SpaceX NASA returning human spaceflight to United States today (canceled)(spacex.com)
spacex.com
SpaceX NASA returning human spaceflight to United States today (canceled)
https://www.spacex.com/
339 comments
Can someone ELI5 why they sometimes need to have an “instantaneous launch window” that can’t be pushed even by a few minutes?
To visualize one of the constraints (the orbit inclination) -- imagine holding up a hoop around a globe, with the hoop angled at 51.6 degrees. Now start spinning the globe until Florida intersects with the hoop. That is when it has to launch, to be going in the same direction as that hoop.
Spin the globe a bit further, and now you can see that Florida no longer intersects with that hoop. If you were to try to launch at that point, your trajectory would form another ring that intersects with the ISS's orbit, but at a different angle. So it would take quite a bit more propellant to change direction once in space.
Now, you also have to launch so that you intercept the ISS when it is at the proper position on that hoop. If, when you reach the hoop the ISS is half way around the world, you won't get to it. (Technically, you can spend some time at a lower orbit, then raise your orbit at the right time, or adjust the amount of time it takes to get to the right height, but again that messes with the timing of everything and fuel usage).
Spin the globe a bit further, and now you can see that Florida no longer intersects with that hoop. If you were to try to launch at that point, your trajectory would form another ring that intersects with the ISS's orbit, but at a different angle. So it would take quite a bit more propellant to change direction once in space.
Now, you also have to launch so that you intercept the ISS when it is at the proper position on that hoop. If, when you reach the hoop the ISS is half way around the world, you won't get to it. (Technically, you can spend some time at a lower orbit, then raise your orbit at the right time, or adjust the amount of time it takes to get to the right height, but again that messes with the timing of everything and fuel usage).
> Now, you also have to launch so that you intercept the ISS when it is at the proper position on that hoop. If, when you reach the hoop the ISS is half way around the world, you won't get to it. (Technically, you can spend some time at a lower orbit, then raise your orbit at the right time, or adjust the amount of time it takes to get to the right height, but again that messes with the timing of everything and fuel usage).
This is normal, actually. It's part of why it normally takes several days from launch to ISS rendezvous. (Another part is that the trajectory is very carefully calculated to not leave the spacecraft on an intercept course with the ISS if anything breaks) And it takes essentially no fuel - 100m/s of closing rate will let you catch up from halfway around the world in 2-3 days.
This is normal, actually. It's part of why it normally takes several days from launch to ISS rendezvous. (Another part is that the trajectory is very carefully calculated to not leave the spacecraft on an intercept course with the ISS if anything breaks) And it takes essentially no fuel - 100m/s of closing rate will let you catch up from halfway around the world in 2-3 days.
This makes sense. If you aren't in a huge rush to reach your destination and can spend 2-3 days to let your orbit match the ISS. If launch windows were weeks or months apart, a couple days of catch-up orbiting might be okay.
Though, if you can spend that same amount of time sitting on the ground and get there at roughly the same time, you'd waste less resources sustaining the crew in orbit, as well as reducing the "Ugh, are we there yet??" factor by a decent amount.
Though, if you can spend that same amount of time sitting on the ground and get there at roughly the same time, you'd waste less resources sustaining the crew in orbit, as well as reducing the "Ugh, are we there yet??" factor by a decent amount.
Here is a really good explanation of rendezvous using a lower and faster phasing orbit and how faster rendezvous works: https://spaceflight101.com/progress-ms-07/russia-to-introduc...
[deleted]
It depends on the target orbit. For launches to the ISS, you have to launch at the correct instant because even a few minutes later means the ISS is so far ahead it will take much longer, and use more propellant, to rendezvous.
I think they could probably delay a few seconds without too much trouble, but I guess the extra complication of recalculating the rendezvous isn't worth it because most of the time a few seconds won't matter anyway.
I think they could probably delay a few seconds without too much trouble, but I guess the extra complication of recalculating the rendezvous isn't worth it because most of the time a few seconds won't matter anyway.
John Insprucker just talked about this on the webcast and pointed out that with the chilled propellants used by the F9, it's also not possible to wait after prop load has started because the propellants will warm up and change engine performance.
Can you delay the launch window 90 minutes until the next ISS orbit? Maybe you then run into the next on the long list of reasons.
No, because in 90 minutes the cryogenic liquid oxygen would have warmed up too much. The Falcon doesn't have an onboard refrigeration unit; it relies on loading the propellant shortly before launch.
However, "shortly" is also relative, and 90 minutes is not long enough to purge all the fuel from the rocket and refuel it with cold oxygen (it took close to an hour today to de-fuel the rocket), so it can't be cycled in that window.
However, "shortly" is also relative, and 90 minutes is not long enough to purge all the fuel from the rocket and refuel it with cold oxygen (it took close to an hour today to de-fuel the rocket), so it can't be cycled in that window.
The orbit moves because the earth is moving, so it will not be in the same trajectory as planned. This requires a change in fuel requirements as well as programming
In 90 minutes the space station is back at the same point in its orbit, but Kennedy Space Center has rotated ~1500 miles east.
Long list but one of the big ones:
ISS travels at 7.6 km/s. Thats a lot of kms in those few minutes
ISS travels at 7.6 km/s. Thats a lot of kms in those few minutes
At that speed, you could run a marathon in 5.55 seconds.
Around 17,000mph.
A miss is much bigger than a mile.
A miss is much bigger than a mile.
Physical constraints resulting in sub-optimal orbits increasing chance of mission failure or FAA rules limiting options for launch.
According to the stream, the crewed mission has stricter weather requirements for launch and further along the ascent path, in case of an abort. I didn't hear them mention stricter conditions for LOX loading.
As I understand the timing, they scrubbed around T-15:00, and the first stage propellant loading started at T-35:00.
https://www.spacex.com/launches/
https://www.spacex.com/launches/
So is that lightning strike concern limited to the second stage?
I believe that the lightning strike concern is lightning strikes during flight not on the ground. They've got plenty of lightning towards around the rocket on the ground, and if it would be useful they could have easily added more taller ones. They just don't want to load the propellant if there is no chance of launching.
IIRC the exhaust trail aftera a rocket is actually ionised and efectively grounds the rocket in flight, creating a giant lightnjng rod. This was discovered during the Apollo 12 launch and caused serious but thankfulyy not fatal issues. Since then people are rather careful about preventing launches if lightning danger around the launch area is too high.
[deleted]
launch aborted :(
For those who aren't giant space nerds (like me) the very best place to get info on SpaceX and SpaceX launches has always been Reddit's /r/SpaceX[0]. The launch today (like all launches) has a dedicated thread[1] with mods keeping all details up to date, all links that matter organized.
It's 100% not sponsored or run by SpaceX, but honestly it's probably doing a better job than a corporate PR side could manage. Fantastic amount of details on everything in their wiki and posts, and friendly people who answer questions happily.
[0] https://reddit.com/r/spacex
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/glwz6n/rspacex_cctc...
It's 100% not sponsored or run by SpaceX, but honestly it's probably doing a better job than a corporate PR side could manage. Fantastic amount of details on everything in their wiki and posts, and friendly people who answer questions happily.
[0] https://reddit.com/r/spacex
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/glwz6n/rspacex_cctc...
Many reddit communities are like that. Not sure what they did to collect such folks on single place, but reddit is something else.
Well, mostly, they replaced Usenet and a hodge-podge jumble of forum sites running generic interfaces where you have to click to a new page for every 50 comments (or less), which have no comment reply nesting.
Reddit brought a more useful/readable interface, allowed anonymous accounts with no email address, and had a very simple & powerful (if flawed) voting system. This attracted content creators of all kinds, which led to a rapidly growing audience, and it snowballed.
I don't like one company owning all this stuff, but I do love what users in niche subs have created there. With a massive general audience comes better populated niches, excellence riding the coattails of the mediocre. Also, should Condé Nast ever screw the pooch here, plenty of clones are waiting in the wings.
Reddit brought a more useful/readable interface, allowed anonymous accounts with no email address, and had a very simple & powerful (if flawed) voting system. This attracted content creators of all kinds, which led to a rapidly growing audience, and it snowballed.
I don't like one company owning all this stuff, but I do love what users in niche subs have created there. With a massive general audience comes better populated niches, excellence riding the coattails of the mediocre. Also, should Condé Nast ever screw the pooch here, plenty of clones are waiting in the wings.
> Also, should Condé Nast ever screw the pooch here, plenty of clones are waiting in the wings.
I'm really hoping they don't, because I don't think a replacement coulg gain traction as long as reddit is functioning.
I'm really hoping they don't, because I don't think a replacement coulg gain traction as long as reddit is functioning.
> It's 100% not sponsored or run by SpaceX
but it feels like it is sometimes
but it feels like it is sometimes
There are a lot of fanboys in there for sure, but /r/spacex sometimes gets close to industrial espionage.
I watched the first Space Shuttle launch live, I watched Challenger live. I watched the last shuttle launch live. I was sad then, realizing that America was losing launch capability on that day.
I can't tell you how exited I am to watch America's return to launch capability.
Edit: Disappointed at the scrub, but I know a lot of these weather rules were put in place because of Challenger, so I understand. Looking forward to Saturday!
I can't tell you how exited I am to watch America's return to launch capability.
Edit: Disappointed at the scrub, but I know a lot of these weather rules were put in place because of Challenger, so I understand. Looking forward to Saturday!
Sorry to hear you guys haven't had lunch for so long
We need to bring down our national BMI.
The cold war is back, the fashion is back and out of all the things that are back I am glad that the USA is back in space flights.
Wish you the best luck and hope that this will lead to some serious competition. Soyuz is great but we need to do more as species.
Wish you the best luck and hope that this will lead to some serious competition. Soyuz is great but we need to do more as species.
Yes, but is manned missions really going to achieve much. I thought there was much differing opinion about the value/lack of value of manned missions among the space community itself.
The US kind of has to preserve at least a minimal manned spaceflight capability in case we really need it for something in the future. If we completely lose the infrastructure, supply chains, and institutional knowledge it will become impossible to restart from scratch in a reasonable time frame. Think about it like paying for an insurance policy. It's worth doing even if it eats into the budget for unmanned satellites and probes.
I don't think the US as a nation (or anyone in particular, for that matter) "has to" do anything. As usual, there are simply various diverse interests - military, commercial, scientific - and it's up to these interested parties to do what and when they think benefits them.
Yes. GP said "kind of has to" and then went on to explain the incentives.
By the way, NASA style is to avoid using "manned" and use a term like "crewed" or "piloted" instead. The Manned Spaceflight Center is an exception.
See https://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html
See https://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html
Those appositive Oxford commas, though:
> The exception to the rule is when referring to the Manned Spaceflight Center (also known as the Manned Spacecraft Center), the predecessor of Johnson Space Center in Houston, or to any other historical program name or official title that included “manned”
> The exception to the rule is when referring to the Manned Spaceflight Center (also known as the Manned Spacecraft Center), the predecessor of Johnson Space Center in Houston, or to any other historical program name or official title that included “manned”
So progressive. Now if they could only man a spacecraft
> do more as species
Space exploration and exploitation is awesome, but shouldn't the first items on the "do more as species" todo list be about taking care of earth?
Space exploration and exploitation is awesome, but shouldn't the first items on the "do more as species" todo list be about taking care of earth?
Why is this question never raised whenever the latest web company raises X million dollars that could’ve funded green tech?
It never factors in to the conversation. No one brings up a species wide imperatives so its not countered with a question of priority.
We raise the question if the space deserves exploration fairly frequently here. For some reason, neither commercial advantages - certain things, like global communications, navigation, imaging can be conveniently done with satellites - not traditional expansion of species habitat reasons - though I'm sure for each Columbus crew there were some loudly wondering why sail at all - serve as a good enough explanation.
Of course it is worth to explore space. It does not "deserve" to be explored, it just pays off. There is huge amount of knowledge and resources to be had.
Of course robotic missions are better for exploration than manned mission. Manned missions costs so much we could do so many more robotic missions for the same cost. People are absolutely not required in space.
We send people into space because we can and we want. Because we keep separate track of record of things achieved by actual human beings. That's why we list who beat 100m or marathon record even though we have machines to move as around much faster. Because standing a human on a mountain, sea bed, or a piece of rock in space is an important step for us to prove we can command nature around us.
Of course robotic missions are better for exploration than manned mission. Manned missions costs so much we could do so many more robotic missions for the same cost. People are absolutely not required in space.
We send people into space because we can and we want. Because we keep separate track of record of things achieved by actual human beings. That's why we list who beat 100m or marathon record even though we have machines to move as around much faster. Because standing a human on a mountain, sea bed, or a piece of rock in space is an important step for us to prove we can command nature around us.
> Of course robotic missions are better for exploration than manned mission. Manned missions costs so much we could do so many more robotic missions for the same cost. People are absolutely not required in space.
Can you imagine being wrong on that? That people can and are cheaper than robots for certain important aspects? That accomplished space robot makers would disagree that robots are at least universally cheaper - or better in other aspects?
> We send people into space because we can and we want. Because we keep separate track of record of things achieved by actual human beings. That's why we list who beat 100m or marathon record even though we have machines to move as around much faster. Because standing a human on a mountain, sea bed, or a piece of rock in space is an important step for us to prove we can command nature around us.
I suspect you're mixing several significantly different things into one here. Token achievements, like current champion in sport X, are one thing. Genuinely advancing, say, science - like on ISS - is another.
Can you imagine being wrong on that? That people can and are cheaper than robots for certain important aspects? That accomplished space robot makers would disagree that robots are at least universally cheaper - or better in other aspects?
> We send people into space because we can and we want. Because we keep separate track of record of things achieved by actual human beings. That's why we list who beat 100m or marathon record even though we have machines to move as around much faster. Because standing a human on a mountain, sea bed, or a piece of rock in space is an important step for us to prove we can command nature around us.
I suspect you're mixing several significantly different things into one here. Token achievements, like current champion in sport X, are one thing. Genuinely advancing, say, science - like on ISS - is another.
People are not cheaper in space, by no means. Robotic things can be easily prepared well in advance, on planet Earth, where sitting a bunch of programmers by the computer is much cheaper than training and sending actual bag of mostly water into space.
If you are still not convinced, we have sent a robotic missions to almost every larger body in solar system, yet we are excited today we can send two people to LEO. Just look at costs involved...
Humans cannot do anything in space without tools and tools in space is a bunch of electronic signals that are either processed locally or sent to Earth. The things people do in space is either trivia (yeah, have fun with this ball of water in zero-G) or studying behavior of human body and mind in space to be able to send more humans to do the same.
We have learned how to do very complicated things without humans involved. Hovering a craft in Mars atmosphere? Orienting craft with extreme precision? Running complicated manouvers at the ends of solar system?
Look at missions which are only possible because we can send a craft on decades' long journey. If people were necessary we would not be able to do anything of that. Any human mission is limited to short hops from Earth to Moon, maybe Mars, until we advance our science and technology way, way past current level.
Sending people to space isn't really advancing science (except studying how people fare in space). It is another token achievement. There isn't physics we are learning IN ORDER TO or BECAUSE we are sending people to space. Physics is advanced by physicists. There might be some technological advancement necessary to send humans that would not be necessary for robotic missions, that's all, really.
Take a close look at what people in space are doing. Find anything that requires humans in space?
Don't get me wrong. I am all for human presence in space. Just be realistic about why we are doing it.
If you are still not convinced, we have sent a robotic missions to almost every larger body in solar system, yet we are excited today we can send two people to LEO. Just look at costs involved...
Humans cannot do anything in space without tools and tools in space is a bunch of electronic signals that are either processed locally or sent to Earth. The things people do in space is either trivia (yeah, have fun with this ball of water in zero-G) or studying behavior of human body and mind in space to be able to send more humans to do the same.
We have learned how to do very complicated things without humans involved. Hovering a craft in Mars atmosphere? Orienting craft with extreme precision? Running complicated manouvers at the ends of solar system?
Look at missions which are only possible because we can send a craft on decades' long journey. If people were necessary we would not be able to do anything of that. Any human mission is limited to short hops from Earth to Moon, maybe Mars, until we advance our science and technology way, way past current level.
Sending people to space isn't really advancing science (except studying how people fare in space). It is another token achievement. There isn't physics we are learning IN ORDER TO or BECAUSE we are sending people to space. Physics is advanced by physicists. There might be some technological advancement necessary to send humans that would not be necessary for robotic missions, that's all, really.
Take a close look at what people in space are doing. Find anything that requires humans in space?
Don't get me wrong. I am all for human presence in space. Just be realistic about why we are doing it.
Humans can fix a broken spacecraft better than robots. That's one of the main reasons we've sent humans up.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing/index.ht...
Would it be cheaper to build a replacement scope and launch it instead?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing/index.ht...
Would it be cheaper to build a replacement scope and launch it instead?
We can send half a dozen robotic missions for the price of one carrying people. Just send two spacecraft for redundancy.
As to Hubble, that is pretty bad example. If people were present with Hubble they would be able to do exactly nothing. Everything was prepared on Earth and only then sent to space.
Also, the cost of servicing mission was almost as much as it would cost to make a copy of Hubble. The cost of servicing mission was reported 250M and the cost of sending Hubble was reported 4.7B but from what I remember most of this was R&D, making software, tools, developing plans, etc. A lot of spare parts for Hubble were already available (it is typical to have copy of everything on Earth for debugging and so on).
Robotic missions have the option of being scrapped and sent again which is not really an option for human missions.
As to Hubble, that is pretty bad example. If people were present with Hubble they would be able to do exactly nothing. Everything was prepared on Earth and only then sent to space.
Also, the cost of servicing mission was almost as much as it would cost to make a copy of Hubble. The cost of servicing mission was reported 250M and the cost of sending Hubble was reported 4.7B but from what I remember most of this was R&D, making software, tools, developing plans, etc. A lot of spare parts for Hubble were already available (it is typical to have copy of everything on Earth for debugging and so on).
Robotic missions have the option of being scrapped and sent again which is not really an option for human missions.
> resources to be had
We have all the resources we need here on Earth.
We have all the resources we need here on Earth.
Apparently not everybody agrees with you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15248413
These things don't have to be mutually exclusive. Unless you create an AI to build paperclips, of course.
In fact, if they are mutually exclusive it’d be indicative of incredible mismanagement. There are enough people for us to be able to do both, and nobody benefits from reallocating rocket scientists to things that aren’t rocket science.
Why not? Rocket scientists can work on fuel efficient cars and airplanes.
And rocket science is only one small part of the overal industrial effort of launching rockets.
And rocket science is only one small part of the overal industrial effort of launching rockets.
> Rocket scientists can work on fuel efficient cars
In all honesty, that's like saying that Jack the Ripper could work as a surgeon.
In all honesty, that's like saying that Jack the Ripper could work as a surgeon.
I think as a species, it should be possible for us to do more than one thing at a time.
All efforts have diminishing returns. If the tiny amount of resources our species spends on space exploration were re-directed towards taking care of Earth you wouldn't see any difference there. And also, efforts in space benefit the Earth a lot through things like comms and weather satellites and by learning more about our come by comparing it with other planets. Comparing the atmosphere of Earth with that of Venus and Mars, for instance, told us a lot about the importance of the ozone layer and we might have only just stopped the production of CFCs if it hadn't been for space exploration.
https://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/why-explore-space-...
in general, there's a lot of items on the urgent list, there's so much money to go around and you don't want to invest everything in endeavour X only for Y to be worse and catch you by surprise.
so you allocate some budget to secondary research as well. NASA doesn't even burn that much in the grand scheme of things.
in general, there's a lot of items on the urgent list, there's so much money to go around and you don't want to invest everything in endeavour X only for Y to be worse and catch you by surprise.
so you allocate some budget to secondary research as well. NASA doesn't even burn that much in the grand scheme of things.
First, yes (or similar terrestrial activities). Only, definitely not.
This is like parents telling their children "If you have time to goof off and play games, you should have time to study harder / do the dishes / mow the lawn". This isn't an either /or, also even if you stopped doing X completely, and did only Y, you still won't be done with Y. Because there is always more Y to do. So as long as Y isn't fully achievable, might as do some X also.
Sure, that should be a higher priority. Is there a sentiment somewhere that space exploration is a higher or more urgent priority than green energy?
Elon seems to be in favor of both space exploration and green energy and other ways to generally improve the planet and human life. Comcast vs Starlink, hmmm, I wonder which?
There are over 7 billion people on the planet. We can do a few things at once.
What fashion?
Whom exactly is this Cold War against?
Anyone with large stockpiles of nuclear weapons that isn't vested in the success of the global financial system.
[deleted]
As much as many US "hawks" seems to want it, I think another cold war is one of the least desirable thing to start now.
As long as other nuclear powers exist - there will be cold wars.
There are two alternatives...
1. Non-nuclear hot wars.
2. A single global authority.
There are two alternatives...
1. Non-nuclear hot wars.
2. A single global authority.
We didn't have a cold war last 20 years, except some in the US still maintaining a cold war mentality.
Notably, there was a single global hegemon that bombed and invaded countries at-will during that time period.
Now another pole rises in China and so a return to a "cold war" like system is possible. Personally, I hope we can come to an arms control limitation with China. In 20-30 years, even force parity will be charity on their part.
Now another pole rises in China and so a return to a "cold war" like system is possible. Personally, I hope we can come to an arms control limitation with China. In 20-30 years, even force parity will be charity on their part.
> We didn't have a cold war last 20 years
That's solely because the USSR collapsed and Russia is only a regional power, not a superpower. Russia has a small, weak, backwards economy that is of modest global consequence. It severely limits their capabilities. Russia's position on the global stage is still eroding. Had the USSR somehow survived and continued to this day, the Cold War would not have ended. Putin as an authoritarian dictator-for-life is unable to push his view of how things should be, onto very much of the rest of the world. Putin is boxed in, contained, by Russia's various weaknesses.
The contrast could hardly be greater with China, which is clearly going to be far beyond anything the USSR ever accomplished in most every sense (from financial/economy to technology to military to global influence).
China under Xi has chosen an aggressive authoritarianism domestically and a so-called Wolf Warrior policy internationally. They continue to push forward ever faster in those directions, rather than turning back. The fundamentally conflicting world-views, democracy vs dictatorship, market economies vs arbitrary command economy, liberal vs regressive, human rights vs lack of human rights, is why we're entering cold war round two. China's position under Xi on nearly everything is fundamentally incompatible with the rest of the world continuing to make liberal progress. Something has to give when those two visions meet, and that thing will guarantee a new cold war that will split the planet in half.
Go down the long list of liberal ideas & topics, and look at where China stands, and then consider where the world should ideally stand. China stands opposite nearly every liberal idea you can name. There's your cold war, and nothing can stop it short of China resuming the brief period of modest liberalization they underwent before Xi took over - or the world giving up all the liberal progress it has made post WW2.
That's solely because the USSR collapsed and Russia is only a regional power, not a superpower. Russia has a small, weak, backwards economy that is of modest global consequence. It severely limits their capabilities. Russia's position on the global stage is still eroding. Had the USSR somehow survived and continued to this day, the Cold War would not have ended. Putin as an authoritarian dictator-for-life is unable to push his view of how things should be, onto very much of the rest of the world. Putin is boxed in, contained, by Russia's various weaknesses.
The contrast could hardly be greater with China, which is clearly going to be far beyond anything the USSR ever accomplished in most every sense (from financial/economy to technology to military to global influence).
China under Xi has chosen an aggressive authoritarianism domestically and a so-called Wolf Warrior policy internationally. They continue to push forward ever faster in those directions, rather than turning back. The fundamentally conflicting world-views, democracy vs dictatorship, market economies vs arbitrary command economy, liberal vs regressive, human rights vs lack of human rights, is why we're entering cold war round two. China's position under Xi on nearly everything is fundamentally incompatible with the rest of the world continuing to make liberal progress. Something has to give when those two visions meet, and that thing will guarantee a new cold war that will split the planet in half.
Go down the long list of liberal ideas & topics, and look at where China stands, and then consider where the world should ideally stand. China stands opposite nearly every liberal idea you can name. There's your cold war, and nothing can stop it short of China resuming the brief period of modest liberalization they underwent before Xi took over - or the world giving up all the liberal progress it has made post WW2.
As long as the meaning of "Cold War" stays poorly defined, there will be no point to this conversation
Sticks and stones.
Disarmament on the global scale, sure. Won't go that far, for practical reasons - we'll still need knives and fusils de chasse.
Well, the human species first and foremost should be seen as consisting of individuals, and while being deeply excited about and appreciative of all the high-tech endeavors, I keep asking myself, how much they are - and for how long they will continue to be - dependent on a near-slave labor of millions of said individuals around the world. (It's still there, on a massive scale, in spite of automation, machines, robots, the AI and what not we take as a given these days.)
That's not going away until we robotize everything. We no longer hunt, all the genetic material for hunting left in us is now just an artefact, we no longer ride horses for transportation, we no longer loose contact from our friends and families for prolonged periods, we no longer do many many things. I think we no longer eat meat too - I mean sure we eat meat but for most of us meat is this thing in the supermarket and we don't have an intuitive understanding from where it is coming from.
Something like that needs to hapen with robotics before we no longer have people who do the undesirable jobs.
There's this movie "Downsizing" about people getting miniaturized and live lavish lives as their material needs get smaller. It's not a very good movie but what stike me in the move was that even in that kind of society they needed to have miniaturized people for the labour that no one wants to do and they had to have slums and so on so that the society works. I find this very realistic because even though we have rich countries and poor countries, we still have to have income gradient everywhere so that some people will do the jobs that others don't want to do.
I don't think that this will go away without eliminating the need for near slave labour.
Something like that needs to hapen with robotics before we no longer have people who do the undesirable jobs.
There's this movie "Downsizing" about people getting miniaturized and live lavish lives as their material needs get smaller. It's not a very good movie but what stike me in the move was that even in that kind of society they needed to have miniaturized people for the labour that no one wants to do and they had to have slums and so on so that the society works. I find this very realistic because even though we have rich countries and poor countries, we still have to have income gradient everywhere so that some people will do the jobs that others don't want to do.
I don't think that this will go away without eliminating the need for near slave labour.
Does anyone else feel super excited?
I guess this was the feeling my parents had when they watched men landing on the Moon...
I'll admit I went and looked at SpaceX open positions...
There are tons of software openings! If you're excited about space, go check out https://www.spacex.com/careers.
[deleted]
I do that every other month
> Does anyone else feel super excited? I guess this was the feeling my parents had when they watched men landing on the Moon...
Very! I couldn't sleep last night; I haven't had this feeling since i was at the Mars Desert Research Station, and Falcon Heavy launch before that!
Its kind of bitter sweet as I'd prefer to be at Hawthorne HQ or the Texas launch facility for this, though. The Cape would be even better, but still, I wanted to see this with the crew(s) so much.
Very! I couldn't sleep last night; I haven't had this feeling since i was at the Mars Desert Research Station, and Falcon Heavy launch before that!
Its kind of bitter sweet as I'd prefer to be at Hawthorne HQ or the Texas launch facility for this, though. The Cape would be even better, but still, I wanted to see this with the crew(s) so much.
(looks like they scrubbed today's launch...)
I was never really excited about space shuttle launches when I was kid. After the challenger disaster (i was in middle school at the time and remember my science teacher in tears), I just didn't care about space at all.
But something happened watching those two falcon boosters land... i don't know, i got real emotional. Yes, I'm excited.
I was never really excited about space shuttle launches when I was kid. After the challenger disaster (i was in middle school at the time and remember my science teacher in tears), I just didn't care about space at all.
But something happened watching those two falcon boosters land... i don't know, i got real emotional. Yes, I'm excited.
Today is a melancholy feeling. Happy to see SpaceX sending people to space, but sad a decade was lost.
EDIT: I spoke about that we had a regression, I meant that NASA lost a capability and just got it back.
EDIT: I spoke about that we had a regression, I meant that NASA lost a capability and just got it back.
This is actually a brand new capability for NASA: human spaceflight that isn't ruinously expensive.
Federal government has no limits to spending.
This isn't about cost, it's about privatizing space the same way the internet was privatized. Take technology developed in the public sector and allow the private sector to take it.
With the privatization of space, you will get both the same upsides and downsides of privatization.
The only difference between the past, where NASA paid private contractors to build Apollo and the Shuttle is now they are paying a private contractor (SpaceX) but SpaceX gets to sell the tech for others to use besides the government.
This isn't about cost, it's about privatizing space the same way the internet was privatized. Take technology developed in the public sector and allow the private sector to take it.
With the privatization of space, you will get both the same upsides and downsides of privatization.
The only difference between the past, where NASA paid private contractors to build Apollo and the Shuttle is now they are paying a private contractor (SpaceX) but SpaceX gets to sell the tech for others to use besides the government.
There hasn't been a regression, but priorities changed. NASA is a government agency and is thus subject to politics. But make no mistake, we are ahead of where we were in the 1960's, both technologically and organizationally (i.e. a private company achieving spaceflight). This is unequivocally a step forward.
Our parents didn't have privately-owned reusable spaceflight.
Just wait till you see Starship.
Just wait till you see Starship.
A decade? More than four decades. The shuttle was never really about anything else than near earth orbits, this is the first time in a very long time that we are just possibly looking to expand the envelope.
I understand this sentiment, but if SpaceX pulls this off, it's going to be an order of magnitude cheaper and more sustainable than the incredibly awesome but one-off and flashy Apollo (or even shuttle) missions.
Crew Dragon is not visually BIGGER than a Saturn V, but it is in a lot of ways a firmer footstep into space than we've ever taken before. SpaceX's program isn't going to dry up as soon as the cold war is over, and we stop devoting 5% of GDP to beating the Soviets. This is for real.
Crew Dragon is not visually BIGGER than a Saturn V, but it is in a lot of ways a firmer footstep into space than we've ever taken before. SpaceX's program isn't going to dry up as soon as the cold war is over, and we stop devoting 5% of GDP to beating the Soviets. This is for real.
> it's going to be an order of magnitude cheaper
Soyuz is $60m per passenger I think? Are they saying dragon would be $6m per passenger per launch? I find that hard to believe...
Soyuz is $60m per passenger I think? Are they saying dragon would be $6m per passenger per launch? I find that hard to believe...
Soyuz has done a good job of making spaceflight routine, but unfortunately it's a bit of a dead end (if only for political / organizational reasons, but also the technology hasn't been updated in decades).
I was directly comparing to the Shuttle, which cost more like $450mm per launch.
And yeah, maybe Crew Dragon won't drop to $6mm, but Starship (next) pretty plausibly could, if it works.
I was directly comparing to the Shuttle, which cost more like $450mm per launch.
And yeah, maybe Crew Dragon won't drop to $6mm, but Starship (next) pretty plausibly could, if it works.
The RD-180 is an extremely high performance engine. It first flew in 2000.
I think that comment was aimed at the architecture. Soon all non-reusable systems will be out of date.
You cut off the bit where it was made clear that was in comparison to the Apollo and Shuttle missions. Please don’t knowingly take quotes out of context and use them like that. It’s really unpleasant behaviour.
Untrue, because:
60 years ago was 1960.
There were no space stations to dock with.
If your parents were American: no Americans had been in space.
But most importantly rockets were not reusable. That is why this has never been done before.
60 years ago was 1960.
There were no space stations to dock with.
If your parents were American: no Americans had been in space.
But most importantly rockets were not reusable. That is why this has never been done before.
Untrue
Love the new "Space" suits and the touch screen panel inside the capsule. This is going to be amazing. My prayers with the brave astronauts.
Is the touch screen usable during lift-off / landing? I'm thinking gravity (4+g?) and trepidations is making it hard to touch a specific spot.
Or, maybe there isn't much to do manually during this phase, and for the little things there are some classic controls.
Or, maybe there isn't much to do manually during this phase, and for the little things there are some classic controls.
It's both. They have a handle below the screen precisely for this reason. [1] You can grab it and press the buttons below/tap the lower part of the screen above with your thumb. This seems much more reasonable and pragmatic than the sci-fi looking mockup they originally presented. [2] Although my understanding is that it's probably not a huge problem, because Soyuz introduced the stick to push the buttons only in its later variants.
Also, judging from the photos, they seem to have their button covers supported by the frame. In 2003, there was an incident when a cosmonaut inadvertently fired RCS thrusters on the Soyuz attached to the station, simultaneously pushing several buttons with his foot while loading the spacecraft with cargo to be returned to Earth, crushing the protective caps that were pressing against the (relatively flimsy) case. The thrusters fired for quite some time until a ground operator noticed it and turned them off remotely. After that, the covers in Soyuz were redesigned to press against the frame. Seems like that incident has been learned from in Crew Dragon as well.
[1] https://imgur.com/KyAaQS0
[2] https://imgur.com/pTYfAew
Also, judging from the photos, they seem to have their button covers supported by the frame. In 2003, there was an incident when a cosmonaut inadvertently fired RCS thrusters on the Soyuz attached to the station, simultaneously pushing several buttons with his foot while loading the spacecraft with cargo to be returned to Earth, crushing the protective caps that were pressing against the (relatively flimsy) case. The thrusters fired for quite some time until a ground operator noticed it and turned them off remotely. After that, the covers in Soyuz were redesigned to press against the frame. Seems like that incident has been learned from in Crew Dragon as well.
[1] https://imgur.com/KyAaQS0
[2] https://imgur.com/pTYfAew
I would imagine they would have control lockouts as well. Not something super complicated/time consuming to disengage, but something to prefect that exact scenario from happening.
Yes, the lockouts were in place during that incident too, but for several good reasons they are non-modal - you have to hold two buttons at the same time to trigger some critical operations like manual RCS controls. Which is exactly what happened, so the confirmation procedure had to be changed as well.
Thanks for the informative comment & 2003 story!
I have listened to a podcast about the F-35. It has touchscreens but they also put a lot of the critical functions onto the stick so the touchscreen doesn't need to be used when things are shaking. I imagine it's the same here. The astronauts probably don't have much to do during a launch and can't do much when things go wrong.
Can't be worse than touchscreens in a tank: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a1908...
If you watch the livestream, the UI elements are much larger on the touch screens than would be possible if there was a dedicated physical button for every possible function. If precision is a concern, then these screens are safer.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2floxq/are_there_co...
If I remember right, all the important controls are done with buttons and a joystick, while h touch screens are only for informational displays.
If I remember right, all the important controls are done with buttons and a joystick, while h touch screens are only for informational displays.
There really isn't a whole lot you can do during lift-off/landing anyways. Main thing is the abort handle and that is pre-programmed.
There's physical buttons and handles as well for manual abort and what not.
The space suit looks like it's made for a Halloween party. It looks kind of not flexible and fragile.
The touch screen panel is surely very cool.
The touch screen panel is surely very cool.
Right? Reading some of the comments here I thought I was going crazy - the suits look like they were made for a 2003 made-for-tv movie.
Boeing suits look WAY better imo
Boeing suits look WAY better imo
At first I didn't really care for the SpaceX suit because I liked the raw look of the old NASA suits. But looking at it more, it reminds me of motorcycle leathers and that sleek look you get when your gear fits just right.
Not a fan of Boeing suits tbh, it looks a bit like an arts and crafts project.
Boeing suit: http://www.boeing.com/features/2017/01/space-suit-01-17.page
Not a fan of Boeing suits tbh, it looks a bit like an arts and crafts project.
Boeing suit: http://www.boeing.com/features/2017/01/space-suit-01-17.page
Very much agree about old NASA suits - especially the orange shuttle ones.
I think it's important to discriminate between what the spacex suits look like in stylized prototypes and actually on people. Take this image for example: https://sm.pcmag.com/t/pcmag_uk/news/n/nasa-space/nasa-space...
I think it's important to discriminate between what the spacex suits look like in stylized prototypes and actually on people. Take this image for example: https://sm.pcmag.com/t/pcmag_uk/news/n/nasa-space/nasa-space...
I had to search. Yeah, Boeing's look like a real space suit.
[deleted]
Probably made from leftover Tesla upholstery :).
I bet one day these damn panels are gonna kill a crew.
Non haptic controls in critical systems like cars, planes, and rockets are an insane fad.
Non haptic controls in critical systems like cars, planes, and rockets are an insane fad.
I agree for cars and planes, but for spacecraft, the crew doesn't really need to "keep their eyes on the road," so to speak (and it's not like the spacecraft controls can be done without looking, anyway, like turning up the radio).
Comparing to Apollo, I can imagine that being able to impose some hierarchy on the controls could be beneficial (rather than having all 566 switches laid out across the cabin), and the reliability is probably better than one dedicated switch per control, since the control can be used on any of the several touch screens.
Apollo 14 nearly failed due to a faulty switch. Apollo 12 was saved by flipping a switch that was not well known. Are there other incidents where the controls were critical? In general it seems like when the astronauts are in a hurry you've probably already got major issues, and being able to find the control out of the hundreds (or thousands) is probably more important than being able to flip it with your eyes closed.
Comparing to Apollo, I can imagine that being able to impose some hierarchy on the controls could be beneficial (rather than having all 566 switches laid out across the cabin), and the reliability is probably better than one dedicated switch per control, since the control can be used on any of the several touch screens.
Apollo 14 nearly failed due to a faulty switch. Apollo 12 was saved by flipping a switch that was not well known. Are there other incidents where the controls were critical? In general it seems like when the astronauts are in a hurry you've probably already got major issues, and being able to find the control out of the hundreds (or thousands) is probably more important than being able to flip it with your eyes closed.
They have real buttons for all the important things, including a large "abort" lever.
I'm thinking the same thing.
SpaceX isn't to the point in this endeavor where they should be worrying about making things look "sexy". If there isn't an objective improvement in doing something in a non-flight-tested way then I'd be highly suspicious.
SpaceX isn't to the point in this endeavor where they should be worrying about making things look "sexy". If there isn't an objective improvement in doing something in a non-flight-tested way then I'd be highly suspicious.
Though I agree making the interior sexy is not particularly important. I think a large portion of SpaceX’s success thus far is due to making space sexy and interesting to the public again.
Part of their mission is to inspire the next generation. So if it doesn't add to the cost or make it more hazardous, making it look good / futuristic can have a positive payoff if some 10 year old kid looks at it and decides to go into a STEM field and invent something cool.
Astronauts are going to wear the pressure suits with gloves, so it's hard to have such controls anyway. Touchscreens are fine when they are replacing MFD side buttons, which aren't typically haptic to begin with. (as well as most buttons on the Soyuz panel, for example)
This. Maybe I'm just ignorant about the reliability of the screens that they're using, but those sure scream single point of failure to me.
I agree and would add that we’ve gotten very used to touchscreens on our very multi-purposed phones and tablets.
Navigation is a fairly fixed function. I doubt these astronauts are going to installing new apps on their way to orbit...
Interestingly offshore sailboat racers (IMOCA 60 class for instance) prefer keyboards and thumb ball mice. They’re not pulling g’s, but they experience some pretty extreme motion from waves.
Navigation is a fairly fixed function. I doubt these astronauts are going to installing new apps on their way to orbit...
Interestingly offshore sailboat racers (IMOCA 60 class for instance) prefer keyboards and thumb ball mice. They’re not pulling g’s, but they experience some pretty extreme motion from waves.
Not all navigation is created equal. When navigating in a car or boat, you need to be able to look ahead and pay attention. Therefore physical control are better because you can use them without looking at them.
That's not the case in a space ship. Additionally, piloting a space craft is infinitely more complicated. Just take a look at the Apollo 11 control module[1]. I think having a single place where you receive all your information and react to it is way better than having to memorize the location and function of thousands of physical elements.
[1] https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/apollo-11-3....
That's not the case in a space ship. Additionally, piloting a space craft is infinitely more complicated. Just take a look at the Apollo 11 control module[1]. I think having a single place where you receive all your information and react to it is way better than having to memorize the location and function of thousands of physical elements.
[1] https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/apollo-11-3....
Man if only they had 2 of the most experience pilots in the world that could test and validate ever one of the design decisions and could influence the design to their liking.
If those guys had also space flight experience and could review all the engineering done on the capsule, that would be the way to do it.
Oh, that is exactly what happens.
If those guys had also space flight experience and could review all the engineering done on the capsule, that would be the way to do it.
Oh, that is exactly what happens.
Elon has fascination for sci-fi aesthetics so no matter what, he is going to shoe horn it in.
Sci-fi UI/UX was developed in a short time under pressure when movies were being made. The authors did not consider literally anything about the implications such as ergonomics, cost, reliability, discoverability, etc. Literally zero research behind it. It was not an engineering project by any stretch of the meaning.
Sci-fi aesthetic is the cancer of our society propelled by big budget films and cultural impact worldwide. It has absolutely no place in space exploration.
All this is decoration and marketing. Personally, I also hate the new space suit design, it looks like a movie set than those badass suits astronauts used to wear. They screamed of technical prowess, not aesthetics. Emerging aesthetics were absolutely badass: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Tim_Kopr...
SpaceX/NASA are preparing the suiting up process right now. It looks like a low budget bad sci-fi movie: https://i.imgur.com/MzdPwD6.png
Sci-fi UI/UX was developed in a short time under pressure when movies were being made. The authors did not consider literally anything about the implications such as ergonomics, cost, reliability, discoverability, etc. Literally zero research behind it. It was not an engineering project by any stretch of the meaning.
Sci-fi aesthetic is the cancer of our society propelled by big budget films and cultural impact worldwide. It has absolutely no place in space exploration.
All this is decoration and marketing. Personally, I also hate the new space suit design, it looks like a movie set than those badass suits astronauts used to wear. They screamed of technical prowess, not aesthetics. Emerging aesthetics were absolutely badass: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Tim_Kopr...
SpaceX/NASA are preparing the suiting up process right now. It looks like a low budget bad sci-fi movie: https://i.imgur.com/MzdPwD6.png
The Crew Dragon touchscreen monitors compensate for vibration by oscillating the image, enhancing readability especially during reentry. Analog gauges are unable to do that.
To say 'sci-fi aesthetic is the cancer of our society' is empty hyperbole. The sci-fi aesthetic mirrors the age in which we live. Additionally, which sci-fi aesthetic is so ruinous? Is it Star Wars with all it's switch, levers, and knobs? Is it 2001 and Star Trek with display monitors everywhere? Is it Blade Runner or Alien with a decayed future? What is this cancer causing your histrionic invective?
To say 'sci-fi aesthetic is the cancer of our society' is empty hyperbole. The sci-fi aesthetic mirrors the age in which we live. Additionally, which sci-fi aesthetic is so ruinous? Is it Star Wars with all it's switch, levers, and knobs? Is it 2001 and Star Trek with display monitors everywhere? Is it Blade Runner or Alien with a decayed future? What is this cancer causing your histrionic invective?
You don't think that SpaceX's new spacesuit and cockpit design has any sci-fi decorations?
I think that your insinuation that a significant number of those sci-fi aesthetics were implemented at a detriment to usability or safety is completely incorrect.
Could you please elaborate more on why it is completely incorrect? I think the opposite from what I've seen. Touch screens in a space capsule cockpit with UI and fonts that appear to be more of a pizzaz than functional. I think that SpaceX has leaned too much towards decoration while presumably sacrificing a tremendous amount of functional aspects. I don't know for sure because I've not operated those systems but I've seen Everyday Astronaut's YT tour of the Dragon capsule and it is a sad sight. My guess is neither have any of us used those systems, these are observations from limited information.
I am also willing to bet, SpaceX UI designers have never even touched this document: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19940023266
I am also willing to bet, SpaceX UI designers have never even touched this document: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19940023266
Sure, I'll expand.
We both have limited information.
I assume that the professionals at SpaceX and NASA have prioritized safety and usability, while also introducing a sci-fi vibe. This is a reasonable position.
You, however, take a conspiracy theory (the literal definition) angle that SpaceX have reduced the safety and usability of their module in order to look cooler. Do you see why this is not a reasonable position with the information that we have?
We both have limited information.
I assume that the professionals at SpaceX and NASA have prioritized safety and usability, while also introducing a sci-fi vibe. This is a reasonable position.
You, however, take a conspiracy theory (the literal definition) angle that SpaceX have reduced the safety and usability of their module in order to look cooler. Do you see why this is not a reasonable position with the information that we have?
> while also introducing a sci-fi vibe. This is a reasonable position.
I think that's my main grumpy objection. May be I am just old.
I also found your dismissal as "conspiracy" a low blow. How can I engage in a productive discussion when the other party dismisses your entire proposition as a conspiracy theory - you don't seem to see any issues with that?
I think that's my main grumpy objection. May be I am just old.
I also found your dismissal as "conspiracy" a low blow. How can I engage in a productive discussion when the other party dismisses your entire proposition as a conspiracy theory - you don't seem to see any issues with that?
You've turned your "grumpy objection" into suggesting that SpaceX is willing to reduce the usability safety of their systems for style. That's a huge jump that I felt should be called out.
Maybe conspiracy theory was too harsh, but I stand by heavily calling you out for hatching this idea with minimal evidence beyond "grumpy objections" to a sci-fi vibe.
Maybe conspiracy theory was too harsh, but I stand by heavily calling you out for hatching this idea with minimal evidence beyond "grumpy objections" to a sci-fi vibe.
keep in mind that those aren't space suits, but flight suits.
The space suits, UI, design of it all feels exactly what I’ve though the future of space technology would be. Maybe not all the way there yet, but a great leap from hundreds of manual switches and raw aluminum of the shuttle era.
Having used (and been highly dissatisfied with) touch-based controls in cars I cannot imagine why touch-based controls for a spacecraft are a good idea. The ergonomics are terrible.
Switches can certainly fail, with potentially dire consequences (see the Apollo 14 abort switch failure). I would assume the number of failure modes for touch-based interface hardware are vastly more.
Touch controls are, no doubt, easily reconfigurable, which is probably great for profit margins. The idea of the human spaceflight industry applying "cost down" mentality to crew vehicles scares the heck out of me (and I'm not even flying in them). (I'm thinking about the Boeing MCAS mentality, but for spacecraft...)
Switches can certainly fail, with potentially dire consequences (see the Apollo 14 abort switch failure). I would assume the number of failure modes for touch-based interface hardware are vastly more.
Touch controls are, no doubt, easily reconfigurable, which is probably great for profit margins. The idea of the human spaceflight industry applying "cost down" mentality to crew vehicles scares the heck out of me (and I'm not even flying in them). (I'm thinking about the Boeing MCAS mentality, but for spacecraft...)
Isn't this attributable to needing to focus on driving and the controls being a secondary concern? The astronauts don't seem to have much more to focus on than the screens and controls in front of them.
> a great leap from hundreds of manual switches and raw aluminum of the shuttle era.
Wonder if reliability of virtualized controls surpasses the one of dedicated hardware though.
I suspect one of the reasons Apollo computers were all built with just one type of logical chip is the ability to replace faulty parts - one just need a single type of replacement. If for some reason touchscreen malfunctions, what options are left for the crew?
Wonder if reliability of virtualized controls surpasses the one of dedicated hardware though.
I suspect one of the reasons Apollo computers were all built with just one type of logical chip is the ability to replace faulty parts - one just need a single type of replacement. If for some reason touchscreen malfunctions, what options are left for the crew?
> If for some reason touchscreen malfunctions, what options are left for the crew?
First, the spacecraft is I believe fully automated. While there is the ability to pilot the craft manually using onboard controls, my understanding is that is already considered a backup or unusual scenario.
As far as the touchscreens themselves, my understanding is there are four touchscreens total, and each can represent / control every aspect of the vehicle. So if a single touchscreen fails, the other 3 provide redundant access to necessary controls.
Finally, the dragon capsule does have manual (non-touchscreen) joystick controls for the critical flight controls.
So these systems have enough redundancy that a touchscreen failure should absolutely not jeopardize the flight.
First, the spacecraft is I believe fully automated. While there is the ability to pilot the craft manually using onboard controls, my understanding is that is already considered a backup or unusual scenario.
As far as the touchscreens themselves, my understanding is there are four touchscreens total, and each can represent / control every aspect of the vehicle. So if a single touchscreen fails, the other 3 provide redundant access to necessary controls.
Finally, the dragon capsule does have manual (non-touchscreen) joystick controls for the critical flight controls.
So these systems have enough redundancy that a touchscreen failure should absolutely not jeopardize the flight.
I wonder if the touchscreens are made of diverse hardware types and run by different programs running on different types of CPUs. If it's all common hardware and a common code-base then one in-common hardware or software failure could still take them all down.
I know the space shuttle employed multiple redundant computers of differing hardware as failsafes. I can't imagine SpaceX didn't do the same thing.
The redundant computers were only one part of it. The Space Shuttle software engineering capability was on another level.
https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
For redundancy, the Space Shuttle used five of the same computer (IBM AP-101). Four of them ran the same software, while the fifth ran independently-developed software in case a bug prevented the others from working.
> Finally, the dragon capsule does have manual (non-touchscreen) joystick controls for the critical flight controls.
Joysticks are better, though some convenient indication is also required (the "screen" part, not the "touch" part). I'm sure the designers saw questions like that; I'm just curious about details.
Joysticks are better, though some convenient indication is also required (the "screen" part, not the "touch" part). I'm sure the designers saw questions like that; I'm just curious about details.
> I suspect one of the reasons Apollo computers were all built with just one type of logical chip is the ability to replace faulty parts
The Apollo Guidance Computer was built with two types of chips: a 3-input NOR gate and a core memory sense amplifier. The reason to use just one logic chip was because ICs were very new at the time and there was very little reliability information. By standardizing on a small number of components, they could procure enough to determine and maintain quality. (See Journey to the Moon chapter 12.)
The Apollo Guidance Computer was built with two types of chips: a 3-input NOR gate and a core memory sense amplifier. The reason to use just one logic chip was because ICs were very new at the time and there was very little reliability information. By standardizing on a small number of components, they could procure enough to determine and maintain quality. (See Journey to the Moon chapter 12.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hate the helmets. Sorry.
I think the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo cool was that the hardware was completely lacking in design: it was as practical as a carburetor and as stylish. And that's why we liked them.
I think the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo cool was that the hardware was completely lacking in design: it was as practical as a carburetor and as stylish. And that's why we liked them.
At least there is no face lighting inside them. (Or is there??)
Don't worry, there will be in the suit for Tom Cruise
A photonic force field to keep the Thetans away.
FYI the live stream is playing on YouTube right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aymrnzianf0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aymrnzianf0
I don't understand. What is the difference between that video and this [0] one? They're both by NASA.
Then there's also the one by SpaceX [1] for those interested. I know that SpaceX usually has two webcasts going during launches; one for the public-friendly chatter and another for the go/nogo technical chatter
I always look for the SpaceX or NASA official links. Don't search for SpaceX on youtube, you'll drown in unofficial garbage from news companies
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjb9FdVdX5I
Then there's also the one by SpaceX [1] for those interested. I know that SpaceX usually has two webcasts going during launches; one for the public-friendly chatter and another for the go/nogo technical chatter
I always look for the SpaceX or NASA official links. Don't search for SpaceX on youtube, you'll drown in unofficial garbage from news companies
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjb9FdVdX5I
I have no idea why you have a different ID for your first link. But you'll see that the link I posted and your link are both on the official NASA channel.
I wouldn't be surprised if streaming to two different channels gives them some redundancy...
Useful for me since I have the youtube app on my TV and can pull it up.
Here is pretty accurate in terms of spacecraft UI docking simulator: https://iss-sim.spacex.com/
Astronauts will be using similar for manual piloting demo before docking.
Astronauts will be using similar for manual piloting demo before docking.
Guess what - there are speedruns already :D
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=iss+sim+speedru...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=iss+sim+speedru...
I'm watching the livestream now. Some of the UX the astronauts are using are large touch screens.
I hope they practiced on tablets
I hope they practiced on tablets
Safety critical functions have dedicated physical controls, the touch interface replaces just the hundreds of individual switches and buttons you would otherwise need for all the non critical stuff you need to control.
I have tried and barely succeeded, I just hope those are not real controls. Those should be either automated or they should consult someone from gaming industry. Sorry to say UX controls are terrible (saying from gaming position).
It is automated and they are the real controls that are used in backup.
They are not designed so that your average person can just figure out orbital mechanics on the spot while approaching one of the most expensive objects ever created.
They are not designed so that your average person can just figure out orbital mechanics on the spot while approaching one of the most expensive objects ever created.
If you want to try again: be careful with the controls; fix yaw, pitch and roll one after the other first (you might need minor adjustments to the other angles after fixing one, so keep monitoring them), then move laterally. Counting how many times you fired a thruster helps to stop the motion by firing the opposite thruster as many times as well.
Good luck!
Good luck!
While I'd argue that the controls (at least for rotation, possibly also for translation) should be inverted, the controls are actually pretty decent.
Try running it again but focus on zeroing the pitch, roll, and yaw first before moving on to the x, y, z. Once you have rotation under control, zero in your X, Y positional offsets until you are lined up. Finally burn your Z and then slow as you approach, all the while keeping the X, Y, Pitch, Roll, Yaw as close to zero as possible.
The big issue is that fine grain translational motion is nigh impossible while dealing with any type of rotational motion. Once you kill the rotational motion, it's intuitive like using crane-game controls.
Try running it again but focus on zeroing the pitch, roll, and yaw first before moving on to the x, y, z. Once you have rotation under control, zero in your X, Y positional offsets until you are lined up. Finally burn your Z and then slow as you approach, all the while keeping the X, Y, Pitch, Roll, Yaw as close to zero as possible.
The big issue is that fine grain translational motion is nigh impossible while dealing with any type of rotational motion. Once you kill the rotational motion, it's intuitive like using crane-game controls.
The docking is automated by default. The manual controls are only to be used in case the automated docking doesn't work.
UI is even more important when there is an anomaly.
You assume that whatever you prefer is a better UI.
:) well not necessarily just years of gaming practice.
Counterpoint, I found it really easy to control, but I've also played a lot of KSP and am terrible at building balanced rockets, so my docking maneuvers always have imbalanced RCS thrusters (so correcting one axis knocks another one off).
Plus they start you at 200m out with no relative movement, so it's pretty easy to just zero out one axis at a time and go from there
Plus they start you at 200m out with no relative movement, so it's pretty easy to just zero out one axis at a time and go from there
It's slightly better than Elite on the Commodore 64
Note that docking is automatic by default, this is a simulation of the backup system.
The interior design of the capsule looks so futuristic and cool - closer to Star Trek than Soyuz.
Those space suits look so cool, don't they?
> Those space suits look so cool, don't they?
That was the aim:
https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-crew-dragon-spaces...
The Dragon's interior was also built with that in mind, its less NASA and more Hollywood, throw Ripley and Earth Plushy into the mix and this how you do get regular people into Space [1].
1: http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-030219d-lg.jpg
That was the aim:
https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-crew-dragon-spaces...
The Dragon's interior was also built with that in mind, its less NASA and more Hollywood, throw Ripley and Earth Plushy into the mix and this how you do get regular people into Space [1].
1: http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-030219d-lg.jpg
I don't know, they look kitschy to me - as if someone designed them just to look 'cool' and futuristic instead of utilitarian, like a fashion statement.
An astronaut on TV just said they're designed to be slim and do exactly what's needed in this case: emergency life support in case the capsule loses pressure. They're custom fit, they don't have a lot of doodads hanging off them, I'm guessing you wouldn't use them for a spacewalk, but for a launch they get the job done and don't take up a lot of room.
I think they're both. It feels like they went for utility, but also kept watching Kubrick's 2001 for inspiration.
> The interior design of the capsule looks so futuristic and cool - closer to Star Trek than Soyuz.
Too bad they didn't skin the touchscreen interface to look like LCARS. /s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCARS
Too bad they didn't skin the touchscreen interface to look like LCARS. /s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCARS
A stark contrast to Soyuz, which has numerous unfinished, sharp edges exposed inside the crew compartment.
As a Brit, I am jealous that I'll not be able to work with NASA or SpaceX. This is a really exciting time, best of luck to the team.
I’ve been having mild anxiety about this mission ever since it was announced.
Working on manned space flight is not for me. The stakes are just too high.
Working on manned space flight is not for me. The stakes are just too high.
There are lots of jobs in the space industry here in the UK - https://spacecareers.uk/
> Demo-2 is the final major test for SpaceX’s human spaceflight system to be certified by NASA for operational crew missions to and from the International Space Station.
The two astronauts along with the Falcon 9 will be docking with the ISS and then returning home. No crew swap is happening, which seems like a waste of energy. I get that SpaceX isn't "operationally certified", but is a crew swap inherently more risky?
The two astronauts along with the Falcon 9 will be docking with the ISS and then returning home. No crew swap is happening, which seems like a waste of energy. I get that SpaceX isn't "operationally certified", but is a crew swap inherently more risky?
They will stay for 1 to 4 months. Its apparently partially dependent on whether they are prepared to launch the first actual crew mission on Aug 30.
A crew swap would require astronauts that are on station to return on the dragon, something they may not have trained for. So to do a swap, you'd probably have to take more than just the two test pilots up since they are likely required to pilot the capsule back down. Taking additional crew on the test flight would certainly be more risky to those additional lives.
A crew swap would require astronauts that are on station to return on the dragon, something they may not have trained for. So to do a swap, you'd probably have to take more than just the two test pilots up since they are likely required to pilot the capsule back down. Taking additional crew on the test flight would certainly be more risky to those additional lives.
The mission was initially intended to be a short, crewed test flight, lasting only a week and a half but the spacecraft that was planned to be used for this was lost in a test accident.
Now they are flying on its successor capsule which is rated for much longer (iirc up to 110 days of) space operations. This allows NASA to extend the mission and lets the astronauts Hurley and Behnken help out on the ISS which are currently short on people iirc. They received training for this extended mission in the last few month.
Now they are flying on its successor capsule which is rated for much longer (iirc up to 110 days of) space operations. This allows NASA to extend the mission and lets the astronauts Hurley and Behnken help out on the ISS which are currently short on people iirc. They received training for this extended mission in the last few month.
> The two astronauts along with the Falcon 9 will be docking with the ISS and then returning home
Just to be clear, the Falcon 9 is the booster that never gets to orbit. It's not going to the ISS- not moving fast enough to achieve orbit. Just the little Dragon spaceship on the nose of the rocket will get to the ISS.
> No crew swap is happening, which seems like a waste of energy. I get that SpaceX isn't "operationally certified", but is a crew swap inherently more risky?
Believe it or not, they've sent this 7-seat spacecraft to the ISS already (well, the same model) just to verify it could do it. It arrived empty, it went home empty (except for a plushy that stayed behind). The point is that SpaceX is going to be doing this maybe hundreds of times in the future, but the first time, they want to minimize the number of people that could die if something goes wrong.
Remember, this whole test would have been done 6 months ago except that the sister to this spaceship unexpected exploded during a simple ground test. This stuff is dangerous.
Just to be clear, the Falcon 9 is the booster that never gets to orbit. It's not going to the ISS- not moving fast enough to achieve orbit. Just the little Dragon spaceship on the nose of the rocket will get to the ISS.
> No crew swap is happening, which seems like a waste of energy. I get that SpaceX isn't "operationally certified", but is a crew swap inherently more risky?
Believe it or not, they've sent this 7-seat spacecraft to the ISS already (well, the same model) just to verify it could do it. It arrived empty, it went home empty (except for a plushy that stayed behind). The point is that SpaceX is going to be doing this maybe hundreds of times in the future, but the first time, they want to minimize the number of people that could die if something goes wrong.
Remember, this whole test would have been done 6 months ago except that the sister to this spaceship unexpected exploded during a simple ground test. This stuff is dangerous.
Thanks!
I understand your point, but it's just the way they do things. I believe it gives them more scheduling flexibility.
I read somewhere that the first 'operational' SpaceX <-> ISS will be in a couple of months.
I read somewhere that the first 'operational' SpaceX <-> ISS will be in a couple of months.
Honestly, wondering how the touch interface will work in this mission. Always thought it will be tough to make sure the touch works as opposed to physical switches and buttons.
eagerly waiting for the launch, though! Wishing luck from India!
eagerly waiting for the launch, though! Wishing luck from India!
Please let this go well.
Agreed. I'm so nervous, this seems high risk.
For some context they certified the Dragan capsule with a LOC (loss of crew) rating of 1 in 270, which is more than double what the shuttle had (IIRC it ranged from 1 in 10 for the first shuttle flight to 1 in 90 towards the end of the career)
Mmm. Was that risk evaluation in house?
I hope for the best too
I hope for the best too
High risk relative to?
Not launching your ass into space on a giant rocket?
Thank you for a delightfully clear explanation.
It's the first manned launch on the Dragon platform. There have been a number of unmanned launches and tests, but no where near as many as on Soyuz.
A quick search through Wikipedia shows 140+ manned Soyuz launches, and around 20 total for the SpaceX Dragon.
Note those numbers are for the spacecraft, not the booster (the Soyuz platform has both the spacecraft and booster named Soyuz, SpaceX has the Dragon spacecraft on the Falcon 9 booster).
A quick search through Wikipedia shows 140+ manned Soyuz launches, and around 20 total for the SpaceX Dragon.
Note those numbers are for the spacecraft, not the booster (the Soyuz platform has both the spacecraft and booster named Soyuz, SpaceX has the Dragon spacecraft on the Falcon 9 booster).
This is the Dragon 2, it has flown twice, once to the Station and back. A second time where the rocket was blown up to test the in-flight abort system.
It is pretty different from the 20 Dragons used on CRS.
It is pretty different from the 20 Dragons used on CRS.
True. I looked around for an explanation on what changed, and couldn't find anything super specific.
I expect a decent number of systems were reused or modified, rather than being fully original
I expect a decent number of systems were reused or modified, rather than being fully original
Exactly. The odds are not what I'd like them to be.
While I agree the risks are higher than Soyuz, there has to be an acceptable risk threshold, in order to build the safety record of a new platform.
Both the Saturn 5 and Space Shuttle had far fewer unmanned launches than Dragon, before the first manned flight. The Soyuz booster started as an ICBM, and thus has a harder to compare track record. Here's a graphic for the booster family historically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_R-7_launches
Both the Saturn 5 and Space Shuttle had far fewer unmanned launches than Dragon, before the first manned flight. The Soyuz booster started as an ICBM, and thus has a harder to compare track record. Here's a graphic for the booster family historically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_R-7_launches
So, never flying on new vehicle or flying a vehicle uncrewed for 40 years is the only option you consider save?
That seems like incredible pessimism to me.
That seems like incredible pessimism to me.
Maybe somewhere between those two extremes.
Relative to staying on the ground, at the very least
Godspeed to the men on board. And God bless the SpaceX team for bringing it all back home.
It really warms my heart that the landing pad is called "OF COURSE I STILL LOVE YOU DRONE SHIP"
In a consumer era where almost all naming is done by marketing and void of any soul, it really, really makes me happy to see a little bit growing through the cracks in the concrete.
In a consumer era where almost all naming is done by marketing and void of any soul, it really, really makes me happy to see a little bit growing through the cracks in the concrete.
The name is just "Of course I still love you". They're named after vessels from Iain M Banks' "Culture" SF setting.
Culture spaceships have AI "minds" and the mind of a large ship-constructing ship will name its offspring. They tend to have an odd sense of humour, there are plenty of sites with lists of Culture ship names, and Banks wrote footnotes excusing the obvious references to 20th century human culture as matters of translation (e.g. there is an Offensive Unit named "I said I have a big stick" which is a reference to Theodore Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick").
https://theculture.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the...
Culture spaceships have AI "minds" and the mind of a large ship-constructing ship will name its offspring. They tend to have an odd sense of humour, there are plenty of sites with lists of Culture ship names, and Banks wrote footnotes excusing the obvious references to 20th century human culture as matters of translation (e.g. there is an Offensive Unit named "I said I have a big stick" which is a reference to Theodore Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick").
https://theculture.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the...
I believe that the ships pick their own name rather than having it picked for them by the ship that built them.
It's actually a drone ship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_spaceport_drone_shi...) named "Of Course I Still Love You" after the fictional ship of the same name from Bank's novel "The Player of Games" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Player_of_Games).
- Your friendly neighborhood pedant.
- Your friendly neighborhood pedant.
Memories of the first few Space Shuttle launches. I was lucky enough to see STS-3 from Jetty Park when I was 12. Today I'll watch from home on YouTube with my own kids (16 and 17).
I assume the astronauts and everyone involved is tested daily for COVID-19. I am sure that bringing the virus to the IIS would be disastrous. Anyone has any insights on the measures taken to prevent it?
This Verge article[0] appears to describe the preventative steps to be less severe than I'd expect.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/25/21264868/spacex-nasa-laun...
Ever since one of the astronauts got sick on one of the Gemini missions the astronauts have undergone quarantines for a period before going up into space.
And still Ken Mattingly was pulled from Apollo 13 3 days before takeoff because of a potential exposure to measles.
In the live video, most of the technicians and even Musk are wearing masks, most of them staying at some distance though. I doubt they were all quarantined for the last 2 weeks.
Why should it be desastrous? I hope you do know the odds.
The COVID-19 fatality odd is 0.3%, the Dragon-lost odd probably much higher, maybe at around 5%. The Falcon 9 has over 80 starts now, but this is only the 3nd Dragon 2 start, and one of it failed.
The COVID-19 fatality odd is 0.3%, the Dragon-lost odd probably much higher, maybe at around 5%. The Falcon 9 has over 80 starts now, but this is only the 3nd Dragon 2 start, and one of it failed.
I think the astronauts health makes them much less likely to die from Corona than 0.3% but exposing the current crew of the IIS does not sound like a good idea either.
Fatality rate is one thing, but being in a small space can cause high concentrations of virus and any health complication in space is a big deal.
A catastrophic failure is definitely a risk, but not sure how its magnitude should diminish our caution when it comes to bringing the virus to the space station (by your calc, it lowers the risk only by 5%).
Fatality rate is one thing, but being in a small space can cause high concentrations of virus and any health complication in space is a big deal.
A catastrophic failure is definitely a risk, but not sure how its magnitude should diminish our caution when it comes to bringing the virus to the space station (by your calc, it lowers the risk only by 5%).
Good luck to all involved, this is a remarkable moment.
[deleted]
Man, seeing the guys cruising out there in the Teslas... Just think about how cool this scene is. Something that is in line with the vision of the future people used to have.
Very inspiring.
Very inspiring.
I see they are using touch screens. What would they do if the screens froze?
Looks like there are some physical buttons underneath the touch screens. Not sure what they do, but hopefully they're used for important stuff.
I just watched one of the astronauts push buttons on the touch screen, and it's shocking how small the icons on the screen are relative to their fingers. I would not want to try to the hit the right icon while accelerating!
I just watched one of the astronauts push buttons on the touch screen, and it's shocking how small the icons on the screen are relative to their fingers. I would not want to try to the hit the right icon while accelerating!
That seems like an unlikely failure scenario. But I imagine if that happened during launch they would pull the abort lever since that would be indicative of a significant failure. Later they and the engineers on the ground would work to control the vehicle either remotely or to fix the displays... or both. And probably abort to the ground as quickly as is reasonably possible.
If one freezes then use the other 3. If they all freeze let the autopilot do it's job.
I find it sort of weird to not have buttons in there: with all the vibrations you would think it's rather difficult to touch the exact control that you want. I guess they considered that...
The exact same thing applies to buttons, its just harder to screw up. they also have buttons just fine
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/04/03/photos-astronauts-trai...
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/04/03/photos-astronauts-trai...
I don't think the astronauts make extensive manual corrections during takeoff. And if you watch the livestream, the UI elements are much larger on the screen than would be possible with physical buttons. So if you are worried about precision, the touch screens would actually be safer.
I think the astronauts have very little to actually control. There are a variety of buttons underneath the screens, a big red one being for abort.
And what happens during launch when — I assume — everything starts vibrating wildly? They better be enormous virtual buttons.
Actually I remember reading an article mentioning that they use vibration data from accelerometters to slightly shift content on thescreen, thus preventing the screen from appearing blurry to the crew during the launch. Pretty clever. :)
But indeed, the launch is automated and for any the few important manual thing (basically just manual launch abort trigger) they have separate physical controls.
But indeed, the launch is automated and for any the few important manual thing (basically just manual launch abort trigger) they have separate physical controls.
They stare at them while waiting for the automatic launch sequence that has been in use by rockets since the early space race.
ISS will be visible from Germany at 22:23 today, coming from north-west moving towards south-east and it will be followed by Crew Dragon and the Falcon 9 upper stage about 20 minutes later. It should pass almost straight over you in the south of Germany.
Do you know where ISS will be when Crew Dragon actually docks?
Docking is scheduled for 10:29 EDT (14:29 UTC) today (2020-05-31) at which time the ISS is predicted to be 1000km east of the Philippines, approximately 300km west of Guam.
No idea, ISS is also moving very fast (> 7.5 km/s, that's more than 27000km/h), so even short delays will change the position massively.
So cool to hear "Dragon copies" over the radio.
For the first time, Dragon can talk back!
For the first time, Dragon can talk back!
Audio of Dragon comms: https://youtu.be/90X5NJleYJQ?t=152
Rescheduled for 3:22pm ET on Saturday
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1265739654810091520?s=20
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1265739654810091520?s=20
This is easily the most exciting moment of 2020. I can't overstate the emotions running through my body right now - godspeed to the crew & cheers to a new era for human space exploration.
Really appreciate them also having UTC on their website [1].
[1]: https://www.spacex.com/launches/
[1]: https://www.spacex.com/launches/
*Pending weather
I get that you dont want to fly a giant rocket full of liquid oxygen and other explosives into a thunderstorm or hurricane, but what are some practical reasons for postponing a launch due to weather. As I (hardly) understand once you get high up in the atmosphere there is high wind even on a clear day, does rain matter that much?
First of all, weather is much more than just rain.
One of the things that's monitored closely in the launch corridor are the upper atmospheric winds. Specifically the wind sheer in the upper atmosphere. Strong wind isn't typically a problem, but high wind sheer in the upper atmosphere can be problematic.
Additionally, they check the weather in the entire recovery corridor. That is, anywhere that the capsule could end up during an abort. They want to make sure that if the capsule ends up in the ocean, the weather permits recovery operations. An abort and safe splash-down doesn't do us much good if the astronauts then drown because recovery operations are impaired due to weather.
We're putting two lives on this rocket. A small delay is absolutely the right trade-off to reduce risk.
One of the things that's monitored closely in the launch corridor are the upper atmospheric winds. Specifically the wind sheer in the upper atmosphere. Strong wind isn't typically a problem, but high wind sheer in the upper atmosphere can be problematic.
Additionally, they check the weather in the entire recovery corridor. That is, anywhere that the capsule could end up during an abort. They want to make sure that if the capsule ends up in the ocean, the weather permits recovery operations. An abort and safe splash-down doesn't do us much good if the astronauts then drown because recovery operations are impaired due to weather.
We're putting two lives on this rocket. A small delay is absolutely the right trade-off to reduce risk.
I would think by far it’s for crew safety.
Recovery due to an in-flight abort would be difficult in rough seas and weather if they had to be plucked out of the Atlantic.
The aerostructure of the falcon 9 can only withstand so much side loading due to aerodynamic forces and wind before exceeding the operational limits of the rocket (body to keep it all from breaking apart, and the engines working hard to keep them on the correct trajectory).
Recovery due to an in-flight abort would be difficult in rough seas and weather if they had to be plucked out of the Atlantic.
The aerostructure of the falcon 9 can only withstand so much side loading due to aerodynamic forces and wind before exceeding the operational limits of the rocket (body to keep it all from breaking apart, and the engines working hard to keep them on the correct trajectory).
Thank you for the answer. To those who downvoted- I normally don't comment on that, but damn it was an honest question and I admitted to having little knowledge on this and its not like I gave a hot take. Just wanting to learn something...
Various reasons, well explained here (in several answers, including one pointing out that Challenger blew up in part due to cold weather): https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4967/why-are-rocke...
The weather needs to be good enough for a safe recovery downrange if there's an abort.
The issue isn't so much high wind but wind shear. Namely when you pass through a sharp change in air direction there's a bending force applied to the rocket that's proportional to the vehicle speed and atmospheric density. This can get very high and risk destroying the rocket.
On this note, does anybody know what the weather thresholds are that would cancel the launch? I mean, the current forecast suggests it will almost definitely be raining at 433pm Eastern, and wind will be around 10 mph. Is some amount of rain tolerable? How much wind is acceptable?
Here’s some information on the Space Shuttle Weather Launch Commit Criteria. There are probably some added bits for the water recovery incase of an abort with Crew Dragon. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/531435main_weather-...
Edit: and for the falcon 9 (non crew) https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649911main_051612_falcon9_weather_c...
Edit: and for the falcon 9 (non crew) https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649911main_051612_falcon9_weather_c...
Nominally a 60% chance of a go for launch weather, but according to Ken the Bin on Ars Technica, the weather in the abort corridor is poor so he expects a postponement.
I live on Merritt Island. Our power has been out since 6:30 this morning due to intense storms in the area. That having been said, it is currently sunny and calm.
Given what the weather has been like since Sunday I could see it being postponed. I hope the weather holds and gives a window.
Given what the weather has been like since Sunday I could see it being postponed. I hope the weather holds and gives a window.
Eric Berger now has an article about the iffy weather: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/spacex-may-launch-to...
Typically that percent chance doesn't actually consider all the launch criteria as crazy as that sounds.
It misses the upper level winds, and for the human launch I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that it is missing some weather criteria in the abort recovery zone as well.
It misses the upper level winds, and for the human launch I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that it is missing some weather criteria in the abort recovery zone as well.
The production quality of the SpaceX feed is amazing and emotional. Right now (9:40am or so) the bios on the astronauts are great. They have really invested over their launches in making space inspirational, and this feed is clearly something they spent a ton of time on.
Very emotionally uplifting, I highly recommend watching the feed now if you like space.
Very emotionally uplifting, I highly recommend watching the feed now if you like space.
> The production quality of the SpaceX feed is amazing and emotional. Right now (9:40am or so) the bios on the astronauts are great. They have really invested over their launches in making space inspirational, and this feed is clearly something they spent a ton of time on.
Kinda like a Nike ad.
Kinda like a Nike ad.
Anyone know of any other tool like this that might give an idea of where in the sky to look based on your location?
https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/?special=starlink-lat...
https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/?special=starlink-lat...
https://www.heavens-above.com/PassSummary.aspx?satid=71000&l... set your location top right
[deleted]
They finally announced it publicly: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1265739654810091520
curious those "NACA-duct-looking" things at the bottom of the capsule doesn't seem to have any holes... what are they for?
edit: part of controlled airflow maybe when coming down in reverse/re-entry?
edit: part of controlled airflow maybe when coming down in reverse/re-entry?
They are the SuperDraco thrusters, for launch escape. There are no holes because there are covers that get blown away by the thrusters, to protect them during re-entry if they are not used.
Ahh that's right I think I've seen footage of them firing before. The cover thing makes sense, thanks.
How long will the approach to the ISS take?
Previous unmanned Dragon missions take ~1 day to approach and dock but I can't imagine they will subject the astronauts to the same.
Previous unmanned Dragon missions take ~1 day to approach and dock but I can't imagine they will subject the astronauts to the same.
Similar - about 18-19hrs before docking. You should be able to watch it live tomorrow morning.
It's funny that it takes that long, since they could theoretically make it up there in like half an hour or so. Here's a good overview of what's gonna happen today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr_zfpzGxQQ
It's funny that it takes that long, since they could theoretically make it up there in like half an hour or so. Here's a good overview of what's gonna happen today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr_zfpzGxQQ
Half an hour is very optimistic! The Soyuz expedited rendezvous takes hours. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/21819/how-did-soyu...
It's possible physics-wise, I believe.
They do a couple orbits gentle approach first because a) it's not a great idea to barrel towards the ISS at speed and b) it gives an opportunity to check for things like "did our solar panels deploy" and "do we need to land because the air is leaking out".
They do a couple orbits gentle approach first because a) it's not a great idea to barrel towards the ISS at speed and b) it gives an opportunity to check for things like "did our solar panels deploy" and "do we need to land because the air is leaking out".
He said exactly what I was thinking: Initiate ludicrous mode on the way to the launch site.
This video explains the whole mission from the astronaut's point of view in about 15 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr_zfpzGxQQ
He has lots of great videos including some very well produced content on rocket engine design, starship etc.
The short answer to your question is just over 19 hours until docking, and then I think another 2 hours after that until the hatch opens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr_zfpzGxQQ
He has lots of great videos including some very well produced content on rocket engine design, starship etc.
The short answer to your question is just over 19 hours until docking, and then I think another 2 hours after that until the hatch opens.
They've got it down to a few hours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-08M#Expedited_dockin...
It used to take days. Not fun in a tiny capsule like Soyuz, I'd imagine. https://www.engadget.com/2013-03-29-soyuz-cuts-travel-time-t...
It used to take days. Not fun in a tiny capsule like Soyuz, I'd imagine. https://www.engadget.com/2013-03-29-soyuz-cuts-travel-time-t...
[deleted]
Last time I was interested in space was the Mars Lander.
Going to ISS is easy afaik but when are we ever going to try landing on the moon again (don't even talk about Mars).
Going to ISS is easy afaik but when are we ever going to try landing on the moon again (don't even talk about Mars).
NASA's Artemis project has got you covered on that one:
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/
> Going to ISS is easy afaik
Given that only 3 nations in history have produce anything that could potentially do it, that statement seems like utter lunacy.
Given that only 3 nations in history have produce anything that could potentially do it, that statement seems like utter lunacy.
I wonder if they are using an already used Falcon 9 or a brand new one? Is there are statistical difference in the reliability of unused vs reused Falcon 9s?
This is a brand new one, and I don't think there have been enough launches of similar (current version/block) new and used first stages to find a statistically significant difference.
Thus far all SpaceX F9 launch failures have been on all-new vehicles. But those were both in the second stage, which are not and cannot be reused. The F9 first stage has basically been perfect on launch, save for two single engine-out incidents (one new, one on the reused fleet leader) which did not impact payload delivery.
Thus far the sample size is low, but to the extent you can measure it they're equal.
Thus far the sample size is low, but to the extent you can measure it they're equal.
It's new, as per NASA's requirements. They will attempt a landing on a drone ship to recover it.
Good old Florida weather. Will try again Saturday.
Having seen the first shuttle launch and the Challenger and Columbia failures, I'm both excited and terrified.
I hope when they do launch all goes well.
When did NASA switch back to the "worm" logo? One of my favorites
all the best, of course, but isn't this a little premature
We're in 2020, this is way overdue.
I didn't mean the go to space part but the boasting about it part
Are the space suits also designed by SpaceX?
Yes they are both designed and made by SpaceX. There was a short segment about them in the official coverage.
Wow. Are these suits comparable to the ones worn by Apollo astronauts?
The NASA Orion suits are super ugly IMHO. Very different.
https://youtu.be/yj6LYpZosRU
The xEMU suites even more.
The xEMU suites even more.
They hired the guy who did the marvel super hero customs.
Why is this called Demo-2?
Demo 1 launched last year. It was an identical mission, docking with the ISS, but with no crew (only supplies).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Dragon_Demo-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Dragon_Demo-1
It's the second test flight (demo). The first was an uncrewed flight to the International Space Station last year.
Because it's the second demonstration flight before certification for regular rotation. Demo-1 was 13 months ago, flown without a crew.
launch abort ... pffffffffff
[deleted]
Elon Musk is the greatest entrepreneur and coolest billionaire in our lifetime, change my mind!
Bill Gates. Entrepreneur, billionaire, can jump over the chair: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxaCOHT0pmI
aha! So he IS a human afterall :p
Musk doesn't have much in terms of competition today but I have high hopes for the Collison brothers, they are on a similar trajectory (starting with payment systems), are both already billionaires and contrary to Musk are modest and when they say something it tends to be very well thought out.
I called Elon Musk many years before he was as important as he is today, let's see where Patrick and John end up in a decade or more.
I called Elon Musk many years before he was as important as he is today, let's see where Patrick and John end up in a decade or more.
Just want to make sure that s we're talking about the same person here - are you referring to the author of "pedo guy" tweet? I guess he's the best role model we have for now...
canceled?
Temporarily for weather, not for technical issues.
I have one question/concern: why is almost nobody wearing a mask? Of course there is no need for people videoconferencing from home to wear masks, but many of the people in the livestream seem to be physically present on site. The only people I saw with masks were the people in the black suits helping the astronauts into the capsule.
Masks seem like an inexpensive way to reduce risk, the CDC and WHO recommend them. Sure, there are other measures that can reduce transmission, but the lack of masks makes me concerned that other measures are not being taken, perhaps because both Elon Musk and Trump have been downplaying the risk of covid-19 and they are both present today.
Masks seem like an inexpensive way to reduce risk, the CDC and WHO recommend them. Sure, there are other measures that can reduce transmission, but the lack of masks makes me concerned that other measures are not being taken, perhaps because both Elon Musk and Trump have been downplaying the risk of covid-19 and they are both present today.
[deleted]
[deleted]
edit: yep, launch scrubbed. Too bad! But better safe than sorry, especially today with a crewed vehicle. Does anybody know if the crew dragon comes with different weather restrictions for LOX loading?