Comments on: Return of Axiom mission delayed again because of weather

By: Patrick Underwood

Patrick Underwood — Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:38:51 +0000

sippin_bourbon you are correct, I just meant they’d halted production. I hope they get plenty of ISS and commercial flights out of the capsules.

By: sippin_bourbon

sippin_bourbon — Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:49:26 +0000

Patrick
They stopped production, but retain the ability to make more.
They are shifting to fleet management.

That does not mean they are preparing to ditch it. I think they expect dragons to be flying for some time.

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:42:33 +0000

Thanks for the info and website Jeff. That picture does not look good, but this is how SpaceX finds out items like this through testing and more testing. I bet they will have a fix done in a month.

By: Jeff Wright

Jeff Wright — Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:44:12 +0000

I am afraid I have bad news.

There are these supposedly leaked photos of the interior of Booster 7 all stoved in at the Space Explored website.

It looks bad.

Sigh.

By: Patrick Underwood

Patrick Underwood — Mon, 25 Apr 2022 03:37:57 +0000

Ray Van Dune, yeah NASA has this habit of painting itself into a corner.

By: Patrick Underwood

Patrick Underwood — Mon, 25 Apr 2022 03:35:56 +0000

sippin_bourbon, they ditched propulsive landings in 2017, the Demo-1 capsule exploded in 2019. No plans to ever use propulsive landing with Crew Dragon, they’ve stopped its production and moved on to Starship.

Scotch man myself… But it’s all good.

By: Ray Van Dune

Ray Van Dune — Sun, 24 Apr 2022 18:08:14 +0000

Thinking about Bill Nelson saying Falcon Heavy is going to take up the slack for SLS in building the Lunar Gateway…
AND about Commercial Crew depending on Dragon for the foreseeable future…
AND about NASA selecting Starship as the first and only known lunar landing vehicle…
AND about what happens if EPA denies SpaceX the ability to launch Starship from Boca Chica…

I see a pattern here!

Pad 39A at Cape Canaveral is the ONLY pad that
will have a Starship launch tower…
AND is able to launch manned Dragons…
AND is able to launch Falcon Heavy.

How the hell is Artemis and ISS going to move forward?

By: sippin_bourbon

sippin_bourbon — Sun, 24 Apr 2022 17:36:09 +0000

You got a link that SpaceX is still working on Dragon ground landings (vs water).

I was under the impression that when they modified the Super-Dracos after one exploded during a test, that using them for such a landing was no longer an option. They had to change them to a “one time use” engine for aborts, and that the change no longer allows intermittent/re-light needed for propulsive landings.

By: Ray Van Dune

Ray Van Dune — Sun, 24 Apr 2022 16:53:20 +0000

Tangentially related: haven’t heard much about Starship “point-to-point” on Earth lately, has anyone else?

I am of the opinion that most Starships will not be designed to land back on Earth, or even to be caught by chopsticks. The only thing worth bringing back to the ground is people, and it is not clear to me that a big ship is the best way to do that – note this is NOT. about point-to-point – that should be a different ship.

Astronauts are going to work in space (LEO, CISLunar, Moon) for months on end and finally come down to their families on Earth in a capsule of some form, designed for trans-atmospheric travel. Starship-like vehicles will be for space TRAVEL to the Moon and beyond, and long-term WORK in LEO and beyond.

By: Col Beausabre

Col Beausabre — Sun, 24 Apr 2022 16:13:54 +0000

1) Russians and Chinese “landings” are slamming into the ground under a parachute. (I was a graduate of the airborne course at Fort Benning and landings under a chute are NOT light as a feather – as a matter of fact you spend a considerable amount of time during Ground Week practicing Parachute Landing Falls to soften the impact. You can get killed if you don’t do it right). A capsule may have some cushioning devices, but it’s still gonna be a rough ride. And are their capsules reusable like SpaceX? No

2) As of today, Boeing can’t do anything. They can’t even fly their capsule.

By: Patrick Underwood

Patrick Underwood — Sun, 24 Apr 2022 15:41:34 +0000

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/07/19/propulsive-landings-nixed-from-spacexs-dragon-spaceship/

By: Patrick Underwood

Patrick Underwood — Sun, 24 Apr 2022 15:38:01 +0000

Crew Dragon was designed for propulsive landings on land using the abort propellant (with parachutes if the propellant was used for an actual abort). Musk even said “Now this is what a 21st century spacecraft looks like” or something to that effect. Short version, NASA’s onerous certification requirements convinced SpaceX to drop the idea and fall back to water landing. So Crew Dragon came out as a bit of a kludge, bringing home a big load of toxic hypergols with every splashdown.

By: Ray Van Dune

Ray Van Dune — Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:48:00 +0000

First reply seems to have disappeared…

Basically, pyros on land – yes.

1. Dragon already has excellent “pyros”. that could smoothly evolve to full-flight landing.
2. The Russians, Chinese, and Boeing (airbags) can do it.
3. Capsules may not be completely replaced by Starship for quite a while, especially Starships that can land a crew.

Thanks

By: Ray Van Dune

Ray Van Dune — Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:25:27 +0000

Valid perspective GaryMike, but as I have said before, if the Russians, Chinese and Boeing can land on land…

By: GaryMike

GaryMike — Sun, 24 Apr 2022 03:33:44 +0000

Ray,

What’s the current alternative? Pyro-landing on land?

More complex, heavier, more points of failure.

Gliding? Been done, didn’t work out a couple times.

Beaming technology? That was kind of unfair as an argument, but serves a useful purpose.

SpaceX is currently developing an alternative to water landings.

Until then, they seem good enough…and have been.

Not a diss, just an opinion.

By: Ray Van Dune

Ray Van Dune — Sat, 23 Apr 2022 23:50:32 +0000

How are those water landings working out, Elon? Or should I say, NASA?