Can the SpaceX Dragon 2 crew vehicle still use the draco and super draco thrusters to slow down when landing?
$begingroup$
In an emergency, is it possible to use the draco and super draco thrusters alone to slow down the vehicle after re-entry? Right from the point parachutes are supposed to be released right upto touch down on water or land. So basically if the parachutes fail(God forbid), are the thrusters capable of slowing down the vehicle after re-entry in Earth to safe touchdown?
Also is there protection for the draco and super draco thrusters from sea water?
spacex landing abort dragon-v2
edited 9 hours ago
geoffc
55.5k9162309
asked 14 hours ago
safe_mallocsafe_malloc
1664
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In an emergency, is it possible to use the draco and super draco thrusters alone to slow down the vehicle after re-entry? Right from the point parachutes are supposed to be released right upto touch down on water or land. So basically if the parachutes fail(God forbid), are the thrusters capable of slowing down the vehicle after re-entry in Earth to safe touchdown?
Also is there protection for the draco and super draco thrusters from sea water?
spacex landing abort dragon-v2
edited 9 hours ago
geoffc
55.5k9162309
asked 14 hours ago
safe_mallocsafe_malloc
1664
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In an emergency, is it possible to use the draco and super draco thrusters alone to slow down the vehicle after re-entry? Right from the point parachutes are supposed to be released right upto touch down on water or land. So basically if the parachutes fail(God forbid), are the thrusters capable of slowing down the vehicle after re-entry in Earth to safe touchdown?
Also is there protection for the draco and super draco thrusters from sea water?
spacex landing abort dragon-v2
edited 9 hours ago
geoffc
55.5k9162309
asked 14 hours ago
safe_mallocsafe_malloc
1664
$endgroup$
In an emergency, is it possible to use the draco and super draco thrusters alone to slow down the vehicle after re-entry? Right from the point parachutes are supposed to be released right upto touch down on water or land. So basically if the parachutes fail(God forbid), are the thrusters capable of slowing down the vehicle after re-entry in Earth to safe touchdown?
Also is there protection for the draco and super draco thrusters from sea water?
spacex landing abort dragon-v2
spacex landing abort dragon-v2
edited 9 hours ago
geoffc
55.5k9162309
asked 14 hours ago
safe_mallocsafe_malloc
1664
edited 9 hours ago
geoffc
55.5k9162309
asked 14 hours ago
safe_mallocsafe_malloc
1664
edited 9 hours ago
geoffc
55.5k9162309
edited 9 hours ago
geoffc
55.5k9162309
edited 9 hours ago
geoffc
55.5k9162309
55.5k9162309
asked 14 hours ago
safe_mallocsafe_malloc
1664
asked 14 hours ago
safe_mallocsafe_malloc
1664
asked 14 hours ago
safe_mallocsafe_malloc
1664
1664
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It seems that someone on the /r/spacexlounge subreddit had the same question:
We know from the FAA filing for the pad abort that Dragon has a fuel
capacity of 1388kg, and we know that it's max landing mass should be
around 8.9 tonnes. If we round that up to 9 tonnes, and then plug in
the specific impulse for SuperDraco of 235 seconds, we get a Delta-V
of 330m/s2.
This is backed up by data from the pad abort. During the pad abort it
reached a max altitude of 1.5km and traveled 2.2km downrange. Assuming
no gravity or drag losses, that would require 183m/s2 of delta-v.
Gravity losses would amount to an additional 49m/s2 given that the
engines fired for 5 seconds.
If we then account for drag losses, and the fact that the abort burn
ended prematurely with fuel still in the tanks, and the fact that it
had to drag the trunk along with it, unlike during landing, then
300+m/s2 of Delta-V seems quite reasonable.
300 m/s^2 is all the delta-v that the Dragon can use to land. From the same post:
Terminal velocity of the Dragon capsule is somewhere in the region of
100m/s. I guesstimated 115m/s, which for a 3G landing burn would
require 155m/s of Delta-V, coincidentally the max velocity during the
pad abort was also about that much. But let's call it 200m/s2 to be
safe.
In the right circumstances, the Crew Dragon COULD perform an emergency propulsive landing using the SuperDracos. I have no idea whether this has been programmed into an abort sequence, given that the capability of propulsive landings for Dragon V2 was publicly cancelled.
The Draco thrusters would likely not be used, given that they are designed for orbital maneuvers and attitude control, and thus would be far less efficient when operated in an atmosphere (as well as the poisonous fuel thing.)
As for your second question, I can't seem to find anything directly about it but I believe that both types of thrusters have water protection, given the capsule's propensity to land in it (and because they are meant to be re-used.)
answered 13 hours ago
josjos
513112
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm a little suspicious of their math since delta-v is a velocity but they're giving accelerations.
$endgroup$
– 2012rcampion
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34587%2fcan-the-spacex-dragon-2-crew-vehicle-still-use-the-draco-and-super-draco-thruste%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It seems that someone on the /r/spacexlounge subreddit had the same question:
We know from the FAA filing for the pad abort that Dragon has a fuel
capacity of 1388kg, and we know that it's max landing mass should be
around 8.9 tonnes. If we round that up to 9 tonnes, and then plug in
the specific impulse for SuperDraco of 235 seconds, we get a Delta-V
of 330m/s2.
This is backed up by data from the pad abort. During the pad abort it
reached a max altitude of 1.5km and traveled 2.2km downrange. Assuming
no gravity or drag losses, that would require 183m/s2 of delta-v.
Gravity losses would amount to an additional 49m/s2 given that the
engines fired for 5 seconds.
If we then account for drag losses, and the fact that the abort burn
ended prematurely with fuel still in the tanks, and the fact that it
had to drag the trunk along with it, unlike during landing, then
300+m/s2 of Delta-V seems quite reasonable.
300 m/s^2 is all the delta-v that the Dragon can use to land. From the same post:
Terminal velocity of the Dragon capsule is somewhere in the region of
100m/s. I guesstimated 115m/s, which for a 3G landing burn would
require 155m/s of Delta-V, coincidentally the max velocity during the
pad abort was also about that much. But let's call it 200m/s2 to be
safe.
In the right circumstances, the Crew Dragon COULD perform an emergency propulsive landing using the SuperDracos. I have no idea whether this has been programmed into an abort sequence, given that the capability of propulsive landings for Dragon V2 was publicly cancelled.
The Draco thrusters would likely not be used, given that they are designed for orbital maneuvers and attitude control, and thus would be far less efficient when operated in an atmosphere (as well as the poisonous fuel thing.)
As for your second question, I can't seem to find anything directly about it but I believe that both types of thrusters have water protection, given the capsule's propensity to land in it (and because they are meant to be re-used.)
answered 13 hours ago
josjos
513112
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm a little suspicious of their math since delta-v is a velocity but they're giving accelerations.
$endgroup$
– 2012rcampion
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It seems that someone on the /r/spacexlounge subreddit had the same question:
We know from the FAA filing for the pad abort that Dragon has a fuel
capacity of 1388kg, and we know that it's max landing mass should be
around 8.9 tonnes. If we round that up to 9 tonnes, and then plug in
the specific impulse for SuperDraco of 235 seconds, we get a Delta-V
of 330m/s2.
This is backed up by data from the pad abort. During the pad abort it
reached a max altitude of 1.5km and traveled 2.2km downrange. Assuming
no gravity or drag losses, that would require 183m/s2 of delta-v.
Gravity losses would amount to an additional 49m/s2 given that the
engines fired for 5 seconds.
If we then account for drag losses, and the fact that the abort burn
ended prematurely with fuel still in the tanks, and the fact that it
had to drag the trunk along with it, unlike during landing, then
300+m/s2 of Delta-V seems quite reasonable.
300 m/s^2 is all the delta-v that the Dragon can use to land. From the same post:
Terminal velocity of the Dragon capsule is somewhere in the region of
100m/s. I guesstimated 115m/s, which for a 3G landing burn would
require 155m/s of Delta-V, coincidentally the max velocity during the
pad abort was also about that much. But let's call it 200m/s2 to be
safe.
In the right circumstances, the Crew Dragon COULD perform an emergency propulsive landing using the SuperDracos. I have no idea whether this has been programmed into an abort sequence, given that the capability of propulsive landings for Dragon V2 was publicly cancelled.
The Draco thrusters would likely not be used, given that they are designed for orbital maneuvers and attitude control, and thus would be far less efficient when operated in an atmosphere (as well as the poisonous fuel thing.)
As for your second question, I can't seem to find anything directly about it but I believe that both types of thrusters have water protection, given the capsule's propensity to land in it (and because they are meant to be re-used.)
answered 13 hours ago
josjos
513112
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm a little suspicious of their math since delta-v is a velocity but they're giving accelerations.
$endgroup$
– 2012rcampion
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It seems that someone on the /r/spacexlounge subreddit had the same question:
We know from the FAA filing for the pad abort that Dragon has a fuel
capacity of 1388kg, and we know that it's max landing mass should be
around 8.9 tonnes. If we round that up to 9 tonnes, and then plug in
the specific impulse for SuperDraco of 235 seconds, we get a Delta-V
of 330m/s2.
This is backed up by data from the pad abort. During the pad abort it
reached a max altitude of 1.5km and traveled 2.2km downrange. Assuming
no gravity or drag losses, that would require 183m/s2 of delta-v.
Gravity losses would amount to an additional 49m/s2 given that the
engines fired for 5 seconds.
If we then account for drag losses, and the fact that the abort burn
ended prematurely with fuel still in the tanks, and the fact that it
had to drag the trunk along with it, unlike during landing, then
300+m/s2 of Delta-V seems quite reasonable.
300 m/s^2 is all the delta-v that the Dragon can use to land. From the same post:
Terminal velocity of the Dragon capsule is somewhere in the region of
100m/s. I guesstimated 115m/s, which for a 3G landing burn would
require 155m/s of Delta-V, coincidentally the max velocity during the
pad abort was also about that much. But let's call it 200m/s2 to be
safe.
In the right circumstances, the Crew Dragon COULD perform an emergency propulsive landing using the SuperDracos. I have no idea whether this has been programmed into an abort sequence, given that the capability of propulsive landings for Dragon V2 was publicly cancelled.
The Draco thrusters would likely not be used, given that they are designed for orbital maneuvers and attitude control, and thus would be far less efficient when operated in an atmosphere (as well as the poisonous fuel thing.)
As for your second question, I can't seem to find anything directly about it but I believe that both types of thrusters have water protection, given the capsule's propensity to land in it (and because they are meant to be re-used.)
answered 13 hours ago
josjos
513112
$endgroup$
It seems that someone on the /r/spacexlounge subreddit had the same question:
We know from the FAA filing for the pad abort that Dragon has a fuel
capacity of 1388kg, and we know that it's max landing mass should be
around 8.9 tonnes. If we round that up to 9 tonnes, and then plug in
the specific impulse for SuperDraco of 235 seconds, we get a Delta-V
of 330m/s2.
This is backed up by data from the pad abort. During the pad abort it
reached a max altitude of 1.5km and traveled 2.2km downrange. Assuming
no gravity or drag losses, that would require 183m/s2 of delta-v.
Gravity losses would amount to an additional 49m/s2 given that the
engines fired for 5 seconds.
If we then account for drag losses, and the fact that the abort burn
ended prematurely with fuel still in the tanks, and the fact that it
had to drag the trunk along with it, unlike during landing, then
300+m/s2 of Delta-V seems quite reasonable.
300 m/s^2 is all the delta-v that the Dragon can use to land. From the same post:
Terminal velocity of the Dragon capsule is somewhere in the region of
100m/s. I guesstimated 115m/s, which for a 3G landing burn would
require 155m/s of Delta-V, coincidentally the max velocity during the
pad abort was also about that much. But let's call it 200m/s2 to be
safe.
In the right circumstances, the Crew Dragon COULD perform an emergency propulsive landing using the SuperDracos. I have no idea whether this has been programmed into an abort sequence, given that the capability of propulsive landings for Dragon V2 was publicly cancelled.
The Draco thrusters would likely not be used, given that they are designed for orbital maneuvers and attitude control, and thus would be far less efficient when operated in an atmosphere (as well as the poisonous fuel thing.)
As for your second question, I can't seem to find anything directly about it but I believe that both types of thrusters have water protection, given the capsule's propensity to land in it (and because they are meant to be re-used.)
answered 13 hours ago
josjos
513112
answered 13 hours ago
josjos
513112
answered 13 hours ago
josjos
513112
answered 13 hours ago
josjos
513112
513112
$begingroup$
I'm a little suspicious of their math since delta-v is a velocity but they're giving accelerations.
$endgroup$
– 2012rcampion
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm a little suspicious of their math since delta-v is a velocity but they're giving accelerations.
$endgroup$
– 2012rcampion
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm a little suspicious of their math since delta-v is a velocity but they're giving accelerations.
$endgroup$
– 2012rcampion
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm a little suspicious of their math since delta-v is a velocity but they're giving accelerations.
$endgroup$
– 2012rcampion
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34587%2fcan-the-spacex-dragon-2-crew-vehicle-still-use-the-draco-and-super-draco-thruste%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
