
Dragon V2 Unveil – Webcast - nkoren
http://www.spacex.com/webcast/?
======
ChuckMcM
There haven't been a lot of things that left me in awe in the past couple of
decades but that did. That thing looks like something right out of a movie.
Does anyone have a direct link to the flight testing program?

I agree with others that the vibration environment may be challenging. Most of
the ships and ship mockups I've seen had a lot of work to avoid randomly
hitting switches, it would not do to have an atmospheric bump cause you to
make some mistake in commanding it. Presumably the entire thing can be flown
on automatic so the first flight can be with just flight test dummies rather
than people.

My other initial impression is that it makes NASA's efforts with the Orion
project look somewhat kludgy in comparison. Sort of the 'go kart' versus an
actual car. I'm sure a lot of that is just the resonance that Orion has with
the Apollo capsule from the 60's and the modern look of Dragon 2 but the
difference between propulsive landing vs parachutes is huge. Cost of
operations goes waaay down if you land people on the ground.

I really feel like somebody from the future popped into the present and
'snuck' in design that wouldn't normally be seen for 50 years or so. I am
massively impressed with what they've done so far.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29)

~~~
jccooper
You aren't hitting anything other than "abort" during launch. And for a modern
system, the space of problems where the computer hasn't already done it and
you're not already dead must be pretty small.

It doesn't particularly need to have a "pilot", even. It's entirely capable of
autonomous/ground-controlled operation, as witness the several unmanned Dragon
flights. But it probably makes the passengers feel better to have some token
control. And I suppose it gives them some options if things go wrong.

~~~
BrandonMarc
So in a way, a better metaphor is an elevator, not an airplane. Like you say,
there's very little the occupants can _do_ to properly get the craft where
it's supposed to go, aside from a few basic aspects.

It could be argued the airplane metaphor, and the space shuttle, did more to
hold back progress ... with current technology anyway ('course you don't
necessarily know 'til you try). Perhaps in the future we'll have the ability
to go to/from space with the freedom, abilities, and choices pilots have in
airplanes.

But until changing orbit / inclination / altitude / destination becomes no big
deal (i.e. right now where the majority of your choices are already made for
you), the elevator metaphor is a better fit.

------
moskie
Amazing stuff.

Some screencaps of Musk sitting inside the thing:

[http://i.imgur.com/U2wkPV6.png](http://i.imgur.com/U2wkPV6.png),
[http://i.imgur.com/KHM0Phn.png](http://i.imgur.com/KHM0Phn.png)

21st century spacecraft indeed.

~~~
Osmium
Here's a high-res image of the control panel:

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bo0_-6iCMAAmCL8.jpg:orig](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bo0_-6iCMAAmCL8.jpg:orig)

Very retro chic with some 2001 vibes. Some interesting speculation on the
touch screens and vibration damping over on reddit too:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/26tb6o/dragon_v2_con...](http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/26tb6o/dragon_v2_controls/chuavcu)

~~~
MichaelAO
From the reddit discussion:

"I read an article on the SLS/Orion. They had a problem with vibrations making
screens unreadable. It would have cost millions of dollars to dampen the pod
vibrations so the pilots could read their instruments. Then a scientist
realized that if you changed the monitor refresh rate to match the vibrations,
the screens looked perfectly clear. The million dollar fix was abandoned for a
10 cent accelerometer that adjusted the refresh rate automatically. I see no
reason why spacex couldn't use this solution to make the screens useful in the
rigor of flight."

~~~
tanzam75
As clever as that may be, it is still a workaround for a problem that
shouldn't even exist.

Astronauts on Soyuz and Shenzhou do not have any problem with vibrations
making the screen unreadable. That's because they don't have a vibration
problem. Soyuz and Shenzhou are launched on _liquid_ rocket boosters.

Similarly, astronauts on Dragon won't have any problem seeing the screen due
to vibrations. The Falcon 9 is also an all-liquid rocket.

The reason that SLS/Orion will vibrate so badly is that it uses solid rocket
boosters. The SLS uses SRBs because it is required to use shuttle-derived
components. The shuttle used SRBs because they were cheaper than the proper
solution of designing liquid rocket boosters.

This sums up, in a nutshell, what's wrong with the American space program. A
budget expedient from the 1970s is forcing technical workarounds well into the
21st century.

~~~
criley2
You're being downvoted but you're absolutely correct.

Even today, in the 21st century, the US Congress mandates Solid Rocket
Boosters in all NASA heavy lifters, as a Congressional mandate with strong
oversight on design to ensure compliance.

The reason is purely political. There is no engineering or scientific benefit
to SRB's, not a single one.

But there are benefits to propping up SRB companies with NASA purchase
mandates that we source ICBM stuff from.

------
peeters
This thing looks so...empty! I imagine it will be a welcome change to the
incredibly cramped Soyuz.

Does anybody know if the second row of seating is meant to be replacable? I
assume a 7 person crew won't be the norm for the usual ISS crew rotation
missions, so it seems like that row would usually be better spent on filling
up with supplies.

~~~
dba7dba
> This thing looks so...empty!

I doubt they would stuff cargo into the same space the crew sits in. I think
it wouldn't be that safe. They will probably continue using dedicated Dragon
for resupply.

~~~
InclinedPlane
It'll be crammed full of stuff, that's the nature of ships like that.
Emergency equipment, pressure suits when not in use, backup food supplies, and
so on. Also, delivering cargo to the station currently runs at a cost of
around $50 per gram, give or take, so they're going to make use of every
launch they can to bring things to the station.

~~~
AJ007
Do you know what the cost per gram will be with reusable rockets?

~~~
InclinedPlane
That depends on who the customer is. With NASA there are lots of bureaucratic
hoops to go through which raise costs substantially.

Otherwise it depends on how many flights you can get out of the capsule and
first stage and how expensive operations are. Assuming that operational
overhead is minimal, and assuming that you could get, say, 5-10 flights out of
a Falcon 9 first stage and a Dragon v2, that leaves you with a rough cost per
flight of maybe as low as $20 million for a manned Dragon and maybe less for
an unmanned Dragon. Unfortunately the cargo that NASA tends to send to the ISS
is often quite bulky so the cargo Dragon tends to be more volume constrained
than weight constrained. Potentially the Dragon could take up about 3 tonnes
of cargo, though sometimes they only manage around 2 tonnes due to volume, but
that leaves a cost of around $7 per gram, which is remarkably better but still
extremely expensive. And note that even though a reusable Falcon 9 could
potentially deliver payload to LEO at $1/gram ($1k/kg) or less the extra
overhead of delivering actual, packaged cargo in a pressurized environment to
a station adds significant cost.

To get back to the other point, even at $7k/kg there is substantial incentive
to pack every vessel headed to the space with as much cargo as is reasonably
feasible.

------
Mithaldu
Short version: The V2 has chutes as a fallback, but is meant to land using 8*
rockets and buffered legs.

More: It has seats for 7 people and the controls seem to have taken lessons
from the Tesla cars: Large touchscreens, with fallback buttons for critical
functions.

* corrected from impressions of the animation

~~~
peeters
Bold choice on the touch screens. If there's any time you'd think you'd want
unambiguous, tactile buttons it'd be when you have spine-wrenching vibrations
coursing through your entire body and have 3 Gs pulling your arm back towards
your body.

But I guess pretty much the only thing astronauts are potentially required to
do during launch is abort, and they have the physical buttons for that. So
maybe it's not actually an issue.

~~~
ubernostrum
I'm honestly really surprised at the choice of touch screens; traditionally,
for safety reasons, launches of other spacecraft have involved crew in bulky
pressurized suits that A) don't feel like they fit those seats and B) probably
aren't conducive to the use of touch controls.

I'd be incredibly surprised if they had a suit with the level of fine motor
control in the fingers that touch would require, but I'd also be incredibly
surprised to see crew at launch _not_ in suits.

~~~
phkahler
If the cabin is pressurized why would they need suits? Did SpaceX ever say
anything about this? Imagine the operational cost savings of not needing them
for anything but space walks outside the station.

~~~
kh_hk
Pressurized (lightweight) suits during launch / landing offer an extra
security in case something goes wrong (Soyux 11)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11#Death_of_crew](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11#Death_of_crew)

------
BrandonMarc
I couldn't shake the feeling that Elon seemed a bit nervous. The pressure of
expectations when you're already successful, perhaps.

I wonder: the chairs do _seem_ awkward, especially for someone who's spent 6
months in space (from what I've read, they can barely walk ... or is that less
true these days?). I'm sure SpaceX knows a helluva lot more than me, though.

The inside ... it looks so _roomy_ ... and _pretty_ ... such a far cry from
Soyuz, Apollo, or hell the Shuttle even. Like someone said, a spaceworthy
Tesla, giant touchscreens and all.

Question: let's say an anomaly occurs, and it has to land using the chutes ..
on land. How's that going to feel? Or, will they aim for a coastal area on
purpose, and use the chutes to splash in the water if they have to?

~~~
nardi
Haha, Elon always seems nervous. Have you seen him in other videos? I think
that's just his normal persona.

~~~
azernik
His mild (very suppressed) stutter probably makes him seem more nervous than
he is.

~~~
MPSimmons
I watched this and thought, "If this guy had Robert Downey Jr's presentation
as Tony Stark, he could rule the world."

------
dba7dba
Just an observation. I think Elon is one man who is not motivated and driven
by money.

One who's driven to make money for the sake of having money often ends up not
being happy and often self destruct, because there's always more money to
make.

And then there are those are driven to achieve a goal, other than money or
possession. There aren't many such people around and it's especially
refreshing to see someone who not only has such dreams (other than making
money) but is achieving them.

~~~
tjmc
There's plenty of people around who aren't motivated by money and most of them
have not much of it! The rare thing about Musk is he's someone who made his
fortune (from PayPal) and then went on to pursue some really transformative
goals. Bill Gates is probably another.

~~~
devcpp
Post-Microsoft Bill Gates*

I will never completely excuse him in my mind for what he did as the CEO of
Microsoft in the 90s in the name of profit. No matter how much he gives back.
After all, we still suffer from it today.

------
mikeash
Dragon 2 is reusable. Falcon 9's first stage is going to be ready for reuse
just about any day now. All that's left is the second stage.

Propulsive landing is a big deal. I thought this was going to be along the
lines of, "We added chairs and oxygen, hooray!" And I was all ready to be
excited by _that_. I'm impressed.

------
oska
Video is up now on their official YouTube channel:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQrmDoIRO8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQrmDoIRO8)

------
bayesianhorse
So you can go up and down to the space station again and again? Sounds almost
like the trampolin Russia suggested to the NASA to use for access to the ISS.

------
carbocation
> "This will be the first time that a printed rocket engine sees flight."

Is printing engines a tactic for making return flights from Mars more
plausible?

~~~
krasin
These engines are built from Inconel [1] superalloy, which is very hard for
machining. 3d printing allows to cut the costs, and also enables more
intricate shapes, thus improving the engine efficiency.

1\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel)

~~~
nickff
The space shuttle's engines are made up of a series of thin inconel sheets
sandwiched together, to avoid the problems with machining metals. The most
significant machining issue is drill 'walk', which is not specific to inconel,
and causes non-straight holes on the plate, which could cause uneven mixture
of fuel and oxidizer, thus creating dangerous 'hot-spots'.

------
Shivetya
He would make such a great Bond villain, I wonder if one day they will name
equipment for him? A common trope of science fiction is the naming of ships,
propulsion systems, and other devices, for people from history.

~~~
Karellen
He'd make a scarily effective Bond villain. If he ever grows a goatee and
starts carrying a white cat around, the rest of the world will seriously need
to start worrying.

------
dag11
15 minutes and it hasn't started yet. I wonder what's happening?

Edit: Started at 22 after.

Edit2: Holy cow, it's basically a flying Tesla! This is fantastic. And I love
the redundancy.

------
enraged_camel
Having the original V1 hanging above the audience is a brilliant, _brilliant_
move.

~~~
lutorm
It always hangs there, you'll see it if you go on a tour.

~~~
dave1619
How can one get a SpaceX tour?

------
wuliwong
I get super jazzed by everything SpaceX does, this was no different.

My one question was about the idea that it could just refuel and take off
again. I see two issues. First, it appears that it sustains some pretty
significant damage upon re-entry, I'm guessing there are probably some repairs
needed before relaunching. Second, it seems to launch with some sort of first
stage rocket which is detached and presumably is lost or at very least,
dropped into an ocean with a parachute? So, although the Dragon can land
anywhere, it still needs this other stage to be recovered and attached. With
regards to reusability, it doesn't appear to be a huge leap beyond the space
shuttle.

I'm sure the process of repairing, reattaching, and refueling are more
efficient with the dragon v2 vs the space shuttle but the presentation making
the specific claim that the dragon v2 just needs to be refueled and it can
launch again seemed false.

~~~
smackfu
It all comes down to, "Do you need to tear the thing to pieces between every
flight to do inspections?" SpaceX says they don't, NASA did do that for the
Shuttle (at least for the main engines).

------
skizm
I'm 25, if I join the air force now, do I still have a shot at being an
astronaut if I work my tail off?

~~~
Osmium
Depends what you mean by 'astronaut.' One of the interesting things about the
space shuttle is that it allowed large crews (up to 11, but typically 7) of
which only 2 were absolutely necessary to fly it, so you could have relatively
specialised people (e.g. scientists who were not also pilots) going up into
space. Now, with the Soyuz capsule only having 3 seats, every seat counts
again and we don't have that flexibility anymore. But the Dragon V2 seats 7,
so maybe that's about to change :) and you wouldn't necessarily need to join
the air force at all to get into space!

~~~
mikeash
I wonder if the best bet at this point, if you're starting fresh, might be to
join SpaceX directly rather than shooting for NASA. With all their talk of
Mars, they must be planning to have their own astronauts at some point.

~~~
Osmium
As I understand it, it was actually a point of contention whether a NASA
astronaut or a SpaceX astronaut would fly first. I think they decided on a
NASA astronaut in the end, but it seems like SpaceX definitely has plans in
that direction...

------
phkahler
It's amazing how little propellant is needed for landing vs getting to orbit.

~~~
BrandonMarc
Good point. Why is this so? Or does the friction with the heat-shield count as
part of the "propellant" needed for landing?

I guess with cars, there's gasoline + engine for moving and brakes + air
resistance (a little) for stopping.

------
buro9
Elon Musk is starting to look more like a Thomas Newton (The Man Who Fell To
Earth) than a Tony Stark.

That module immediately made me think of the one David Bowie sat in and that
appears on the front of the album Station to Station.

~~~
andygates
"I just want to go [back] to Mars..."

------
Gravityloss
Looks like a really early mockup. For example, the buttons don't have any
physical accidental press protection. The labels are tiny. All shapes, sizes
and colors are identical.

The seats look that they don't support the crew at high g forces at all. In a
nominal launch that might be ok, but in case of problems, you'd need a better
seat.

No life support systems shown. etc.

------
grecy
Did anyone else catch the bit where Elon said "for docking with the ISS... or
potentially other things" [1]

I wonder what "other things" Elon has in mind.

[1] 7:08 in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPzlQF7ziBQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPzlQF7ziBQ)

~~~
BrandonMarc
... and i thought I heard him say something about it landing on Earth, "or
other places".

Did I hear that right? Does he believe this craft could land elsewhere? A
subsequent version, sure, especially if purpose-built, but this version ...
that would be pretty special.

------
xur17
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what happens to the solar panels that are
shown in the animation when it docks to the ISS? They are disconnected before
returning to earth. All of the stages are reused - are the solar panels thrown
away?

~~~
XorNot
You gotta wonder if you couldn't just keep hooking them up to the ISS. Just
send up more and more solar panels.

~~~
ceejayoz
IIRC Chris Hadfield recently noted in a Reddit IMA that power isn't an
enormously constrained resource for them on the ISS. The hassle of saving and
installing them might not be worth it.

------
richardw
They printed the engines! That has to be up there on the coolest stuff printed
so far.

------
macmac
Does anyone know what the thinking behind the ability to sustain the crew for
several days is? Is this just a step on the way to being able to sustain a
crew for lunar/Mars flights or does it have any immediate utility?

~~~
theguycalledtom
If something goes wrong with the precision manoeuvres on the way to the ISS,
you can get long delays while the orbit is adjusted:
[http://www.space.com/20030-spacex-dragon-space-capsule-
probl...](http://www.space.com/20030-spacex-dragon-space-capsule-problem.html)
I kinda wish they showed off a toilet :P

~~~
exDM69
> If something goes wrong with the precision manoeuvres on the way to the ISS,
> you can get long delays while the orbit is adjusted:
> [http://www.space.com/20030-spacex-dragon-space-capsule-
> probl...](http://www.space.com/20030-spacex-dragon-space-capsule-probl..). I
> kinda wish they showed off a toilet :P

For the past few years, manned missions to the ISS take only 6 hours in
ascent, all the rendez-vous maneuvering is being done in the duration of 4
orbits.

It used to take a few days, though. However, the crews take a pre-flight enema
[0] and go through a diet to avoid having to go #2. There's a story that the
Soyuz toilet has been used only once in ISS missions after a Cosmonaut had
been eating prunes prior to departure back to earth [sorry, can't find a
link].

So for orbital operations to/from the ISS, there's not much use for a space
toilet. So little, that I wouldn't be surprised if there's no toilet at all
and the fallback plan is to soil your pants, as crude as it sounds.

[0] [http://gizmodo.com/5245218/the-trouble-with-space-
toilets](http://gizmodo.com/5245218/the-trouble-with-space-toilets)

~~~
soperj
Not really true, Expedition 35 definite took a couple of days to get to the
ISS.(as per Commander Chris Hadfield's book.)

~~~
exDM69
Soyuz has been using the short ascent only in the past few years. The Progress
shuttle has been doing it longer.

When Hadfield went up, they were still using the older long procedure.

~~~
soperj
He went up on 13 March 2013, so obviously not all the missions in the last few
years.

------
outworlder
"You can just reload propellant and fly again."

While I am sure this has some exaggeration, I wonder what the actual expected
turnaround time is.

~~~
jccooper
Doubtless they will take their time in the beginning, and learn exactly what
it does take to relaunch. (They'll have plenty of time, as their current sole
customer probably won't want more than four a year for at least a few years.)
The Shuttle was originally also intended to be quickly reused, but it failed
spectacularly at doing so. However, the Dragon is not the STS, and SpaceX is
not NASA. It's a much simpler and less compromised vehicle, and when they
discover pain points during recycle, I expect they will be engineered away,
and quickly too. I wouldn't bet against it being "gas-and-go" in 2-3 years (by
which I mean requiring no more than the usual pre-flight checks.)

~~~
XorNot
Well they don't have to deal with the air force asking pony's and unicorns
that they'll never actually want to use or pay for either.

~~~
jccooper
Yeah, that's where the "compromised" is from. STS was killed in the cradle by
politics, and operated its whole life as a zombie. A nearly impossible and
quite capable zombie, but still a zombie. An amazing feat to be sure, but it
would have been better to let it go once it became clear it could meet nothing
like its original goals. An STS2 might have been a decent system, but running
the original so long seems to have damaged the very concept of reusability in
NASA and other space agencies.

But even the best possible government-designed-and-operated system just
doesn't have the right incentives to be really efficient like the SpaceX
system is aiming for. The incentives being "making money" and "Elon really
wants to go to Mars".

------
aunty_helen
Scroll to the image of the seat with the spacex logo embroidered.

We have begun a new chapter of space.

------
lutorm
The suspense is killing me!

------
arrrg
So. How far along is that thing? I assume they never really tested it as a
whole (since that would kind of imply showing it to the world), so there’s
lots of potential for reality crashing into this. Hard. Right now it’s
basically vapourware, right? I mean, I guess they have to show it off, but
this feels more like a concept study than an actual thing.

~~~
Osmium
I think "vapourware" is a bit harsh. They have a roadmap, and so far they've
done pretty well with it. This is the next step.

Tests of the landing mechanism are planned:

[http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/elon-musks-spacex-
plans...](http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/elon-musks-spacex-plans-
dragonfly-landing-tests-n111386)

But considering how well their first-stage landing tests have gone so far,
it's not unreasonable to think they'll manage this too.

~~~
arrrg
Seems pretty accurate to me. Lots of things don’t actually work out.

~~~
ufmace
Vaporware would apply to something that the company clearly doesn't have the
technical skill or financial means to pull of. The Mars One mission is an
excellent example.

SpaceX has already flown multiple missions to the ISS and has demoed soft-
landing their first stage under power. This may not work 100% right now, but
there's every reason to believe that SpaceX has the technical skill, the
financing, and the will to make it work.

