
Crew Dragon launch escape demonstration - eps
https://www.spacex.com/webcast?20200119
======
growlist
Being able to watch regular (SpaceX) rocket launches live - including
deployment of satellites in orbit and landing of boosters - free, for
entertainment purposes, is in my opinion one of the most amazing things going
at present. As a demonstration of how far technology has progressed to make
this all possible it blows my mind.

~~~
sandworm101
>> \- free, for entertainment purposes, is in my opinion one of the most
amazing things going at present.

Except that it isn't. All that classic NASA space footage was shared because
it was copyright-free. As products of the US federal government they were not
subject to copyright protection. They were transmitted and used everywhere.
When "The Six Million Dollar Man" or "Buck Rogers" wanted to use NASA launch
footage (or USAF crash footage) they just did. No questions asked.

SpaceX footage isn't from the US fed. It is private and therefore protected
copyright. It cannot be used anywhere anytime. We all must ask SpaceX for
permission. Use it in a manner that SpaceX disagrees with and you can expect
lawyers. You wont see the failure footage from SpaceX ever used as nasa
footage was used by countless scifi productions.

So no, this is no amazing thing. While modern footage is a visual feast, in
terms of freedom it is a step down from what we once had. I think those
running TV news networks (or youtube, or any other distribution network) would
rather return to the old system whereby they could use footage however they
liked. We won't ever see SpaceX crash footage used for much of anything.

What I am talking about. Six Million Dollar Man opening:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGO57y4td-c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGO57y4td-c)

Original NASA footage: (Crash at about 2:00)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50dDWT48b9M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50dDWT48b9M)

~~~
optimiz3
> But SpaceX footage isn't from the US fed. It is subject to copyright. It
> cannot be used anywhere anytime. We all must ask SpaceX for permission. Use
> it in a manner that SpaceX disagrees with and you can expect lawyers.

So much pessimism. I think it's great a private for profit corporation is
doing as much as it is given it has no obligation to do so.

~~~
dylan604
I think if you are receiving public/govt/fed money to do your mission(s), then
the footage should also abide by the non-copyrightable footage as well.

~~~
dahfizz
Why? NASA partners with SpaceX and other space companies on specific projects.
For example, NASA needed a special crew module and so they commissioned SpaceX
to design and build the crew dragon.

I don't see why having NASA as a customer means SpaceX loses the right to
private property.

If a government agency decided to become a paying customer of your SaaS
project, should you be forced to open source all your code because you are now
receiving public money? I suspect the answer is the same as with the SpaceX
footage - the public may benefit if it was released, but it seems an
unreasonable burden.

~~~
dylan604
Simple, because it's my money that paid for it. That's the reason NASA footage
is public domain. It's publicly funded with tax dollars.

~~~
dahfizz
SpaceX is not 100% NASA funded. NASA contracts SpaceX for a specific product
and nasa receives that product. In other words, you do get what you pay for.

Do you believe that any software the government buys must be open sourced?
Your tax dollars buy plenty of iPhones and Macs. Should apple release all
their software and hardware to you?

~~~
hesk
> Do you believe that any software the government buys must be open sourced?

Yes. Public money, public code.
[https://publiccode.eu/](https://publiccode.eu/)

~~~
dahfizz
There is a huge difference between software created for the government and
software the government uses.

I agree 100% that when the government creates a contract for new software to
be written, the government (the public) owns that code and it should be open
source.

But if the government uses existing products and services, such as macOS, I
think it is wrong to say that the public now owns macOS and that apple must
open source their code.

Similarly, is NASA contracts spaceX to design and test a new rocket, then that
new rocket arguably belongs to the public and should be open source. But it is
wrong to claim that the public now owns everything SpaceX might produce, such
as video content, just because SpaceX took on a government agency as a
customer.

------
irjustin
Congratulations to the SpaceX and the whole team! That moment of truth when
the thrust was lost and the module separated was actually way faster than I
had expected. I could barely notice the exhaust plume was smaller and the
dragon had already left.

I think it's incredibly satisfying to note that SpaceX is so good at the
launch sequence with the Falcon 9 that there were zero delays except weather.
With any new rocket system test, I completely expect there to be multiple
delays with the countdown.

Again, congrats to everyone and their hard work.

~~~
51Cards
I was also amazed by this until I watched the post press conference. Elon
seemed to describe in an answer to Everyday Astronaut that the launch abort
sequence was set to trigger at a specific speed/altitude and that it was the
abort program that told the engines to shut down. I would like to see that
clarified further but I watched that segment twice and it seems that the abort
system was in control, and step 1 was shut down the main engine, step 2 -
pressurize/start the abort engines, and so on.

~~~
irjustin
That also could mean, while the abort system said "shut down", the thing that
said "get away" was not directly connected, but still using sensor/telemetry
inputs as the decision maker.

Also, I'm really interested in knowing if the fireball was performed by the
automated abort system.

I would love these to be the answer, so looking forward to clarification.

~~~
vibrolax
1) the Dragon initiated the F5 booster shutdown when its sensors detected that
it had reached the pre-programmed abort velocity 2) the Dragon initiated the
escape according to the abort sequence, not by ground command 3) the fireball
was initiated by structural failure as the F5 broke up due to aerodynamic
forces, not by the range safety destruct. 4) All of these abort sequence
actions were explained in SpaceX's live stream.

~~~
krisoft
Minor nitpick about point 3. John Insprucker said around 13:40 in the stream:
"our simulation show that the Falcon will likely break apart due to the
tumbling, instead of having the destruct system triggered and destroying the
rocket." So what you wrote at point 3 is only likely, but not certain. (Unless
of course you know from some source, that they have confirmed the sequence of
events since.)

~~~
skykooler
If the flight termination system had been activated, the upper stage would
have been unzipped by the same detonation cord. Since it hit the ocean intact
we can presume the FTS was not activated.

------
_Microft
There will be a press conference at 11:30 AM (ET) on
[https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive](https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive) by the way.

One thing that is clear is that the phrase of _launching American astronauts
on American rockets from American soil_ will be used. Multiple times. That's
as sure as SpaceX livestream hosts using the formulation _' Historic' Launch
Complex 39A_ ;)

~~~
rrmm
All smiles at the press conference, so seems like things went well.

Elon says, Hardware for first launch will be ready end of Feb, but lots of
double checks have to happen before launch and schedules lined up for ISS.
Expect launch to happen in 2Q.

Elon adds that they need to get the space craftback and check it over to make
sure all is well and there is nothing to address.

Elon teases trying to catch the dragon on re-entry to remove some of the
constraints a splash down imposes.

~~~
growlist
I love this idea - caught gently with the ship immediately turning back for
home, like something out of James Bond.

~~~
NeutronStar
Electron has been trying to do this with their own rocket.

------
ChuckMcM
This was pretty impressive. It was super awesome that everything worked
exactly as it should and it clears the way for SpaceX to launch people to the
space station.

What is more relevant for me, is that if NASA follows their own rules, it also
means that SpaceX will beat Boeing to having a manned spacecraft capability.

The "rules" in play here is that Boeing had a requirement of doing a
successful unmanned flight. In government contracts this is known as a
'threshold requirement' meaning that it has to be done before the contract can
be completed. Boeing also had a parachute deployment failure during their drop
test. As NASA (and some members in Congress) have been emphasizing on how
important safety is and relentlessly hammering SpaceX over their refueling
techniques and their "history", if they do not want to be seen as hypocritical
they should require Boeing to at least achieve a successful unmanned flight to
the space station and they could piggy back the parachute deployment test on
that flight (and get a twofer, both the parachute test and the end to end
flight test.) Requiring that however, will cost Boeing money (they have to pay
the expenses for the retest out of their pocket) and more importantly time
(they need another launch vehicle from ULA and a launch window). Versus SpaceX
which only needs the results of today's test audited and signed off before
they can launch their test crew. So perhaps 60 days, 90 at the most before
they are cleared to fly people.

So I think it is highly likely that SpaceX gets people up into orbit first.
And that is a pretty amazing milestone and it slaughters a couple of sacred
cows in the aerospace industry.

The most impressive one for me is that an aerospace company can be started
from scratch and beat all established players in capability, cost, and launch
cadence. It is both a huge endorsement of SpaceX's approach and a huge black
eye for the existing players. Given that the existing companies actually want
to survive it heralds some really exciting times ahead for space.

The other thing is that a company has this capability at all. I was talking
with some friends about how do you "value" that in the market? How does it
affect the geopolitics of space? What happens when Bigelow aerospace or
another "space industry" partner starts selling access to orbital facilities
that aren't government owned and operated?

As far as I'm concerned I wish this had started 40 years ago rather than a bit
less than 20, but I'm glad I have had a chance to watch it unfold. Exciting
times.

~~~
mr_luc
> As far as I'm concerned I wish this had started 40 years ago rather than a
> bit less than 20

Absolutely agree.

I bought an 8-pack of used Heinlein paperbacks the other day that I hadn't
read since I was a wee lad, which included 'The Rolling Stones' \-- a slim
volume about a family that live in comfort on the moon, but who get the itch
and buy a used spaceship and head off for more exciting parts of the Solar
System.

In a paragraph or two it explained gravity well maneuvers and other Kepler-ish
things better than current YouTube subject matter experts. It also described,
in a sentence or two, that the starships had 3-way voting computer systems,
where 3 computers get the same sensor inputs and 2 of them can overrule the
3rd in the case one differs.

To the author, these were basic things that would clearly exist, because of
physics.

Sure, it missed some marks -- underestimated the computer, for one; its heroes
were still manually 'astrogating' and doing a lot of difficult math to plot
their courses, when now we know they could have just played Kerbal Space
program ;) -- though I thoroughly enjoyed seeing a reference to them handing
their flight plans to a 'programmer' who filed them into a big computer
system. Of course, it was imagining a world where we would found a moon base
in the 1980's.

But I appreciated the solidity of its underlying premise: that a robust human
presence in space was inevitable, because the difficulties that space flight
presents, especially once you climb out of Earth's gravity well, are just not
that far out of reach.

That spirit was alive and well when that book was published ...

... in June of 1952.

It turns out that, given human nature, we needed a lot of advances in
computing to overcome difficulties, some engineering but others that no one
could have foreseen -- like the fact that radioactive rockets and the
additional power they could bring to the table were effectively off-limits on
earth for human and political reasons, or that geopolitical and business
reasons would concentrate space investment in areas that could be considered
inefficient if conquering Earth's gravity well is your aim.

But they weren't off by that much.

The physics that stared them in the face continue to stare us in the face, and
declare: this is doable, folks.

There's no reason humans can't live and work in space on a large scale. We
need some vehicles built, but some of them are getting built right now ...

~~~
nonesuchluck
> the starships had 3-way voting computer systems, where 3 computers get the
> same sensor inputs and 2 of them can overrule the 3rd in the case one
> differs.

Clarke invented the communications satellite. Did Heinlein invent the
consensus algorithm?

~~~
mr_luc
I thought I remember hearing that he worked on high-altitude suits at some
point in the 40's, ie with some of the same people who would design space
suits, which explains the loving detail in the book 'Have Spacesuit, Will
Travel.'

I also see from Wikipedia something I didn't know -- that he recruited Asimov
to work where he did during the war! -- and those must have been very heady
times, with all of them exposed to practical engineering at the intersection
of math, circuits, early computing, design and fabrication.

------
xt00
It was somewhat eerie to hear the “stage 1 throttle up” then abort just after
that.. reminded me of the “go for throttle up”.. some of you may know what I’m
taking about.. I’m glad these guys will have an abort system available and
testing in flight like this was awesome.. good job spaceX

~~~
nrb
For anyone unfamiliar: "go at throttle up" was the final communication to/from
Space Shuttle Challenger during launch of mission STS-51-L moments before it
tragically exploded, resulting in the loss of all crew. The Space Shuttle did
not have a launch abort system.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDnABgxUeV4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDnABgxUeV4)

~~~
zipwitch
Challenger did not _explode_.

The key events of the disaster took place over about three seconds.

A leak of high-temperature gas in the right solid rocket booster damaged the
external stack of solid rocket boosters and external fuel tank.

The damage to the external tank caused it to come apart, and resulted in a
fireball from the released liquid oxygen and hydrogen. The solid rocket
boosters broke free of their mountings as the disaster unfolded.

The Challenger orbiter momentarily survived both the fireball and external
tank failure. But those events made it impossible to keep the orbiter
correctly oriented.

The loss of proper orientation while travelling ~1000mph meant Challenger was
hit with very high stress forces, far beyond anything it was designed to
survive, and swiftly broke apart.

Shortly afterward, the Range Safety Officer remotely detonated both solid
rocket boosters, which had survived the disaster mostly intact and were
careening out of control.

More detail at Wikipedia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#January_28_launch_and_failure)

~~~
nrb
It did indeed explode in the literal sense: rapid decomposition of the launch
vehicle.

I suppose it is worth mentioning that it did not "explode" in the sense people
normally understand though: a blast of rapid combustion of fuel.

~~~
Klathmon
IIRC the word "explosion" has a very specific meaning in this context. I
remember reading that the SpaceX AMOS-6 failure was specifically NOT an
explosion even though it really looked like one to a layperson.

~~~
mr_toad
Even SpaceX refers to that as an explosion.

Technically it was a deflagration, not a detonation, but energetic
deflagrations are a type of explosion.

------
rohan1024
That was great!

The guys said at the beginning that they are expecting Falcon to blow up
because aerodynamics change significantly once the nose separates.

Stupid question, couldn't they just give Falcon it's own nose so that it
doesn't blow up after dragon separates? Dragon could have been mounted on that
nose.

~~~
51Cards
There is a great thread on r/spacex discussing the logistics around trying to
save the booster. In the end it was generally agreed not to be possible.

A VERY brief summary of reasons from memory: deceleration causes fuel to rise
up in the tanks likely rupturing them from hydralic impact alone, lack of
thrust even momentarily causes the rocket to become unstable end to end, only
3 engines are equipped to be relightable and may not relight because the fuel
would be at the top of the tanks, too much fuel mass to burn off before
landing, too much mass with second stage, etc.

Elon tweeted out the same, that they played with it and deemed it not
possible. As such I beleive the rocket was stripped of landing legs and grid
fins too. Was a one way ride only.

~~~
jtms
I’m guessing since this test was not focused on the rocket itself that they
just decided it wasn’t a problem worth trying to solve simultaneously with the
dragon

~~~
Tuna-Fish
It's a problem that does not need to be solved. If all goes well, this was the
very last time the launch abort system is ever fired. It's an emergency escape
system for when things have already gone pear-shaped, and in most cases would
only be triggered _after_ the rocket below it has failed in some way.

~~~
DuskStar
Exactly = even if this isn't the last time the launch escape system is used,
it'll almost certainly be the last time it's used to escape from a perfectly
good booster.

------
davedx
Nailed it!

Can't wait for the crewed launch. Historic moment for the United States space
program.

~~~
shkkmo
Any idea when that will get approved?

~~~
olmideso
At the press conference Elon said that all remaining tests are expected to be
finished by the end of Q1 2020 and the first flight is expected to launch in
Q2. Of course they have to analyze the data from today's test.

Also the flight can be delayed if NASA decides to extend astronauts' time on
ISS which would require additional training for them.

------
code4tee
Looks like a total success. Great job.

~~~
Tepix
It looks good so far but we won't really know until the telemetry has been
looked at. For example the g-forces on the astronauts could have exceeded the
safe limits.

~~~
vermontdevil
During press conference, they said the highest the g forces hit was 3.5

~~~
skunkworker
Isn’t that similar to a roller coaster?

~~~
wbl
You also have to worry about jerk and orientation.

------
milansuk
I hope, this is the last time when we see the abort/escape system activated.
Good luck and godspeed, Spacex!

------
whoisthemachine
While the tried and true method of splashing down in the ocean seems like a
reasonable first effort for landing the dragon spacecraft, watching the
difficulty the boats have in reaching the spacecraft (the hosts of the stream
mentioned it takes them 2 hours!), and the difficulty the SpaceX team had in
getting reasonable weather conditions for this test, it seems to me that a
propulsive land-based landing would still be a reasonable future improvement
to pursue.

~~~
jessriedel
Boeing's Starliner lands on solid ground after a normal mission while SpaceX's
Dragon lands in the ocean. But that's not relevant to an in-flight abort. Any
abort at this stage in the launch (whether Boeing or SpaceX) has to come down
over water. That's simply where the trajectory of the launch goes.

~~~
whoisthemachine
As I replied elsewhere, for an abort, a water landing definitely makes sense
(and is likely the only reasonable option). I was merely commenting on how
drawn out the recovery process is after splashdown, which I would assume would
be less time-consuming with a land landing.

~~~
Fronzie
In the introduction of the space-x launch broadcast, they mention that in real
aborts, military will be involved. With helicopters, rescue personnel will be
dropped of.

Also there, it still takes a while for boats to arrive.

------
sidcool
In the post test presentation, it was so endearing to watch the NASA Admin
talk about Elon as a friend. Elon has earned so much of NASA's trust, it's
phenomenal. But again, I am an Elon Fanboy.

------
beached_whale
It was really interesting how they setup the main chutes to open slowly to
minimize the shock from breaking.

~~~
iso1824
Looked exactly like KSP

------
_Microft
Photos are coming in on Twitter. Thanks to all photographers for the amazing
pictures! If you're a photographer and don't want your photos to be linked to
from here, please say so.

Official (SpaceX) close-up video of the separation event / IFA:

[https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1218976479150858241](https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1218976479150858241)

Great shots of the fireball:

[https://twitter.com/GregScott_photo/status/12189514406910730...](https://twitter.com/GregScott_photo/status/1218951440691073026/photo/2)

[https://twitter.com/BrandonHSlam/status/1218923590260645889](https://twitter.com/BrandonHSlam/status/1218923590260645889)

[https://twitter.com/Mimikry_/status/1218937739590230016](https://twitter.com/Mimikry_/status/1218937739590230016)

[https://twitter.com/_flsportsguy/status/1218930068887613441](https://twitter.com/_flsportsguy/status/1218930068887613441)

[https://twitter.com/thelanjampod/status/1218949597231489024](https://twitter.com/thelanjampod/status/1218949597231489024)
(multiple frames)

Falling booster or second stage (the ratio of black to white hull area is the
same on both stages, so I can not tell which one of both it is):

[https://twitter.com/mike_deep/status/1218926880381902849/pho...](https://twitter.com/mike_deep/status/1218926880381902849/photo/3)

Impact of said part on the surface of the sea:

[https://twitter.com/johnpisaniphoto/status/12189461666389401...](https://twitter.com/johnpisaniphoto/status/1218946166638940160/photo/2)

Infrared images:

[https://twitter.com/turndownformars/status/12189257207366000...](https://twitter.com/turndownformars/status/1218925720736600066)

[https://twitter.com/turndownformars/status/12189415996080783...](https://twitter.com/turndownformars/status/1218941599608078336)

In-flight abort test appearing on the weather radar:

[https://twitter.com/NWSSpaceflight/status/121892435399747584...](https://twitter.com/NWSSpaceflight/status/1218924353997475842)

[https://twitter.com/wxmeddler/status/1218925147861790720](https://twitter.com/wxmeddler/status/1218925147861790720)
(animation)

Lift-off and others:

[https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/121896406755938713...](https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1218964067559387136/photo/1)

[https://twitter.com/RDAnglePhoto/status/1218968896885215235](https://twitter.com/RDAnglePhoto/status/1218968896885215235)
(viewing angle and height suggests it was taken from the roof of the VAB
(vertical assembly building))

Splash-down of the capsule:

[https://twitter.com/FutureJurvetson/status/12189766841347153...](https://twitter.com/FutureJurvetson/status/1218976684134715392/photo/1)
(strange that Mr. Innsprucker called the parachutes white-orange. That looks
rather like red?)

~~~
notatoad
none of those fireball pictures look real - did it actually look like that, or
are those photos _really_ heavily processed?

~~~
icegreentea2
What about them look unreal? Is it the relative darkness of the actual fire?
The photos are processed to some degree - the cameras look to be setup for
ultrafast (which makes sense, its trying to capture an explosion), so you can
see a lot of "low light" noise and artifacts.

Remember that if you're like me, 99%+ of fireballs that I've ever witnessed
were also made up / post processed for maximum impact. Reality could just be
more mundane.

~~~
notatoad
it's hard for me to articulate why they look fake, bu i think maybe they look
like the photos are really faded and then had colour painted back onto them.
something just seems weird.

but as you say, most fireballs i see are post-processed to hell, that's why
i'm curious what's up with these - are they more or less post-processed than
normal?

~~~
baq
the parent already posted it but it's worth repeating - you're seeing the
effect of multiple miles of air between the object and the lens.

~~~
notatoad
thanks, i must have missed that comment. makes perfect sense.

------
thisisastopsign
Congrats SpaceX team! I hope they post the view from the Crew Dragon vehicle
of the Falcon 9 breaking up. That seems to be the one view that was missed (in
addition to splashdown from the aircraft angle)

------
vsareto
Why did the booster explode? No thrust causing it to lose direction?

~~~
code4tee
Given the velocity it was going the capsule popping off the top basically
turned the rest of the rocket into a supersonic flying brick. The amount of
drag would be enormous and the rest of the ship basically just tore itself
apart. As soon as the oxidizer and fuel combined in the crumbing mess you get
a big explosion.

That was all expected to happen and why they launch these things out over the
ocean. These rockets also usually have a self-destruct mechanism that a range
safety officer can trigger if the rocket starts coming back towards land.

~~~
usrusr
At some point there must have been a mission design meeting for this test
where they decided on fuel levels in the booster. Just as much as needed to
get to max Q? Just like a real launch that would put the capsule into orbit
and land the booster? Something in between that creates a nice fireball but
not too wasteful?

(and on an entirely unrelated note, I really hate watching those parachutes
bounce off each other. I know it must be perfectly safe or else it wouldn't
have been the unquestioned method off choice for at least half a century, but
it looks so uncontrolled it gives me nausea)

~~~
greglindahl
Well, the decision was to fully fuel everything, including the second stage.
Which had no engine.

~~~
Klathmon
And even thought it had no engine, it had a "mass simulator" to replace it.

------
lhoff
Podcast recommendation for all german speakers here. Tim Pritlove recently
interviewed Hans Koenigsmann (Engineer and Vice President of Mission Assurance
at SpaceX since 2011). The episode was released two days ago. They talk about
the history of Space X and the future planes (Mars mission and Starlink). Its
part of the Podcast "Raumzeit".

[https://raumzeit-podcast.de/2020/01/17/rz083-spacex/](https://raumzeit-
podcast.de/2020/01/17/rz083-spacex/)

~~~
_Microft
Very worthwhile if one is interested in rockets and SpaceX in particular. The
interview was summarized in English on the SpaceX subreddit.

[https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/epzayc/german_raumz...](https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/epzayc/german_raumzeit_podcast_with_hans_koenigsmann/feobsfz/)

------
foxyv
It would be cool if this was how SpaceX decommissioned Falcon 9 boosters from
now on. Testing different failure modes and making crew flight safer. Random
tests of stuff like engines exploding and maybe an induced COPV failure mid
flight. Especially since they don't plan on re-using Crew Dragon Capsules.

Then again I don't blame them for not wanting to spend the $50-100M each on
additional tests. But if I were NASA I would commission them since they are so
cheap.

------
sidcool
Seems all went well! Kudos SpaceX

------
astannard
SpaceX above and beyond with its successful voluntary in-flight abort test. I
wonder if Boeing will be doing a similar test?

~~~
rrmm
Boeing isn't planning an in-flight abort test. They selected an approval
regime that relied on simulation and aerodynamics studies. They've already
completed a pad abort test.

~~~
foxyv
_cough_ Starliner Max _cough_

------
lqs469
It's exciting, Space technology development and achievement has been taking
place by a commercial company or organization step by step, It can be freer
and have more possible than NASA days before. Live stream today, and maybe
more can happen next time, it's cool, same as the astronautical tech itself.

------
saberdancer
Was there mention of why they did not do a launch escape while the F5 was at
full throttle? I understand this reduces the risk and was probably deemed to
be good enough of a test, but I was expecting the test to be "worst case
scenario" or in other words, F5 on full power at MaxQ.

~~~
gpm
The Falcon 9 never goes through MaxQ at full throttle, throttling down before
MaxQ and up after MaxQ is part of the normal flight path. This Falcon 9
followed the normal flight path right up to the point where the abort was
artificially induced.

I believe the abort did actually take place at full throttle though, it
happened at the point of max drag which occurs shortly after Max Q, and is
after the rocket has throttled back up. The intent was definitely to trigger
the abort at the worst time during the normal flight path.

~~~
foota
Wouldn't it be good to test whether the abort works in the face of an
unexpected flight path, which could potentially be more stressful?

Although there's probably not much of a difference if they full throttled
shortly after MaxQ and then aborted.

~~~
brianwawok
This test seems more useful? Why put it through a path that can’t happen? If
throttle is out of control and randomly going, that’s a good case to trigger
an abort right then.

~~~
foota
Because if the throttle is out of control then that's exactly the case you'll
be in? One where you're at MaxQ and have throttle at full. The test imo should
be done at the worst possible scenario that the rocket could physically be in
(i.e., no need to test at a speed/stress that is physically impossible to
reach, but what if the rocket starts thrusting unexpectedly in a different
direction or something?)

~~~
brianwawok
If your throttle is out of control, you presume that would trigger an abort.
Instead of waiting until you are at max speed in the wrong part of the flight?

~~~
saberdancer
It can happen at maximum speed. Before you say that Falcon is not at full
throttle when at maximum speed, sure. Let's assume the worst case scenario,
Falcon reaches max q and due to a glitch throttles up to full throttle and
starts veering off course. This is a worst case scenario probably, and I was
surprised that SpaceX did not test this extreme possibility.

That's our point. Testing with the assumption that Falcon accepts throttle
down command from the Dragon seems like a waste of test scenario.

------
mechhacker
4 chutes are currently out and just waiting for splashdown now.

Looks like the test went well.

Edit: Splashdown

------
remote_phone
I watched the Chris Hadfield Masterclass on being an astronaut. It is
wonderful and he is a fantastic speaker and lecturer. He talked about the
actual launch, how nothing is left for chance, and how every second is
accounted for. The astronauts need to fight the effects of the incredible
acceleration and have a plan for literally every second until they reach space
on 7-8 mins. The MasterClass itself is great, totally worth it and Chris
Hadfield is a delight.

------
pugworthy
It's impressive how long they've been doing broadcasts like this. I have
probably watched every one live, starting with the first (failed?) Falcon 1
ones that were shown.

------
2480382841
[https://www.mol.gov.sa/securessl/login.aspx](https://www.mol.gov.sa/securessl/login.aspx)

------
rrmm
The post-test press conference is starting on nasa tv for those interested
(11:50EST).

------
redis_mlc
I know there's a lot of space fanbois here, but the ISS should be de-orbited
ASAP to save money for real space science.

There's no scientific reason for manned spaceflight at this time, and
virtually no science is performed on the ISS.

Go watch NASCAR if you want entertainment thrills.

------
busymom0
That was awesome! Good job SpaceX!

------
chasd00
is it just me or was the water deludge system late at liftoff?

------
hi41
My jaw drops every time I hear about SpaceX and Tesla. How could Elon grasp
two extremely different and difficult technologies and build such amazing
companies within a decade. I have difficulty learning new things. Some
pointers will help. Thank you.

~~~
nojvek
He made his billion from PayPal (software) and really went serious to make a
dent in hardware.

I really wish more billionaires, govts and VCs poured money into serious
hardware and manufacturing.

It really seems like US has lost its edge in manufacturing. 90% of the things
in the mall/online seem to be from China.

The economy may be doing great today but really not a great sign of the
future.

~~~
mft_
According to Wikipedia, he made $165m from the sale of PayPal.

------
pier25
History in the making.

------
hectorology
Saturday morning < Sunday morning

------
shmerl
Great result. One thing stood out, in the commentary they sometimes used feet
and sometimes meters. Better just to stick to metric to avoid the mess.
Reminds me various stories, when mix up between metric and imperial made space
missions fail. So SpaceX teams should have stronger focus on avoiding this.

~~~
JshWright
I think you're confusing the public broadcast commentary with the engineering
that goes into the actual hardware. There are slightly different levels of
rigor involved... (and very different audiences)

~~~
shmerl
I think it should be uniform, until it becomes a habit. Making it lax in one
area can backfire in another.

That's besides the point that someone should be advancing the usage of metric
for the general public, and who is best suited for it, if not someone already
invested in it like SpaceX. Their HUD in the video is already using metric for
example.

~~~
JshWright
Bear in mind that the audience of the webcast is not uniformly comfortable
with metric units. Using both makes sure that everyone has a sense of the
scales involved.

By using them both, it's a good way to give someone who doesn't use metric a
basic understanding of the conversions.

~~~
shmerl
That's the point. In order to make the public comfortable, metric should be
used for them. That's the only way to gain comfort. Not using it only prolongs
the issue.

The government basically gave up on it, leaving metrication in shambles. So
SpaceX is in good position to do something about it.

And using one or another intermittently only adds confusion IMHO, unless you
literally use both for each value which is even more annoying (at least to
me).

~~~
JshWright
It's cool that you're so passionate about this, but bear in mind your intitial
comment was suggesting that SpaceX was risking a mission failure by mixing
units in a broadcast intended for public consumption.

The goalposts seem to have drifted a bit here...

~~~
shmerl
It's both. Presenting to the public and being consistent. If they are training
their own teams to be used to it, it should be consistent everywhere. And
public will benefit from it, like above.

~~~
JshWright
The SpaceX rep on the broadcast was John "Norminal" Insprucker[1]. Pretty sure
he's been sufficiently "trained" in metric units...

[1]: [https://airandspace.si.edu/support/wall-of-honor/col-john-
in...](https://airandspace.si.edu/support/wall-of-honor/col-john-insprucker-
usaf)

~~~
mikeyouse
Good lord, I’ve seen him on the broadcasts before but I had no idea that’s
what his resume looked like. Incredible.

~~~
JshWright
Yeah, he comes across as a super unassuming dude in the webcasts, but he has
definitely "been there, done that" when it comes to putting stuff in space.

------
ianai
Anybody suspect this impacts Tesla stock? Not that it should, but as a herd
reaction.

~~~
greglindahl
My herd reaction is that I am distressed to see this kind of thread in a
SpaceX discussion.

~~~
ianai
We’re here to discuss the latest Musk-backed company’s achievement. There’s a
huge interest in all things Musk. To the point that everything he does seems
widely related - I mean how many people here are rooting for his dream of a
Mars colony? So I asked whether it could affect another Musk company. It’s
related.

~~~
natch
You asked if it could "impact" the stock which is commonly understood as
meaning a downward impact. Even setting aside the fact that they are different
companies, I don't see how a successful demonstration could do that, no. If
anything, if you want to make it about Musk and not the specific companies, it
should give people more confidence in Musk since it went exactly as planned.

~~~
ianai
Impact per google: “2. have a strong effect on someone or something” No
indication of direction. Lacking this distinction, the direction is implicit
from a successful test to be positive.

~~~
natch
I think in a stock market context the word is understood differently, as I
said.

------
soheil
The explosion was unexpected so either they will have to fix what went wrong
there, which in turn will possibly effect the design which would then most
likely need another flight test if you want to be safe enough or they will let
it be as is which would be unsafe?

They expected the splashdown to happen several seconds later than it did. This
could mean the capsule was going faster than it should have before its
parachute deploy or it didn't slow down enough when hitting the water which
would be worse.

Finally the main parachutes where touching each other pretty aggressively it
wouldn't seem than unfathomable that two or more of them get tangled up, I
don't think there is a backup solution for if that happens.

~~~
inamberclad
The explosion was fine and expected. They mentioned this in the livestream,
although it looks like the FTS and not aerodynamic forces. Either way, it
happened after the capsule was well clear.

Regarding splashdown timing, we will see. They've been testing this
extensively in the background, and parachutes have been a pain point all
around.

~~~
soheil
The explosion seemed very much like a controlled detonation and not a
breakdown of the rocket as it falls through the atmosphere as was mentioned in
the livestream so it seemed like an unplanned or unexpected explosion.

~~~
lutorm
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make, on the one hand you say the
explosion looked like a controlled detonation, on the other that it seems
unplanned.

Like others have pointed out: as far as F9 was concerned, the test ended when
Dragon detached. Whatever happened after that point is immaterial to the test,
so to start saying that would require a reflight is nonsense.

~~~
soheil
The plan was an explosion due to free-fall and atmospheric forces. The plan
was not for an explosion due to a controlled detonation. I hope you are able
to delineate between the two and not do a cursory reading of my comment again.

> so to start saying that would require a reflight is nonsense

I said "most likely" and "if you want to be safe enough" I'm not sure why you
assumed I meant "require"

~~~
lutorm
Because you also said "... or they will let it be as is which _would be_
unsafe?"

I think your reception here would be better if you dropped the attitude and
recognized that your comment used pure speculation to imply that the outcome
of the test was negative. Maybe that was not your intent, but then you should
have asked more open-ended questions rather than slant them so obviously
negatively.

