Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Gets Astronauts To Try Out Its Dragon Crew Cabin
Zothecula writes "With the space shuttle program now officially over, the United States needs a new reusable vehicle for getting supplies to and from the International Space Station. NASA is considering the Dragon spacecraft, designed by California-based SpaceX Exploration Technologies, to take over that role. The Dragon's scheduled late March/early April test flight to the ISS will be unmanned, utilizing a cargo configuration of the spacecraft. Last Friday, however, SpaceX released photographs of an engineering model of its planned seven-passenger crew cabin, complete with a crew that included real, live astronauts."
Made it sound like they were making good progress on both the commercial cargo and manned launch fronts. Even Obama has visited their facilities.
I saw that 60 Minutes piece about SpaceX recently. The thing that struck me was Neil Armstrong's (yes, still alive) testimony before Congress, saying how unsafe commercial manned launches would be.
I guess he's just doing his blind loyalty thing for NASA, but come on. 3 astronauts killed in a pure oxygen atmosphere? 2 shuttles and crew lost spectacularly?
Of course speaking of dead astronauts as opposed to live astronauts is a bit disconcerting as it reminds us that due to the fact the human space travel is only 50 years old, and it dangerous nature, it is still more likely that an astronaut had dies in an accident, on the job or otherwise, than of natural causes. Cancer and Heart attacks, like for all us, are a popular option of natural death.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The seats, particularly the top 2 in the middle, look really close together. In jumpsuits or other normal clothes this wouldn't be a problem as in the photo, but I'm not seeing how two astronauts wearing an ACES, Sokol or some private sector pressure suit could sit side by side in the top seats without one of them placing his arm on top of the the guy beside him. The Soviets already tried the idea of suitless ascent/re-entry so they could fit 3 seats instead of 2 and it killed Soyuz 11's crew - even with good engineering there are too many ways a pressure leak can occur during launch or landing conditions to risk the astronauts life on a single point of failure. Are they really planning a suitless cabin layout or was this just a pure publicity photo instead of an honest test?
Well, the crew isn't being strapped to the outside of the capsule, now are they? The article is about how a crew might feel about the accommodations inside the Dragon capsule, so why the hell wouldn't they have a bunch of interior shots?
If you want images of the exterior of the craft, use your search engine of choice: the internet shall provide.
Well seeing as how you can put a lazy boy in a cardboard box and shoot me into space I would be quite comfortable until my box exploded. I would be more comfortable as a crew member knowing the exterior of my wessel was sturdy and well designed.
Google Image Search "spacex dragon."
Unfortunately I think it's the legal department fault. If you ask the SpaceX photographers, they will tell you how much footage and wonderful pictures they take; but the legal department only allows a tiny faction of that to be published. Take the video they released several weeks ago about the SuperDraco engines: they shoot multiple angles full HD video, but the legal had them crop and cut so that none of the equipment could be seen at all, making it quite lame. I guess it has to do with the fact SpaceX decided not to patent anything of their technologies so they must mantain them secret.
Yes, there is a pilot console for the astronauts in this cabin, and even a separate "mission commander's" console that has been planned. If you want to see at least a simulation of what is envisioned, checkout this video:
http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=6
It certainly has real pilots running the vehicle and doing some actual piloting. As a matter of fact, the "ground crew" for the Falcon 9 is considerably less than anything NASA has done for manned spaceflight even though there will be a "mission control" center monitoring the functions of the vehicle like you may have seen with other spacecraft.
the exterior of my wessel was sturdy and
Pavel Chekov... is that you?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
You are probably right, but in addition to that, I think there are also ITAR issues. So even stuff they might be willing to share otherwise, they might be reluctant to show just to avoid the possibility of objections from the government.
I have it down for April 27th, unless it's been changed.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
There have been interior shots online for ages. There's even an interactive panorama shot of the cargo variant of the dragon.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The local media here in central Florida is already hyping this up as a tourist attraction comparable to a Shuttle launch. Probably wishful thinking, but anything is better than nothing.
This 60 Minutes piece on SpaceX from last weekend shows videos of Dragon capsules under construction at 4:50, video of the exterior of the capsule they returned from orbit at 10:08, and video of the interior at 10:50.
Oh, you mean you were looking for the article that describes the extremely confidential technical design review that NASA has done on the Dragon capsule, to see if it is space-worthy and (potentially) human-usable. Yes, I am quite certain we will see that posted next week.
Sweet! Will it be here on /.? I am going to be mad as hell if it turns out to be a cardboard box....
We get more pictures when they get more funding. It's obviously very incomplete as it is. Just look: No cupholders! What kind of American is going to go into space without a place to put their 64oz truck stop mug of delicious fountain beverage?
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
If the worst part of the design, is that an astronaut has to rest their arm on another astronaut's body, its a pretty good design.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
...astronauts wearing an ACES, Sokol or some private sector pressure suit...
I sort of hope they use Sokol suits, or something with compatible valves, making it easier for astronauts to go up in one type of space craft and, if necessary, return in a different one. Of course, the seat liners would also have to be compatible with the ones used in Soyuz, but it'd be nice to be able to switch crafts without having to send up a second pressure suite and seat liner, like we did when we had astronauts switching between the shuttle and a Soyuz mid flight.
#include <signature.h>
as funny as your trying to be, considering this is being made and run by a private corporation. and like all of them they have a financial 'interest' to cut corners. i would not be surprised if it's made of the space craft version of cardboard and duct tape.
as Neil Armstrong pointed out to congress, they value money over safety. and because of that, something is going to fail, and there won't be a backup because backup's cost money.
i personally will not be surprised that the first launch will end with everyone on board dying because some bean counter in spacex thought they could save a few $ by only putting in one seal on the doors and not two in case one failed.
The spacecraft is worth a substantial amount of money. And the spacecraft needs the spam inside to make it work right. Even if you're only talking about economic interest, they'll put a fair amount of effort towards protecting said spam.
Who do you and Neil Armstrong think built the space shuttles, government employees? From Wikipedia:
that video is over three years old, and quite a lot has changed since then.
for example: they show an escape tower being jettisoned - there isn't going to be one now, SpaceX are working through NASA sponsored milestones to design and build a 'built in' launch abort system, which they also plan on using for landing at a later date (ie: no dunking in the sea).
they are also working on designs for crew cabin (again, part sponsored by NASA). that's what the original posting is talking about - a step in that process.
I definitely wouldn't take that video as gospel for how the piloting systems will look.
"The Dragon's scheduled late March/early April test flight to the ISS will be unmanned"
Considering SpaceX's record of launch failures, I hope they stick to unmanned flights for many years to come. Otherwise, the Dragon -- named after a mythical man-eating creature that killed it's prey with it's flames could prove to be a very suitable name.
The russian Soyuz is a very similar construction in terms of the safety systems. They intermittently reduced the size of the crew to 2 cosmonauts, after a crew of 3 died in Soyuz 11 by asphyxation. An air-valve stuck open during reentry. This changed with better pressure suits and some improvements of the Soyuz spaceship and rocket, to accomodate a crew of three in pressure suits.
Either SpaceX equips its astronauts with a better pressure suit (like the biosuit) or they'll have to make do with a crew of 5 for the time being. Not too much of a loss in the latter case and certainly a good idea in the former.
Sure, the next time you go flying on Delta Airlines, tell me how their safety record is and how they keep killing passengers on every flight they make (or even every once in awhile). While no doubt there are some slackers in the airline industry, there aren't that many.... they simply wouldn't be flying.
Also note that the FAA has jurisdiction over the flying of spacecraft too... from the Office of Commercial Space Transportation. While they are admittedly taking reference information from NASA in terms of human spaceflight experience and safety guidelines, ultimately that vehicle can't fly without FAA approval and even a flight worthiness certificate. Since the Dragon spacecraft is also docking on the ISS, SpaceX also needs to meet NASA standards, as well as JAXA, and Roscosmos standards too! If any one of them says "No", it can't dock up there (or rather be "bearthed" to the ISS as the remote manipulator arm attaches it to the ISS).
Your assertion that the first flight is going to end up with everybody dying is not only trolling, but it should be noted that SpaceX has already flown the spacecraft too... although that flight was unmanned as will be the next several flights as well. It will be on about flight six before any crew is even suggested to go up, where any really risky issues should have been resolved. SpaceX also has some full-time astronauts who are involved with the flight safety protocols who also wouldn't mind being among the first of those going up.... do you think those astronauts are going to risk their own necks on something that doesn't work?
Where SpaceX is saving money is both on the procurement costs and construction of the vehicle, because they don't need to send everything out for a GSA competitive bid nor do they have some congressmen poking them in the side to move some of their production to multiple congressional districts to ensure "their district" gets some more pork. On top of that, SpaceX has done an amazing job of streamlining the production process of building spacecraft by moving almost all of the part production in house and even in the same factory. As was said in the 60 Minutes piece, raw metal comes in one door and spacecraft come out the other. That doesn't happen for other spacecraft by the major builders for many of the reason I mention above and others as well.
The Dragon isn't being build with a cost-plus contract in part because SpaceX doesn't need to. There may be valid reasons to offer such a contract, but putting people into space has long been a solved engineering problem where it is possible to even understand the financial risks of putting people into space. That may not have been possible 50 years ago, but it is today.
Besides, it is in the interest of SpaceX to keep its passengers alive as killing off customers is bad for the bottom line. Elon Musk isn't that stupid.
The risk to SpaceX of a failure in a Dragon capsule with a crew aboard has huge consequences. Notably the loss of all future NASA contracts for sending people into space.
Dragon has to be safe, or they won't use it. This cost cutting excuse is just that, and excuse.
Also, they will have to send quite a few Dragon cargo missions to the space station before they'll even get the chance at a manned mission.
I'll be very surprised if their first manned launch ends with the loss of the whole crew.
It would be more probable that the mission is a success because if this means millions more dollars for the business the president/CEO will throw everything he has at the project to ensure its success. Now if we want to debate morals and ethics of the owners and "bean counters" of these companies that is a whole other side of the coin. But more than likely for company image and reputation with the chances of substantial profit gain they probably won't be cutting any corners.
Sure, the actual console might look different, but it isn't going to be "Spam in a can" either. I merely referenced the link to show there is going to be a real pilot of the spacecraft and that they will be following American manned spaceflight traditions as opposed to a capsule that is controlled from the ground entirely... like what goes on with Chinese space capsules and the real piloting is on the ground.
BTW, I think that escape system that SpaceX has come up with is pure genius, particularly where the escape system is also going to be the retro-rockets for re-entry as well (saves some payload weight through their dual use). That the performance envelope is enough that they may not even need a parachute upon reentry may be over the top, but that is stinking cool that it is even being considered.
No doubt there will be many changes even between now and when the actual flight happens, so even if you saw what might be a mock-up today at the El Segundo factory there will be still further changes before it finally gets implemented. The cargo version of the Dragon is really what they are working on right now.
Just one question: Where's the bathroom? If I'm having 64oz of my favorite delicious fountain beverage, I'm gonna need to pee...
Here's the 60 Minutes piece that everybody's mentioning but not linking to:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50121782
The seven-crew version of Dragon can be seen briefly in it. I believe it was the scene where Garrett Reisman was getting out of it. In a side note, it's too bad there wasn't more of Garrett, he's a real card.
One simple rule for its versus it's
as Neil Armstrong pointed out to congress, they value money over safety. and because of that, something is going to fail, and there won't be a backup because backup's cost money.
So how do you explain the space shuttle? Money in spite of safety?
NASA needs to be freed-up from doing the mundane and reinventing the wheel. NASA needs to be free to push the envelope. Putting astronauts into LEO is now mundane.
Stick Men
...Spoken like somebody who clearly has no idea what's going on.
All American space vehicles were built by private companies with specifications provided by NASA. The commercial vehicles are still being reviewed by NASA for flight worthiness (hence the technical review in TFA). How can you say they have a financial interest to cut corners and ignore the obvious financial interest to succeed? Face it, NASA has had some pretty astronomical failures in its time, and what backups were available in those situations? Fundamentally we aren't looking at a tremendously different environment than the 60s space race (if anything we are far more risk averse). The new guys get to learn from NASAs mistakes and build on their successes. I have high hopes.
+1 Disagree
Let's be fair here... Soyuz has a pretty damn good safety record (at least compared to the Shuttle)
+1 Disagree
different set up. those programs were non-for profit to use the lack of a better term. the arrangement was not made to seek a profit but to facilitate a goal.
in this instance though you have a for profit company being in complete charge of the design and construction of the vehicle and the u.s. government is merely a paying passenger like everyone else. with a profit motive there is the motivation to increase the profit margin, with such a motivation they start cutting corners. another poster compared this to the airlines trying disprove me but he/she does the opposite. if you knew that when you fly your flying on a plain that is past due on a maintenance check and has the bare minimum done to it to keep it barely flying due to the razor thin profit margins of the industry. you would not want to get on one. yet people do, day in and day out. a airplane crash is a lot easier to survive then a failure of atmospheric containment on a space ship. safety should NEVER take a back seat to profit in space travel.
mark my words, there will be a MASSIVE failure simply due to this and the entire media will be acting clueless about how it happened when it's completely obvious if you actually looked.