SpaceX to reveal their manned DragonV2 capsule tonight

[combat squirrel]

Dragon V2 is awesome!! Incredible set of abilities, a real leap forward I think for space access.

The only thing I think it needs to do now is prove its worth, prove its reliability, also when is the 1st test flight of it ? and also how many times can it actually be used? As many as it wants as long as hardware is replaced?

[mrabinovich]

Is it capable of automated docking? If yes, it is a giant leap for american astronautics.

[RuBisCO]

I was always hoping they would put a solar array in the nose cone like in the pre-prototype models.

I guess they never got that to work.

[R0cketC0der]

Dragon V2 is awesome!! Incredible set of abilities, a real leap forward I think for space access.

The only thing I think it needs to do now is prove its worth, prove its reliability, also when is the 1st test flight of it ? and also how many times can it actually be used? As many as it wants as long as hardware is replaced?

Musk said at a recent interview that he hopes to get astronauts into space with it in 2016.

As for how many times it can be used, someone said earlier in this thread that it can be used 10 times before the heatshield needs maintenance and after that 10 more times before other parts of the spacecraft need maintenance.

Is it capable of automated docking? If yes, it is a giant leap for american astronautics.

Yup, it's capable of automated docking without any need for the robotic arm of the station to be used.

[PTNLemay]

and also how many times can it actually be used? As many as it wants as long as hardware is replaced?

I read somewhere that the heat-shield is going to be the limiting factor. But even at that, apparently it can be used ~10 times before you need to do any kind of big overhaul.

[Scotius]

Oh. My. GAWD! I just got back home from work, and first thing i did was watching YT clip of the big event. I've shed a manly tear of joy at the sight Also: In your face, Russia! Go SpaceX!

[lajoswinkler]

I'm not convinced by all this. I believe in functionalism as the proper idea behind space travel design, and all this makeup would make me think there's something missing and someone is trying to dazzle me, like a nice rack without the brains.

Is that a touchscreen panel clinging from above? Screw that. I want shielded, caged BUTTONS for stuff that keeps me alive, and I want it well mounted, not dangling. Look at these lovely buttons.

http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2010/11/andre_kuipers_inside_a_soyuz_tma_simulator3/10235012-2-eng-GB/Andre_Kuipers_inside_a_Soyuz_TMA_simulator.jpg

[Nibb31]

Is it capable of automated docking? If yes, it is a giant leap for american astronautics.

It should be. But automatic docking is hardly a "giant leap". NASA never did it before because it wasn't really needed, but the software to do it is quite trivial.

[R0cketC0der]

I'm not convinced by all this. I believe in functionalism as the proper idea behind space travel design, and all this makeup would make me think there's something missing and someone is trying to dazzle me, like a nice rack without the brains.

Is that a touchscreen panel clinging from above? Screw that. I want shielded, caged BUTTONS for stuff that keeps me alive, and I want it well mounted, not dangling. Look at these lovely buttons.

http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2010/11/andre_kuipers_inside_a_soyuz_tma_simulator3/10235012-2-eng-GB/Andre_Kuipers_inside_a_Soyuz_TMA_simulator.jpg

Everything you need in an emergency is a button. The other functions are touchscreens.

[lajoswinkler]

There is a reason why buttons exist and why they are shielded or caged, and it's not because the designer had no sense for aesthetics.

[Nibb31]

I'm not convinced by all this. I believe in functionalism as the proper idea behind space travel design, and all this makeup would make me think there's something missing and someone is trying to dazzle me, like a nice rack without the brains.

Is that a touchscreen panel clinging from above? Screw that. I want shielded, caged BUTTONS for stuff that keeps me alive, and I want it well mounted, not dangling. Look at these lovely buttons.

http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2010/11/andre_kuipers_inside_a_soyuz_tma_simulator3/10235012-2-eng-GB/Andre_Kuipers_inside_a_Soyuz_TMA_simulator.jpg

I'm guessing that the touchscreen is resistive instead of capacitive, like the ones that are certified for aircraft operations, so that they can be manipulated with gloves and are harder to press. I'm also guessing that the buttons on the side are for redundancy, in case the touch digitizer fails. As for keyguards, they aren't necessary when you can have a "Are you sure OK/Cancel" dialog box on screen.

However, there really shouldn't be much need for a pilot at all. Most of the spacecraft's functions will be automated since they will be shared with the cargo version.

The interior is a mock up anyway. As I said above, the flight version will have lockers and padding, and I doubt that the real thing will have leather seats.

What else doesn't convince you?

Edited May 30, 2014 by Nibb31

[PTNLemay]

I agree the touch-screens are a bit weird.

It's like how music players have gone all touch since Apple dominated the market, I hate that. Back in the day I could play, pause, skip to next or previous, change the volume. All that without ever taking my player out of my pocket (which was nice when I was waiting for the bus in a snow-storm or heavy rain, where taking out the device would be a bad idea). You could feel the buttons with your finger-tips and know exactly what you were touching.

In these sort of more professional applications I'm sure it would also be beneficial to have that kind of tactile feedback. If something happens and the pilot's vision is impaired (which can happen in micro-gravity due to the weird effects it has on our bodies) you'll want him to be able to feel the controls as well as see them. Touch-screens are neat all that, but I still mostly see them as a big gimmick.

[Kirondoll]

There is a reason why buttons exist and why they are shielded or caged, and it's not because the designer had no sense for aesthetics.

I think that Space X engineers know their work, I'm amazed about the people that think to be able to build a real space vehicle because they play KSP.

[lajoswinkler]

I'm guessing that the touchscreen is resistive instead of capacitive, like the ones that are certified for aircraft operations, so that they can be manipulated with gloves and are harder to press. I'm also guessing that the buttons on the side are for redundancy, in case the touch digitizer fails. As for keyguards, they aren't necessary when you can have a "Are you sure OK/Cancel" dialog box on screen.

It's not enough. Always suppose the worst case scenario with these things.

However, there really shouldn't be much need for a pilot at all. Most of the spacecraft's functions will be automated since they will be shared with the cargo version.

The interior is a mock up anyway. As I said above, the flight version will have lockers and padding, and I doubt that the real thing will have leather seats.

What else doesn't convince you?

Is it a mock up? I think Musk said it's the real thing.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461283368693669888

I'm OK with the overall capsule design, though.

I agree the touch-screens are a bit weird.

It's like how music players have gone all touch since Apple dominated the market, I hate that. Back in the day I could play, pause, skip to next or previous, change the volume. All that without ever taking my player out of my pocket (which was nice when I was waiting for the bus in a snow-storm or heavy rain, where taking out the device would be a bad idea). You could feel the buttons with your finger-tips and know exactly what you were touching.

In these sort of more professional applications I'm sure it would also be beneficial to have that kind of tactile feedback. If something happens and the pilot's vision is impaired (which can happen in micro-gravity due to the weird effects it has on our bodies) you'll want him to be able to feel the controls as well as see them. Touch-screens are neat all that, but I still mostly see them as a big gimmick.

Exactly my point. Well said.

I think that Space X engineers know their work, I'm amazed about the people that think to be able to build a real space vehicle because they play KSP.

My critique is not based on KSP. It's based on knowing how spaceships are made in real life. Some of us were into space stuff way before we've ever heard of this game.

Sorry, but you've made a quite dumb argument.

[Nibb31]

It's not enough. Always suppose the worst case scenario with these things.

The worst case scenario is that both screens break. Then, ground ops would take over.

You wouldn't fly this like you would fly Gemini or Soyuz. There isn't one button for "jettison cabin door" that needs a keyguard. Commands would come on screen contextually, when necessary, depending on the flight mode and phase. Touchscreens can be used in a professional environment. Look at a modern airliner cockpit.

787 Dreamliner:

Airbus A350:

Do you see any keyguards? There are touchscreens and most buttons are multi-functional and depend on the mode that the autopilot is in. Any critical commands require confirmation, so there is no need for keyguards.

Is it a mock up? I think Musk said it's the real thing.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461283368693669888

He said it was "flight design" hardware. He didn't say it was the actual operational vehicle that would carry astronauts to orbit. There are some closeup pictures floating around that suggest that the heatshield and RCS thrusters aren't the real thing. My hunch is that it's a test flight article for the Dragonfly tests. It will be used to for drop tests, propulsive landing, and abort tests, but this exact Dragon isn't going to space.

The operational vehicle will have lockers and padding inside.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Nibb31

[CaptRobau]

Close up of the bottom part of the dashboard containing physical buttons. Above this is the joystick and above that another set of buttons. Looks like a lot of the most important functions are physical buttons.

[softweir]

You can't have buttons for every single function and eventuality on a modern spacecraft - there are far, far too many processes to control and tweak for that to be practicable! Even if you could design such an interface and train the pilots to know where ever damn button is, the sheer mass of hardware would prevent such a monstrosity ever getting off the ground. You don't need a guarded switch for, for instance, the co-pilot's reading light. (Yes, they have reading lights on spacecraft that are independent of cabin lighting so manual checklists etc can be referred to without causing dazzle.)

What sensible control system designers do is to provide shielded buttons and switches for the essential and urgent functions, and put the minute-to-minute, low-urgency, doesn't-matter-if-it-can't-be-done-instantly stuff on a flexible device of some sort: not necessarily a touchscreen (because gloves are too clumsy), but several redundant button-controlled MFDs do nicely. They use the right tool for the job - shielded switches and buttons are the wrong tool for some jobs, just as MFDs are the wrong tool for other jobs.

[lajoswinkler]

The worst case scenario is that both screens break. Then, ground ops would take over.

You wouldn't fly this like you would fly Gemini or Soyuz. There isn't one button for "jettison cabin door" that needs a keyguard. Commands would come on screen contextually, when necessary, depending on the flight mode and phase. Touchscreens can be used in a professional environment. Look at a modern airliner cockpit.

787 Dreamliner:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/12/787coc04eng.jpg

Airbus A350:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/06/dsc00235.jpg

Do you see any keyguards? There are touchscreens and most buttons are multi-functional and depend on the mode that the autopilot is in. Any critical commands require confirmation, so there is no need for keyguards.

He said it was "flight design" hardware. He didn't say it was the actual operational vehicle that would carry astronauts to orbit. There are some closeup pictures floating around that suggest that the heatshield and RCS thrusters aren't the real thing. My hunch is that it's a test flight article for the Dragonfly tests. It will be used to for drop tests, propulsive landing, and abort tests, but this exact Dragon isn't going to space.

The operational vehicle will have lockers and padding inside.

What if operation control can't take over?

I'm looking at those airliner control panels and I see plenty of buttons, too. Way more than 16 pushbuttons and two flip flop switches in Dragon V2.

Do you own a smartphone? I have an Android device which is basically just a screen. Three buttons: power and volume up/down. Taking photos is a nightmare. Writing stuff can't be done easily. Drawbacks are serious.

Can you imagine trying to tap on the screen while the capsule is jerking or tumbling? There is zero haptic response from such input devices.

You can't say "the ground ops will take care of it". What if they can't?

Looks ancient, but does the job.

Some touchscreen functionality, that's ok. Most of it? NOPE.

[Woopert]

Hope this doesn't crush Dream Chaser's chances. Dream Chaser does have lower G's on re-entry, though. I love the new craft though! Dragon V2 will be a game changer.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Woopert

[KSK]

I was always hoping they would put a solar array in the nose cone like in the pre-prototype models.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=30821.0;attach=563535;image

I guess they never got that to work.

[KSK]

Honestly I'm not entirely surprised at the simplicity of the control panel, its designed to be compatible with crew that possess extraordinarily basic training.

Umm, what makes you think that? I'm not saying you're wrong (it's quite possible that I've missed an article or two somewhere) but 'extraordinarily basic training' and 'astronauts' aren't concepts that go together in my head!

On a related note, re. the touchscreen debate. I'm fairly sure that if Dragon is going to be man-rated as per NASA requirements, that the cockpit controls are going to be up to the task. Also, I'd have thought that touchscreen controls would be quite useful for spacecraft controls simply because you can give them an almost arbitrary size. Anything important that the crew will need to hit even whilst being shaken around and wearing clunky gloves - just make the button bigger.

Edited May 30, 2014 by KSK

[Reddragon]

I bet the primary point of the touchscreen is the reduced mass of the panel. The Soyuz control panel is heavier and bigger. I think it would also reduce the possibility of a fire and the crew and life support components has a bigger space. The PTK NP capsule design is aiming for similar solutions too.

[Nibb31]

What if operation control can't take over?

I'm looking at those airliner control panels and I see plenty of buttons, too. Way more than 16 pushbuttons and two flip flop switches in Dragon V2.

Not really. You get a couple of multi-purpose alphanumeric keypads. The rest is on-screen buttons.

Do you own a smartphone? I have an Android device which is basically just a screen. Three buttons: power and volume up/down. Taking photos is a nightmare. Writing stuff can't be done easily. Drawbacks are serious.

Can you imagine trying to tap on the screen while the capsule is jerking or tumbling? There is zero haptic response from such input devices.

The F-35 is not a smartphone. It has flight profiles that are much more complex and diverse than a LEO taxi, yet it uses MFDs for just about everything:

And yes, F-35 pilots also wear gloves and might find themselves tumbling and jerking too.

The whole point of having fly-by-wire and software controlling every phase of the flight is that you never get into a situation where you are jerking or tumbling. Just like in a modern airliner, the computer maintains attitude automatically and the pilot only has to concentrate on the navigation. You won't need to deal with circuit breakers and maintaining attitude manually because the computer will do all of the micromanagement.

Have you tried flying in KSP with MechJeb? You can do pretty much everything with a few mouse clicks, even when things go wrong. Each phase will be automated, and flying the spacecraft will most of the time just involve switching the various modes like you switch panels in MechJeb. Modern spacecraft like the ATV or cargo Dragon pretty much fly themselves, and even dock themselves, to the station with no manual input. Its robust technology.

[Nahim]

strange... how many people seems to be there only to yell "Scott Manley"?

Edited May 30, 2014 by Nahim

[RuBisCO]

Oh, bad question: does it have a space toilet? Even Soyuz has a toilet system.