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.'"
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.
like a sports car hitting the breaks!
I prefer my nice reliable Toyota van. It has brakes.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
This ties in with the overall design of the Dragon capsule, which is designed to re-enter with a non-perpendicular angle of attack: presumably to provide some lift to allow some cross-range maneuvering, though it might also help the ergonomics inside the capsule. The heat shield and everything else is designed asymmetrically: presumably the parachutes are set up the same way.
http://www.spacex.com/00Graphics/Images/Dec07%20Web%20Update/17.jpg
http://www.spacex.com/00Graphics/Images/Dec07%20Web%20Update/19.jpg
What is a Drouge? Perhaps that should say drogue instead? $lt;/Grammar nazi$gt;
Getting people home safely is part of the cost of getting them into space, unless you're planning for strictly one-way trips.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
There's not much that you can do to improve fundamental technology to go into space, but they can still try to make things as cheap and low-weight as possible. Every kilogram that you take off the re-entry system is another kilogram of useful payload that you can take up.
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
SpaceX eventually wants to land this sucker on the ground instead of splashing down to save recovery costs. They will need retrorockets and landing gears to do this. I think the landing angle is designed to accommodate a future landing gear.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
They should try a Rogallo wing. You can flare it close to the ground and get a (fairly) soft landing. A wing similar to modern parasails would give similar results.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Mercury: big round parachute. Gemini: big round parachute. Apollo: 3 big round parachutes. Soyuz: big round parachute. Viking, Pathfinder, Spirit/Opportunity: big round parachutes.
Self-deploying Rogallo wing: a couple of grainy Apollo-era NASA development photos, a few small-scale models built by enthusiasts, never actually used in a mission-critical application.
Given that SpaceX's goal is to get into space reliably and cheaply, not to spend billions reinventing the parachute, which would you pick?
Parasails are more feasible, but 3 big round parachutes have one clear advantage: if one fails, you can land on the other two. You can't deploy multiple parasails from the same vehicle.
If my goal was to build the worlds fastest car would you be pissed at me building a car seat? It isn't exciting as a new engine or anything like that but they have to make one.
Also, their launch costs (listed on their site) to LEO are $2.3k/lb for cargo ($5.5k/lb to GTO). They aren't sending people up yet since their spacecraft isn't ready yet. And coincidentally this story is about them currently working on the dragon spacecraft (which is what they are sending people up in). So they ARE working on exactly what you want.....
Partial aerobrake with retro-rockets for the final touchdown are possible, but then you don't save anything.
Thats what I mean. What you save is the mass of a heavy launch escape system. The Apollo LES was huge because it had to lift the CM high enough for the parachutes to work. If you build in thrusters which can land the vehicle then they function as an LES as well as a landing system. It gives you more control over your landing site too.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
As if SpaceX is having a problem with getting stuff into space. If they were having some serious problems with getting that task accomplished, I would agree that this test would be a relatively non-issue...
But the vehicle for getting into space has already flown that this capsule is going to be sitting on top of. I should note here too that SpaceX has also announced with this test what the flight profile is going to be like for the next Falcon 9 flight:
--- Spaceflight Now
This drop test was mainly to test the parachute system and to establish the recovery procedures for when this next flight is going to happen that will make it to orbit. Rather than using an entire Air Carrier task force from the U.S. Navy (how the Apollo and Gemini capsules were recovered), SpaceX is using a fleet of three boats that are all about the size of the S.S. Minnow from Gilligan's Island. That is a huge deal and I hope the cost savings for that difference in the recovery fleet should be glaringly obvious.
The point here too is that SpaceX is very close to having a full fledged spacecraft that can go up into space, maneuver around while up there, and safely bring cargo back down from orbit. Besides the Soyuz, Space Shuttle, and Shenzhou spacecraft, the Dragon will be the only one currently capable of doing that sort of mission profile. With the retirement of the Space Shuttle next year, the Dragon will be the only American spacecraft to be capable of doing this and it will also be only the second vehicle that you can put money onto the table to simply purchase a flight into space (after the Soyuz). Given the reluctance of the Russians to permit that kind of flight and the demand they have for at least two Russian cosmonauts to be involved, the Dragon offers an even more unique perspective for being able to bring stuff back home or to go up into space if you need a pressurized cargo capacity.
Yes, both Orbital Science and Boeing are in the process of building orbital spacecraft that will be capable of returning back to the Earth.... but at what stage in the development of those vehicles are they at? What is NASA working on for their own space-capable vehicle? Please don't tell me that the Ares I with the Orion capsule is going to be oh so much better.... if that is even going to be built at all.
"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.
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?
Also, their launch costs (listed on their site) to LEO are $2.3k/lb for cargo ($5.5k/lb to GTO).
It's also worth noting that this is their launch price, not their cost. They actually expect to make a decent profit at this price, and Elon has stated that he plans on lowering the price further as he gets into mass production and successful reuse of rocket components.
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.
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.
I think this is the test you were talking about:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/orion-test-para/
The picture in that test is a bit ugly too, and I'd be glad that my life didn't depend upon the parachutes working. For those posters on this story that assert this was a "useless" test that didn't really prove anything, I hope that at least some of those would be pointed to this story to see what happens when a test of this nature goes wrong. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a capsule if the kind of damage in the photograph happened to me. Landing in the water at those speeds has nearly the same kind of impact damage as hitting land too, but you get to drown if you somehow survive.
And the advocates for Ares/Orion continue to assert theirs is a better program... with "the best minds on the planet" helping to design that vehicle? The best lobbyists in Washington D.C. perhaps...