? Perhaps that should say drogue instead? $lt;/Grammar nazi$gt;
I did not see dragons painted on the parachute.
I am not amused.
Droog, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Concordance:A_Clockwork_Orange#D, Nadsat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadsat slang for 'friend' from the Antony Burgess novel A Clockwork Orange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange made into a film by Stanly Kubrick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)
Why is Snark Required?
As someone who wasn't alive during the Apollo years, it's pretty exciting for me to see a company that might actually make travel to space sustainable.
As someone who was alive during the Apollo years[and the Mercury and Gemini years], I agree wholeheartedly; it was, and still is exciting. [I got the same goosebumps on launch, and was amazed at the vid quality and abundance!]
And you youngsters get added bonuses: ;-) ;-)
1. Better and higher quality coverage of the 'into space' events[see linked video in TFS]. Almost/or real time!
2. The internet.[see above]
3. Competition to drive 'Rocket Scientists®' to innovate again. 'Back then', it was USA astronauts vs. USSR cosmonauts...no holds barred. Now, it is similar, again no holds barred.
4. Maybe your favorite astronaut has a facebook page, or a twitter tweet?
5. Almost obligatory:
'And you get to get off my lawn!'
6. Did I mention the internet?
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
That's Stanley, with an 'e'
Shuttle safety is not age related....
Its the fact that someone put the thing on the side of the rocket instead of on top.
A capsule is the most efficient way to get people back to earth. They are not reinventing the wheel... it never went away. The shuttle fanboys simply ignored the wheel for 40 years.
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Every time they reinvent the wheel, it turns out round. Sheesh!
I remember when they invented dirt...
When I was a kid I followed every launch from Glenn onward, and I have to say it was kind of nostalgic to see a capsule hanging down from three chutes like that. I hope I can make it long enough to see Bigelow get his hotels started (I have no illusions of ever being able to go into space like I wanted to when I was a kid).
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
What kind of cargo are we bringing down ? Space is empty. Bringing back dead satellites has never caught on, even when we had the shuttle.
Also, there's no reason why this capsule wouldn't be reusable. Obviously, the heat shield needs to be replaced, but the rest of the capsule should still be okay.
"It's ooooooold" is relevant to fashion, but not so much to engineering. The shuttle was a blind alley that set us back thirty years and untold billions. It's time to get the space program back on track, and that means capsules.
Wheels are simple and they work. Cheap and good enough beats state of the art everytime.
What SpaceX is trying to do is move away from expensive overly complicated launchers to
simpler more reliable less expensive ones.
Getting people home safely is part of getting repeat business for your trip into space business. But nobody EVER claimed anywhere that an astronaut has to survive his trip for it to count as a journey into space.
Or are you saying that if I die on my trip to Australia (and may god have mercy on my soul) I have never visited Australia? Would make the entry into heaven a bit easier but somehow I think it will still be held against me.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
One thing that is certainly going to be different is the ability to have the miniature cameras in odd places that didn't exist before. I certainly liked the camera placed on the outside of the Dragon spacecraft that showed the whole splashdown from the perspective of a fly sitting on the outside of the capsule. Such a view perspective wasn't even possible during the Apollo era, where instead if they were lucky there was a U.S. Navy helicopter that had the one ton television camera in an otherwise stripped down aircraft that produced a grainy video feed.... presuming that the helicopter could even find the spacecraft as it was coming down.
In terms of internet coverage, you don't have to worry about some network executive deciding if a major league baseball game or some sitcom is going to get better ratings than a rocket launch... you just have to punch in the URL of some website like SpaceVidcast and you with several 10's of thousands of other people get to watch that launch live.... with or without commentary if you want. Rather than waiting for some public relations official telling you the weather forecast for KSC, you can simply go straight to the NOAA weather station and look up the latest weather radar scan and make your own forecast if you want.
Yeah, the internet has changed things, as has the miniaturization of electronic components. An iPhone has the computing power of all of NASA combined from 1969. Let's just say that the guidance computer is put into the Dragon spacecraft based on what the needs of the pilot are for a visual display and not due to considerations such as weight or power consumption of that computer. Its physical location is more of an afterthought. The largest and most power hungry device is going to be the flat-screen plasma panel for that display, not the computer itself.
I suppose we're going to repeat going back to the moon next as a grand finale.
The problem with Apollo 17 was the fact that it was a finale. NASA took some amazing hardware that could go places, and then simply threw it away like yesterday's garbage. There were a number of projects developed with the Apollo Applications Program that I believe could have been flown at a sustainable rate with the funds that ended up going to the Space Shuttle.
Admittedly this is with 20/20 hindsight, but for the cost that NASA dumped into the Shuttle program, they could have flown more astronauts, put more tonnage into space (including the construction of something the size of the ISS) and perhaps even reduced the cost of access to space considerably had they simply stuck with the Apollo family of spacecraft over the past 40 years. Even now, all these years later, the Apollo hardware is looking very good and a very elegant design solution to a very tough engineering problem. Compared to the Soyuz spacecraft it still looks sleek, shiny, and modern.... but the Soyuz spacecraft are still flying and the Apollo spacecraft aren't.
The reason why a "splashdown" in the Pacific is being redone here is because it works. If the goal is to get into space and come home safely.... how else do you propose to get the job done? Are you sure that will be cheaper and be ready to fly by next year?
What kinds of cargo need to be brought down from orbit? Besides passengers (where I hope the need to bring them back should be obvious) there are other kinds of space-based research that has tremendous usefulness if you can have a down link capability. Doing a biological experiment would be incredibly useful to bring it back to an Earth-based laboratory where you can poke and prod at whatever it is that you developed in space. Ditto for any metallurgy or materials science tests that you might be performing, where again having those materials and not having to haul up the entire lab just to do one or two tests on those materials would be very useful.
In addition, if there is any sort of space-based manufacturing that will go on, that ability to be able to bring back stuff is even more important.
The whole things boils down to the cost for access to space. With a typical Shuttle flight costing on the order of about a billion dollars per flight (let's not get into a fight over the exact numbers... but it is roughly that price when most costs are legitimately considered), there are very few if any vehicles that you would even consider returning back to the Earth for that price. That is over $40k/kilogram of cargo delivered. Perhaps the Hubble Telescope or some other incredibly expensive spacecraft would justify the expense, but at that price point it isn't worth sending the spacecraft up to retrieve anything.
I'd also say that another reason why dead satellite recovery hasn't happened more on the Space Shuttle is that NASA hasn't been willing to risk astronauts on such a dangerous task like recovering a satellite. Losing an astronaut in space merely to save a few bucks due to refurbishing a spacecraft isn't a valid justification for that kind of danger. I should note that the Dragon spacecraft is being designed to fly in an unmanned configuration, so the potential loss of human life doesn't even need to be figured into the equation for using a Dragon spacecraft for at least some tasks that may need to be done in space with this technology.
Drop the cost for access to space, and you will find that there will be many more applications for using space that will show up. Unfortunately if we had to rely upon NASA to get the job done it would end up costing even more to get into space, not less. The Ares/Orion spaceship system was going to end up costing even more per pound delivered to and/or retrieved from orbit than the Space Shuttle.
Sure, I agree that research of all kinds of low-gravity experiments would be useful to bring back to earth. However, that's something that can be done on a small capsule, like the one they are testing right now, possibly using an unmanned configuration. So, far what they are doing right now, the SpaceX design seems pretty good, even though it looks like a step back.
As far as large scale manufacturing in low-gravity environment, I think that'll have to wait until somebody invents a radically different way to get to and from orbit. Even with SpaceX's affordable rates, it's still very expensive.
we really need to be reinventing the shuttles as they are reusable, sustainable, and have much more cargo space.
Wrong on nearly all counts: yes, shuttles are (sort of) reusable, but they have a finite lifetime (a few dozen launches) and they require so much refurbishing that they might as well be rebuilt from scratch. Not quite sure how you measure sustainable, but refurbishing a shuttle costs more than building a Saturn V from scratch, so that's not exactly a win. And finally, a Saturn V can put over 100 tons into orbit; the shuttle can only put 19 tons in orbit.
Considering that the energy requirements for getting to orbit are actually a little bit easier than a flight from London to Sydney, I would say that there certainly is a whole bunch of room for engineers to come up with a more affordable way in terms of getting into space. Yes, I get that the airplane going to Australia from Europe can obtain "in-situ" oxidizer for the journey, but the capital layout costs for a 747 are certainly comparable to building a reusable spacecraft.
I do think that eventually you can put into space something like a small package that you drop off at your local FedEx or UPS store for roughly $1000 that can be flown into space, do its thing, and then return to some address listed on that package for whatever it is that you are doing. BTW, that is a business model that SpaceX is trying to develop as well and is interested in researchers right now that want to do that, even though the price is currently a bit more than $1k. It is a bit less than $5k/kilo in a pressurized environment right now, and if you have a small package that you want to send up into space, call up SpaceX today asking for details. You can fly it within a year or so on an already scheduled flight.
This puts space research in the hands of entrepreneurs and folks who want to try things out for themselves, including folks who don't necessarily want to let their "competition" know what they are up to. BTW, this is also what is different about the SpaceX approach. Until now, if you wanted to get into space you needed to get government permission for even the most mundane payload and essentially build your own rocket in order to get into space. SpaceX is the first company where you can simply throw money down on the table (cash, check, or electronic bank transfer) and simply purchase a flight into space where they take care of the paperwork.
Yes, there are some other commercial companies that will fly cargo into space for you like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, but they really are focused on government contracts and their pricing model shows that. It is also one of the reasons why even telecommunication satellite operators generally avoid American companies when going into space. There is also Ariainespace that will fly commercial cargo, but you are still need to go through a lengthy government procurement process to get a flight on those vehicles. It also isn't a pressurized vehicle that will return back to the ground.
Setting up a business model similar to the aviation and commercial oceanic shipping companies is really the new innovation here, not necessarily the vehicles themselves. Doing that in such a manner that you don't have to even be a rocket engineer in order to send up a payload is an even larger benefit that is going to reduce the barriers to getting businesses established in space that haven't been done before.
Presuming that "large scale manufacturing" needs vehicles much larger than a SpaceX Dragon or Boeing CST-100, I'm quite certain that the companies involved would more than oblige at providing such a vehicle if the market for something much larger was necessary. SpaceX already announced the plans for an "F1-class" rocket engine that could fly much larger vehicles than the Falcon 9-Heavy. One vehicle that was discussed, the Falcon XX, would have the same cargo capacity as a 747 and put that kind of cargo into orbit on a faring about as large as the interior space of a 747 too. I think it will be awhile before something larger and heavier than a railroad engine is going to need to be sent into space, or brought back home for that matter.
Shuttle safety is not age related....
Shuttle safety obviously IS age-related, both because the number of problems has magnified over time, and because materials technology has advanced since but the shuttle is still made out of the same old stuff.
A capsule is the most efficient way to get people back to earth. They are not reinventing the wheel... it never went away. The shuttle fanboys simply ignored the wheel for 40 years.
A reusable spaceplane whose main engines have to be rebuilt before every flight is not a reusable spaceplane, it's a reusable airframe. The Shuttle was and is a boondoggle.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Clearly NASA could have done the same thing for a billion dollars, thereby creating much-needed high tech jobs for H-1b guest workers looking for a better life here in the US. I don't understand how anyone could celebrate this economic and humanitarian travesty.
Seastead this.
Wow, an article with pics! So it did happen! We're getting a bit more sophisticated than formatted text files now, so HTML is finally getting some use!
Considering that the energy requirements for getting to orbit are actually a little bit easier than a flight from London to Sydney
With a crucial difference that a flight from Londen to Sydney takes half a day, and a launch to LEO only a few minutes. This adds a bit of complexity to the systems. Also, the engineering margins on a rocket are going to be much smaller. Some materials are designed to be operated close to melting points, or breaking stresses. This is necessary, because something over-engineered will be too heavy to lift off. Running so close to the envelope requires much more careful design, testing, and manufacturing, which all adds to the cost.
Question for those in the know: is SpaceX leading a charmed life, or are they just incredibly good at managing their press lately? To hear the press release, this sounds like another home run for SpaceX.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
And you don't think that a trans-oceanic jet aircraft isn't flying at similar kinds of margins? Most of those passenger jets fly very close to the Coffin corner in terms of the altitude, airspeed, and wing properties that requires an automated flight system to keep the pilot from killing everybody on board. Modern aviation pulls a whole bunch from rocket science including engines that also have to push the envelope in terms of temperatures and weight. If anything, I would argue that airliners have to be more complex than a rocket engine, and the fact that the engines have to run much longer gives them much more time for failure.
The main thing that makes a rocket engine so complex is the pump used to cram fuel into the engine bell. This is what makes most "rocket scientists" mainly a bunch of glorified plumbers, and the gem of any quality rocket motor is this pump. Otherwise, the basic mechanics of getting into space is pretty straight forward. While acceleration is a factor, many aircraft are rated for g-forces that are at least on the order of what you would find in most rockets... so again I don't think it is as big of a deal as is made.
The big thing is the oxidizer, which must be carried up with the rocket unlike an airplane. If a 747 had to carry the oxygen necessary for a trip to Sydney, a fair bit of the cargo space would be eaten up with the oxygen tanks or whatever oxidizer would be used in that situation.
Another thing that makes rockets so stinking expensive is that they pretty much have to work the first time you light them up. It is in this area that I think rockets that don't necessarily have to push the envelope as hard on the bleeding edge of performance could significantly drop their costs, especially if you could get to the point where you "build a little, test a little, fly a little", and then take the results of that testing and make another iteration in the engine design. That is not happening right now, where rocket motors are so much on that bleeding edge of development trying to squeeze out that last bit of ISP performance that they destroy the engines after every use.... sort of like what happens when you run a drag racing engine. What is needed is an engine like found in a Chevy Truck: cheap, simple to fix, and reliable. I do believe that rocket engines could be built with a similar kind of performance objective. The Merlin engine on the Falcon rocket family is an attempt to use this basic kind of philosophy in rocket engine design... and SpaceX is hardly the only company trying to do that either or from my perspective necessarily the best at it. But SpaceX has finished the engine and has gone into orbital spaceflight already. My hat is off to them for that fact.
Wow, what an amazing use of 50 year old technology.....Not.
yeah but... the shuttle is COOL. It still draws a crowd on launch day.
Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
I hope I can make it long enough to see Bigelow get his hotels started
Speaking of which, how are his Genesis test modules holding up?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
"After a few seconds of freefall, the drouge chutes appeared..." It's DROGUE, not DROUGE, for anyone trying to look up the definition. Good info, otherwise.
Here is site with interactive math games for kids.
You can even create there your own lesson with your chosen subjects and give it to your students/friends!
Here is the main site: Free Math Games
For Order of Operations Games subjects: order of operations games for 3rd grade