SpaceX Unveils Crew Dragon Interior | Hacker News Reader

SpaceX Unveils Crew Dragon Interior

blogs.nasa.gov

84 pointsAnchor52 comments

Interesting how we're potentially moving one step closer to how scifi envisioned as spacecraft interiors. For some unexplainable, and likely incorrect, reason this gives me hope that we are moving toward a space-faring civilization.

As for the scale of the compartments, extrapolate from the size of the chairs. It's pretty small.

I guess something close to James S.A. Corey "Expanse series". Living in asteroids and some moons. (forget the magic worm hole)

Or on giant Orbitals like Ian M Banks's Culture civilizations (Musk named the two drone ships after Culture General System Vehicles from the Book "The Player of Games").

Universal Century 0079: The Principality of Zeon has declared its independence from the Earth Federation, and subsequently launched a massive war of independence, a war which has raged in every continent on earth and in nearly every space colony and lunar settlement.

But seriously Mobile Suit Gundam was pretty forward thinking on its takes of space colonization. Tons of asteroids brought into orbit of earth.

Massive orbitting spinning colonies.

> Interesting how we're potentially moving one step closer to how scifi envisioned as spacecraft interiors.

That's most likely because the interior designers were just influenced by the scifi visions.

Art reflects life reflects art.

> As for the scale of the compartments, extrapolate from the size of the chairs. It's pretty small.

I got the exact opposite impression. It might be small compared to a mcmansion kitchen but it is HUGE compared to historic or even contemporary spacecraft. Way more spacious than the Shuttle cockpit at least.

If you haven't been to the Air & Space Museum in DC, it is worth it just for a sense of scale on spacecraft. In particular the interior of Skylab was much more cramped than I would have guessed.

All that empty space in the capsule will likely be filled with compartments for cargo, making it cramped again.

It's like physical RAM.

It will always be used at capacity.

This is called Parkinson's Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law#Generalizati...

Even more so at the Natl Air & Space Musuem is look at the Mercury capsule that John Glenn used to orbit the Earth. Basically flying through space in a refrigerator.

I wonder if flat buttons are a good idea. On top of a vibrating rocket I'd prefer buttons where I can feel their outline with my finger tips. The labels seem light gray, a less elegant but better visible writing might be better suited here, too.

I saw those and my blood boiled. I find these stupid fucking non-buttons impossible to use in my living room. I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to have zero tactile feedback on a rocket ship. "Oops, I brushed my finger lightly against the ROCKET SHIP IS ON FIRE button and filled the ship with foam, sorry mission control."

Obviously they're smarter than that, but damn do I hate those "buttons".

> On top of a vibrating rocket I'd prefer buttons where I can feel their outline with my finger tips.

Dragon is entirely computer controlled during the times the rocket'd be vibrating. Other than a "oh shit, fire the crew escape rocket" button you're not going to be pressing anything during ascent or landing.

I'm pretty sure NASA told Neil Armstrong the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

Computer control and spacecraft have both come a long way (in both complexity and reliability) since the 1960s. Modern cars and aircraft can't even move without their critical computers functioning these days.

If that's meant to be reassuring I'm not sure it has worked.

http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff

> But how much work the software does is not what makes it remarkable. What makes it remarkable is how well the software works. This software never crashes. It never needs to be re-booted. This software is bug-free. It is perfect, as perfect as human beings have achieved. Consider these stats : the last three versions of the program — each 420,000 lines long-had just one error each. The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors. Commercial programs of equivalent complexity would have 5,000 errors.

Software correctness is only part of the problem. Mechanical failure and the need to compensate from it is often beyond the programming. Sending someone into space without a manual override seems unwise. We've seen it used in space already, assuming it won't be needed again is an incorrect assumption.

They have what they call "the important ones" as real buttons, you can see it in the video

The last image shows flat buttons and one of them says "DEORBIT NOW" I am not an astronaut, but it sounds kind of important to me.

I think the most important button ever created is the SCRAM (emergency shutdown) button on a nuclear reactor, they don't fuck around making it look pretty. You know where the button is and you never ever want a seconds hesitation in getting it pushed.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7244/7300035260_8e872e201c_b.j...

Probably somewhere close on the list is the MAGNET STOP button on a MRI machine, it destroys the superconducting magnet and vents the incredibly expensive helium into the atmosphere.

http://a406.idata.over-blog.com/0/01/25/36/magnetic-field-st...

No cover, no toggle, no delay, you want them big and red and able to be pressed by someone with two broken wrists.

Quenching the magnet has a chance to cause damage, but it doesn't necessarily destroy the magnet.

And while liquid helium isn't cheap, filling the dewar once isn't that expensive compared to the MRI itself. You have to contiuously refill liquid helium, which is a significant running cost.

I meant it destroys the superconducting-ness rather than the whole magnet. The costs of not having a MRI machine are probably even higher than operating one, though I'm not sure how you'd go about quantifying that.

How does an "emergency" shutdown button get that dirty? That looks heavily used.

Other photos of SCRAM buttons show signs of wear too, from my limited knowledge I think a SCRAM is also used in normal operating procedure as a rather extreme "off" button.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scram#/media/File:NS_Savannah_...

The SCRAM button in that photo is from the EBR-1 breeder reactor in Idaho.

It got pushed once in 1955 by a supervisor who had to jump over the table to hit it, because the employee in charge of the panel was chatting on the phone with his wife.

It was hit too late though, and half the core melted down.

(That's particularly bad for breeder reactors, because it can cause a nuclear explosion.)

Ironically, the entire chain-of-events was precipitated by a different wrong button being pressed.

I remember working with a chap who had what he described as "the worst support call ever" - involving an irate engineer who was apparently standing on top of a nuclear reactor and complaining that the monitoring system had crashed.

He said it wasn't particularly fair as the company he worked for wasn't responsible for the system having the problem, they just did the display part and made the mistake of displaying their company name rather conspicuously. Try explaining that to an angry man standing on top of a nuclear reactor...

I especially like how they choose the "DEORBIT NOW" and "CABIN DEPRESS" buttons to focus on for these pr images, as if they're trying to say "Whether you want to begin hurtling towards the ground at 8,000 m/s or just easily cleanup after tearing open a jumbo bag of orbit celebration Skittles, with the new Dragon capsule important ship functions are just one button press away."

Next to each other. It does not seem like the type of functions you'd want to have buttons for right next to anything... Though I'm sure there's some safeguard against accidentally starting either.

"Deorbit now" seems more like a button you press to create an emergency than to escape one.

Aside from the big dial under the flat screen even the dedicated buttons are flat.

Where's the video? Is it supposed to be after the images? There's a big blank space there for me.

I had the same problem -- try it without HTTPS: http://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/09/10/spacex-unvei...

Something else to consider is the amount of force required to press the buttons while in zero-g. Astronauts currently have to anchor themselves so a button press doesnt launch you in the opposite direction.

Now I'm wondering how well typing on a keyboard works in space...

I work in commercial aerospace (OEM) - flat buttons and touchscreen displays are not permitted, physical switches are required for exactly the reasons you described, in addition to smoke procedures which must be done "blind".

I find it hard to get a sense of the size of it? Is it basically like sitting a van, or can you move around and do things?

Could you really spend months in this going to Mars? Or even multiple days going to the moon?

There would be a life support module behind this though right? They don't sit in the take off / landing part on a trip to the moon.

Dragon isn't going to the moon. It's going to the ISS.

For the Moon or Mars, presumably they put a bigger capsule on a Falcon Heavy, or even something larger than that. (Falcon Venti?)

For Mars, they are developing the Mars Colonial Transporter rocket

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter

(sometimes also called BFR, or Big F... Rocket)

I think I speak for everyone when I say "whoah" and also "nice". That thing could toss up serious on-orbit hardware. Parts for a rotating space station. Dyson swarms. Asteroid miners.

Yeah I am saying for short stuff they can just sit in that, any distance of length with have another compartment behind that one for travel.

This video should help you get a better sense of scale:

https://youtu.be/-DYQmvfThnA?t=12m46s

Multiple days to the Moon seems doable (it was done in Apollo and that was a smaller craft). For a trip to Mars, the Dragon would probably be used as a shuttle for a larger spacecraft where the astronauts would live for the duration of the trip. AFAIK, the biggest problem with the Dragon flying to the Moon and Mars is that it's not shielded enough to keep a crew safe in trips much beyond LEO.

> Could you really spend months in this going to Mars? Or even multiple days going to the moon?

Moon'd be fine - chances are they'd only have 3-4 crew for additional space for supplies/movement, and possibly some sort of additional living space like Apollo had.

Mars would probably involve Dragon linking up with a larger ship like an Aldrin cycler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler

I guess this is a more real version of what they announced in May 2014: http://www.spacex.com/media-gallery/detail/100831/3261

Those seats don't look too supportive. Are these the seats they're in during take off etc? Check out what seats look like in race cars. They're still carbon fibre and minimal but have better support than those. That edge on the seat and no support for the head/neck or backs of the legs seem like it wouldn't be a very enjoyable experience. I'm sure I'm overlooking some obvious reasons why they were designed this way so I look forward to hearing more about this project.

Maybe if it's just for ground -> ISS -> ground missions they're counting on the structure of a rigid helmet to properly support the head during acceleration. Also notice how the top of the straps, which I'd guess would mark slightly above shoulder level, are well below the top of the seat.

Really nice interior. Now they need it padded, the LCDs must be square and the on-board computer must sound like Douglas Rain. Maybe he's still available for the job. And the spacesuits need to be more colorful.

Sure hope there's a Confirm popup for that CABIN DEPRESS button.

Wonder if they're planning on serving sushis during the trip.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com