|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dragon capsule parachute test
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dragon capsule parachute test
Pat Flannery wrote:
Unlike Orion, Dragon's parachutes actually work: http://www.onorbit.com/node/2431 Pat Says they are starting with water 'splashdowns' for the crewed version with the intension of moving to land 'dustdowns' with addition of deployable landing gear and thrusters at some point in the future. That should help reduce costs. What are their landing options in case of bad weather at the primary landing site? Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Dragon capsule parachute test
On 22/08/2010 2:41 PM, David Spain wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote: Unlike Orion, Dragon's parachutes actually work: http://www.onorbit.com/node/2431 Pat Says they are starting with water 'splashdowns' for the crewed version with the intension of moving to land 'dustdowns' with addition of deployable landing gear and thrusters at some point in the future. That should help reduce costs. What are their landing options in case of bad weather at the primary landing site? Dave Land somewhere else? Sylvia. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dragon capsule parachute test
Sylvia Else wrote:
Land somewhere else? Sylvia. Doesn't anyone sleep around here, or do you all live on the Left Coast or Asia? Droll Sylvia... Care to clue us in as to 'where' else is? Central Park in Manhattan? The other option is also to stay in orbit longer... Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dragon capsule parachute test
On 22/08/2010 2:47 PM, David Spain wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote: Land somewhere else? Sylvia. Doesn't anyone sleep around here, or do you all live on the Left Coast or Asia? I'm in Australia. Mid Sunday afternoon here. Droll Sylvia... Care to clue us in as to 'where' else is? Central Park in Manhattan? It appeared to me that a craft that returns by parachute and descends pretty much vertically onto shock absorbing landing gear doesn't really have much in the way of requirements for its landing area, beyond being reasonably large, moderately flat, and devoid of significant obstacles. There would have to be plenty of suitable places, including most of Australia (might not be reachable from the particular orbit, but that's another matter). Sylvia. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dragon capsule parachute test
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22/08/2010 2:47 PM, David Spain wrote: Doesn't anyone sleep around here, or do you all live on the Left Coast or Asia? I'm in Australia. Mid Sunday afternoon here. .... There would have to be plenty of suitable places, including most of Australia (might not be reachable from the particular orbit, but that's another matter). Sylvia. I thought the ISS routinely passes over Australia? So what would you charge SpaceX for landing rights to your back yard? Would they need venomous snake and/or other large carnivorous reptile insurance? :-D Dave |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Dragon capsule parachute test
On 22/08/2010 3:13 PM, David Spain wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote: On 22/08/2010 2:47 PM, David Spain wrote: Doesn't anyone sleep around here, or do you all live on the Left Coast or Asia? I'm in Australia. Mid Sunday afternoon here. ... There would have to be plenty of suitable places, including most of Australia (might not be reachable from the particular orbit, but that's another matter). Sylvia. I thought the ISS routinely passes over Australia? So what would you charge SpaceX for landing rights to your back yard? Would they need venomous snake and/or other large carnivorous reptile insurance? :-D Such risks are grossly overstated. The main concern would be that the astronauts would be bundled into an off-shore immigration detention centre and lost in the system before anyone considers the possibility that they weren't actually claiming refugee status. Sylvia. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dragon capsule parachute test
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Dragon capsule parachute test
On 8/22/2010 9:03 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In , lid says... It appeared to me that a craft that returns by parachute and descends pretty much vertically onto shock absorbing landing gear doesn't really have much in the way of requirements for its landing area, beyond being reasonably large, moderately flat, and devoid of significant obstacles. There would have to be plenty of suitable places, including most of Australia (might not be reachable from the particular orbit, but that's another matter). Great Plains in the US. It's big, it's flat, and it's fairly devoid of high concentrations of people. Plus, a lifting capsule design has some lift in the hypersonic regime, so you can aim for a particular landing area. Also, for final descent, you can use steerable parachutes. NASA spent some time and money developing one for X-38 which may be suitable for use on a capsule. That all makes sense but I was hoping someone might be able to share some insights into SpaceX plans. Currently they are testing near San Diego, so is it a safe assumption that becomes the primary landing site? One would think coastal Florida would be a better option to reduce costs however. But also it helps to have options. I got the impression from the article that the plan is to proceed first with crewed water landing capsules that eventually evolve into ground landing capsules rather than wait until the design is refined into ground landing capsules first. In either case, if the launch point is Cape Canaveral, it makes sense to make that area the primary landing site as well. Florida is suitable to either modes. And if their landing accuracy is as good as their claims it might not be necessary to be totally devoid of population. Besides a little space tourism/voyeurism is good for the local economy... Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Dragon capsule parachute test
David Spain writes:
Pat Flannery wrote: Unlike Orion, Dragon's parachutes actually work: http://www.onorbit.com/node/2431 Pat Says they are starting with water 'splashdowns' for the crewed version with the intension of moving to land 'dustdowns' with addition of deployable landing gear and thrusters at some point in the future. I fear this will happen shortly after they start to routinely recover both first and second stages of the Falcon 9... I really don't see why they should even try that. It surely adds quite a bit of mass which comes straight out of the payload and the time/cost savings would only be significant if they fly very often. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
msnbc on delay in Russian 'space parachute' test | Jim Oberg | Space Station | 2 | December 15th 04 07:58 PM |
Russian, European Scientists Postpone Test Launch of Space Parachute | Jim Oberg | Space Station | 3 | December 15th 04 07:08 PM |
1970 US Martian parachute test | Paolo Ulivi | History | 5 | September 24th 04 08:11 AM |
Instead of the parachute and bouncing balls, engineer a capsule that withstands the damage | Archimedes Plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 31 | January 8th 04 12:13 AM |