| Revision as of 21:19, 19 December 2024 editTitan(moon)003 (talk | contribs)217 edits →Comments from Z1720: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:04, 24 December 2024 edit undoRoySmith (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators92,147 edits →Comments from RoySmith: landing accuracy | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| :Thanks, appreciate the feedback ] (]) 21:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | :Thanks, appreciate the feedback ] (]) 21:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ====Comments from RoySmith==== | |||
| * I would start the design section with a description of the design of ''this'' system. You can compare it later to previous systems to show how it differs, but that's not the place to start. | |||
| * {{tq|with the main spacecraft beneath a protective fairing}} I would give a brief explanation of what the protective fairing is protecting the spacecraft from, i.e. the escape system's exhaust. | |||
| * You talk about Crew Dragon's trunk, but it's unclear from the associated figure (Dragon 2 DM-2 03.jpg) what the trunk is. I'm guessing it's the dark grey part, but that should be clarified. | |||
| * I did a little (literal) back-of-the-envelope math and came up with 71 kN pulling on a 12,500 kg vehicle producing about 4.6g. It might be interesting to add some performance numbers like that to the article. For example, I see later on you talk about reaching a 42km apogee on a flight test. How much of that was from the primary booster and how much was added by the escape system? Or looking at it another way, in a pad abort, what would the apogee and downrange distance have been? I'm not sure what the limits of ] are on stuff like this, however, so best to find those numbers in ]. | |||
| * {{tq|Crew Dragon C204 was destroyed in an incident}} in standard aviation-speak, a clear distinction is made between incidents and accidents, with the later being more serious. I don't know if that same terminology carries over to space flight, but you might want to check to make sure "incident" is the right word to use there. | |||
| * {{tq|one-way "check" valves}} I would drop the quotes. | |||
| *{{tq| A video leaked shortly the incident}} There's a word missing there. Shortly after, I guess? | |||
| *It would be nice to have a diagram showing the ground path of a typical launch and the locations of the various recovery zones. | |||
| * I gather all these abort modes end in splashdowns in the water, but that should be stated explicitly. | |||
| * In the video, a recovery boat is approaching the vehicle within seconds of splashdown. You should talk a little about that. Is there a boat stationed at each possible recovery zone? You talk about "can be targeted with higher levels of precision", but can you give some numbers on exactly how big the zone is? I'm guessing from that video that it's less than a mile? | |||
| ** In https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61455.0 it says {{tq|Dragon 1, Crew Dragon 2 and Cargo Dragon 2, landing within a few hundred meters of target every time when splashing down in the ocean}}. Now you just need to find a RS for that. | |||
| * You might also want to explain what "abort to orbit" means? To a naive reader, that will probably sound strange, i.e. "they got to orbit, which is what they wanted to do, so why is this an abort?" So I would talk a little bit about how it's not the orbit that was intended, or high enough to reach the ISS, or whatever the RS say. | |||
| *{{tq|allows for an abort capability in all stages of flight, increasing crew safety}} I think it's worth going into a bit more detail here. When I read that, I didn't think it was that interesting. But then reading https://www.nasa.gov/podcasts/houston-we-have-a-podcast/the-spacex-crew-dragon/, I found "like Apollo, there were blackout periods. Where you didn’t really have that coverage" which really surprised me; I didn't realize these blackout periods existed. So I think it would be useful to spend a couple of sentences going into more detail about coverage and contrasting it with Apollo. | |||
| *From that same source, I see that the trunk has "little wings". You talk about the trunk adding aerodynamic stability, but don't give any details; this would be a good detail to add. | |||
Latest revision as of 18:04, 24 December 2024
Crew Dragon Launch Abort System
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve this up to at least a B-class article and I'm not certain how.
Thanks, Titan(moon)003 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
@Titan(moon)003: Sorry that it has taken so long to get comments. Here's some thoughts below:
- The lead should be expanded to include all major aspects of the article.
- Hatnotes, like the "see also" statement in the "History" section, should go under the heading, not between paragraphs.
- Keep looking for additional sources. Some places to look are Google Scholar, archive.org, WP:LIBRARY or your local library system. This will help you expand the article.
- The first paragraph in "Abort modes" needs a citation.
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, appreciate the feedback Titan(moon)003 (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments from RoySmith
- I would start the design section with a description of the design of this system. You can compare it later to previous systems to show how it differs, but that's not the place to start.
with the main spacecraft beneath a protective fairing
I would give a brief explanation of what the protective fairing is protecting the spacecraft from, i.e. the escape system's exhaust.- You talk about Crew Dragon's trunk, but it's unclear from the associated figure (Dragon 2 DM-2 03.jpg) what the trunk is. I'm guessing it's the dark grey part, but that should be clarified.
- I did a little (literal) back-of-the-envelope math and came up with 71 kN pulling on a 12,500 kg vehicle producing about 4.6g. It might be interesting to add some performance numbers like that to the article. For example, I see later on you talk about reaching a 42km apogee on a flight test. How much of that was from the primary booster and how much was added by the escape system? Or looking at it another way, in a pad abort, what would the apogee and downrange distance have been? I'm not sure what the limits of WP:CALC are on stuff like this, however, so best to find those numbers in WP:RS.
Crew Dragon C204 was destroyed in an incident
in standard aviation-speak, a clear distinction is made between incidents and accidents, with the later being more serious. I don't know if that same terminology carries over to space flight, but you might want to check to make sure "incident" is the right word to use there.one-way "check" valves
I would drop the quotes.A video leaked shortly the incident
There's a word missing there. Shortly after, I guess?- It would be nice to have a diagram showing the ground path of a typical launch and the locations of the various recovery zones.
- I gather all these abort modes end in splashdowns in the water, but that should be stated explicitly.
- In the video, a recovery boat is approaching the vehicle within seconds of splashdown. You should talk a little about that. Is there a boat stationed at each possible recovery zone? You talk about "can be targeted with higher levels of precision", but can you give some numbers on exactly how big the zone is? I'm guessing from that video that it's less than a mile?
- In https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61455.0 it says
Dragon 1, Crew Dragon 2 and Cargo Dragon 2, landing within a few hundred meters of target every time when splashing down in the ocean
. Now you just need to find a RS for that.
- In https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61455.0 it says
- You might also want to explain what "abort to orbit" means? To a naive reader, that will probably sound strange, i.e. "they got to orbit, which is what they wanted to do, so why is this an abort?" So I would talk a little bit about how it's not the orbit that was intended, or high enough to reach the ISS, or whatever the RS say.
allows for an abort capability in all stages of flight, increasing crew safety
I think it's worth going into a bit more detail here. When I read that, I didn't think it was that interesting. But then reading https://www.nasa.gov/podcasts/houston-we-have-a-podcast/the-spacex-crew-dragon/, I found "like Apollo, there were blackout periods. Where you didn’t really have that coverage" which really surprised me; I didn't realize these blackout periods existed. So I think it would be useful to spend a couple of sentences going into more detail about coverage and contrasting it with Apollo.- From that same source, I see that the trunk has "little wings". You talk about the trunk adding aerodynamic stability, but don't give any details; this would be a good detail to add.