Hacker News Reader

Comment by krschultz | Hacker News Reader

When NASA recovered capsules, they sent a carrier battle group.

When SpaceX recovers capsules, they send a barge with a crane, a single crew boat, a couple of inflatables, and a P3 Orion. [1]

That's pretty Lean.

[1] http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20120530

View on HN

To be fair to NASA there are some good reasons to have used a carrier battle group. First, it's a strong deterrent against interference, from either the Soviets, proxy forces, terrorists, or some independent 3rd party (pirates?).

Second, it's handy to have 1st world medical care available immediately just in case. If a bad landing caused severe trauma, burns, or what-have-you, or if an emergency appendectomy was needed then care would be right at hand.

Third, speed of recovery was important, which meant big ol' helicopters, which means aircraft carriers.

Fourth, a worst case scenario survivable landing could involve the capsule landing significantly out of the drop zone, causing injury to the crew (partial chute failure, very hard landing), and sinking forcing the crew to evacuate the capsule. Potentially all without radio contact. In that scenario you'd want to be able to mount a robust search and rescue operation, which is just the sort of thing that a carrier battle group excels at.

With more experience, less geopolitical pressure, and more capable spacecraft we can ratchet that response way down, but it wasn't entirely unjustified at the time.

Edit: Case in point, the 2nd ever manned flight in the US (sub-orbital even) Liberty Bell 7 had the capsule sink and the astronaut, Gus Grissom, swimming without much assistance in the open ocean. If recovery had taken much longer (even by minutes) it's likely he would have drowned. That set the tone for the later recovery operations.

Just a nitpick; you have to have your appendix taken out to travel to Antarctica, so I highly doubt they're sending up astronauts without having the procedure done!

In 1961, this wasn't the case, and a surgeon was forced to operate on himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov

Is that still true, I was under the impression that practice had actually ended. In any case, it seems like NASA doesn't require this.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/home/tech_life_adum.html

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309075858&page=102

http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2008/06/04/on-tri...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_Vehicle

It looks like you're right; thanks for correcting me.

I found it kind of amazing that it is actually so hard to find information on this sort of thing. You would think there would be some checklist somewhere for "I am going to the Antarctic" or "I am going into Space", but no such luck.

Your statement was right at one point, it is just outdated and its not like updates show up in the air. hmm... a push new facts services on subjects I care about hmmm....

Makes me wonder: what system was in place in the time of the Apollo missions for determining the exact location of a reentering spacecraft? Was it just, "here's the probable drop zone, commence search-and-rescue"? I imagine GPS would make that a lot easier.

"Makes me wonder: what system was in place in the time of the Apollo missions for determining the exact location of a reentering spacecraft?"

The system was called the Apollo Unified S-Band System. For further reading, this document describes the various telemetry parameters, operating spectrums and transmission details:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/TM-X55492.pdf

This is a nice resource as well. Don't miss the articles at the bottom of the page from CQ that discuss the system. The Proceedings of the Apollo Unified S-Band Technical Conference document is definitely worth your time (it's also at the bottom of the page).

http://www.ab9il.net/aviation/apollo-s-band.html

It's transmitting a radio signal, triangulating to its source is simple.

To be fair, there were people in NASA's crafts. National heroes even. They sent out pretty lean teams to capture the SRBs for the Shuttle (which are much larger than the Dragon capsule):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWR_MHkuBMU

Also, carriers weren't used. Destroyers were (they're a lot more nimble) and we have a bunch chugging around doing exercises at any given point so that's probably a fairly cost effective method.

Those HN'ers in the SF Bay area may want to visit the USS Hornet (CVS-12), the aircraft carrier that recovered Apollo 11 and 12. In the hangar bay, they have an isolation unit used to hold the astronauts (basically just a modified Airstream trailer).

This page has a photo of the command module being hoisted aboard the carrier: http://www.uss-hornet.org/history/apollo/

Also, don't forget that the USA was in the middle of a space race (which was an extension of a broader arms race [1]) with the Soviet Union. I wouldn't be surprised if the US government considered recovering the space craft and crew to be an issue of national security. The stakes for SpaceX are much lower, so comparing their expenditures isn't fair.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race

"I wouldn't be surprised if the US government considered recovering the space craft and crew to be an issue of national security."

To add to your point, with regard to Apollo 11, both ships and aircraft (Boeing EC-135) played a critical mission role (in addition to security) by extending the mission capability of ground-based tracking stations and satellites in the areas of telemetry acquisition, communications and contingency planning.

Some examples (non-exhaustive):

1. The USNS Vanguard was positioned in the Atlantic to provide communication and telemetry acquisition during the launch of Saturn V. In addition, it was also strategically positioned to serve in a post-launch contingency posture, if necessary.

2. Both USNS Huntsville and USNS Redstone acted as sea-based tracking stations, positioned in the Pacific. In addition to tracking the CSM (Command Service Module), they supported a communication link to the aforementioned aircraft that were being utilized to ensure that there was 100% communication coverage.

A note regarding the USS Hornet, since it has been mentioned in other posts: this aircraft carrier was selected to serve as the recovery ship. After all, this was an epic, history-making mission and event. This ship is now a National Historic Landmark.

>To be fair, there were people in NASA's crafts.

The Dragon capsule is designed to hold people, so SpaceX wouldn't need a bigger ship or crane to haul them in.

Designed to hold and have real life people inside are two very different things. NASA didn't want to have a successful mission and then lose their hero astronauts because they couldn't find them at sea in time.

Also remember that NASA was doing this in the age before GPS...

The crew capsule will probably never land in the ocean as they plan to land on a pad with thrusters.

I was all, like, "Really?"

Google went all, like, "Really..."

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20120530

> In the future, Dragon will use SuperDraco thrusters to land on a landing pad on ground.

This then led to looking up SuperDraco, which is on this Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(rocket_engine_family)

And then we all know how wikipedia is. I'll be following links for the rest of the afternoon and probably shake myself out of it when I realize that I've been looking at Wikpedia articles for Marvel superheroes for 20 minutes.

[edit ooh, this is worth seeing too] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUUnYgo1-lI

Musk said during the press conference today that they're targeting thruster landings (in any atmosphere!) within 3 years, or more like 4-5 if they encounter difficulties.

That might have been because NASA was a national project and so national pride was involved. Showing the military strength and size would have been part of the overall story that the NASA program was showing.

Agreed, but the difference in scale is so extreme.

Looking out my office window, I can see a fairly major sea port. The Navy can't get 1 ship off the dock without a half dozen tug boats, plus several security boats, etc. The flotilla SpaceX sent out is smaller than what it takes to undock 1 ship, and a carrier battle group consists of 20+ ships.

I just find the contrast really illustrative of why SpaceX was able to do this for a fraction of the cost.

You're assuming that NASA 'pays' for the flotilla the same way spacex pays for its gear. Think about it, SpaceX probably rents/leases the gear it needs for the time it needs and knows exactly what it costs.

Nasa can basically call the local navy detachment and ask them to swoop in. It's not clear that is accounted for in the NASA budget vs. the normal operating budget of that battle group.

Similarly, when NASA says something costs 20k to get to orbit, they're saying that because that's what they told someone it would cost when justifying the program. The real cost of things like a shuttle recovery are never as easy to track as one might think.

Hell, the carrier group probably logs it as "search and rescue training exercise".

Almost certainly. Military overflights of stadiums are written off as training exercises routinely (and if the pilots have to spend a certain number of hours flying, why not do something some other people like for a few of them?)

And it quite reasonably _is_ exercise...

> a carrier battle group consists of 20+ ships

When has NASA every utilized a carrier battle group of 20 ships? I'd also suspect that the Navy can make locating a capsule and scooping up its astronauts as part of a training mission that they would be doing otherwise. Search and rescue is a pretty big deal, they practice it a lot. It's not like our Naval fleet is on the dry unless we're at war.

I'm not 100% certain for ships but there is a 'pricelist'[1] for when military aircraft are used by other commands/services or even 'non-government' use.

NASA has to pay for when military aircraft are used in support of there research or operations. SpaceX, as covered under Space Act agreement, would be able to obtain appropriate aircraft from the US Navy, such as a P-3 maritime patrol aircraft.

[1] http://comptroller.defense.gov/rates/fy2011/2011_f.pdf

Also NASA capsules had people onboard.

But yeah, you don't actually need a carrier battle group to retrieve a single capsule. On the other hand, if you've got a spare aircraft carrier sitting around the ocean you might as well use it. (You don't need the rest of the battle group to pick up the capsule, either, but you need it to protect the carrier in case a war breaks out.)

NASA was doing this for the first time. They needed resources to deal with unpredictable failures and mistakes. Some NASA capsules missed their target by a hundred miles or more. One sank. Either of those problems would have been far worse if they had been Lean.

"Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk Thrusters will also fire during reentry to adjust touchdown point. Next version will land w helicopter precision #Dragon"

You know whats leaner then battleships and speedboats? No need for speedboats... vertical landing is next and will reduce time and cost of reusing the capsule by an order of magnitude.

The $1.6b contract was dependent of safe landing and they weren't ready to pull out all of the stops with their "next gen" technology.

Now that they have their contract they can continue hitting their milestones at a blistering pace, get huge press coverage and increase their pace towards the goal of multi-planetary solar system domination...

Sorry, was this supposed to be a reply to a different comment?

To be fair, NASA probably had good reasons to fear that the Soviets might try to intercept the capsules. SpaceX doesn't need to worry about that, unless they drop into the Somalian coast or something.

I doubt the Soviets would have intercepted a manned American capsule any more than they would have gone around kidnapping random American citizens or hijacking American ships -- that'd be an act of war.

If the capsule splashed down in an area that the Soviets considered their waters, you can be certain that it would have been considered an "act of war". Things were different during the Cold War.

The Russians were not unreasonable, if it were an accident the worst they would likely do is rescue the crew and return the capsule dissassembled.

I think you mean "worst", as in the "least amount". "Worsted" is a type of yarn [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worsted

Right you are, thanks.

No problem.

I think you're forgetting people's mentality during the Cold War and what was at stake. If the worst includes "return the capsule disassembled," that's pretty bad when considered from the mentality that was prevalent during the Cold War, because it would have meant giving the Soviet Union the United States' technology. The lunar program was considered an issue of national security.

The US did it to a MiG-25 in '76: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Belenko

> "The MiG was disassembled, examined, and returned to the USSR in thirty crates."

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or if you missed my point. Assuming you missed my point, let me try to elaborate (if not, please excuse my misunderstanding):

I'm not refuting that the USSR would have disassembled, examined, and returned the capsule. I'm pointing out that the US government during the Cold War would have considered that outcome to be a threat to national security. That's what I meant by my statement, "That's pretty bad when considered from the mentality that was prevalent during the Cold War."

From your link: "This was the first time that Western experts were able to get a close look at the aircraft, and it revealed many secrets and surprises. His defection caused a lot of damage to the Soviet Union Air Force." My point was that if the Soviet Union got a hold of one of the USA's space capsules, the outcome for the USA would have been the same that it was for the USSR in the article you linked to.

As I mentioned in one of my other comments in this thread, the space race was part of the larger arms race between the USA and the USSR during the Cold War [1]. Just because the space capsules aren't military equipment, doesn't mean that there weren't serious military ramifications if they fell into the hands of the USSR.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race

EDIT: Maybe we're talking past each other, because I was replying to a narrow piece of your original comment instead of your comment's intent. I agree with everything you've said: the USSR wouldn't have started a war if the capsule splashed down in their waters, and they would have disassembled and returned the capsule. I'm trying to point out the (perceived at the time) seriousness of the USSR disassembling the capsule. I should have attached my original comment further up the ancestor chain where people were debating how interested the USSR would have been in intercepting the capsule.

It would have been a big deal. All I'm saying is that saying the Russians would have seen it as an act of war is a bit much and gives the Russians too little credit.

The Russians probably would have been somewhat pleased while putting on a show of mild annoyance and the Americans probably would be quite unpleased but unable to do much about it. The MiG 25 thing with the players reversed ( feigning annoyance is out of place with a defection, but would make sense with a technical border issue.) Standard politics.

I totally agree with you (and just realized the source of confusion). See the edit that I just added to my previous comment.

I'm not so sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Powers

I am fairly certain the Russians would have recognized that an Apollo capsule landing in their ocean would be a good deal different than a spy plane flying over their country. At the very least they would have known from their own experiance that a reentering capsule would make possibly the worst spy platform ever made.

Consider also that the two space programs were basically all about propoganda. Both countries were more or less on their best behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

That flight was during a period when the Soviet's were terrified of a US first strike.

Not long after this flight was the Able Archer 83 exercise, which is probably the only time since the Cuban Missile crisis that we got close to an actual nuclear war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

Of course, no excuse for shooting down an innocent airliner, but it's often overlooked just how scared the Soviet leaders were at this time.

Again, not space program and reasonable suspicion of spying.

> you can be certain that it would have been considered an "act of war"

You should really read up on how touchy-feely Soviets were with all things space-related, and perhaps you would understand how patently idiotic your statement is.

Maybe so. But the fact remains that the US dispatched a large carrier fleet to retrieve the manned capsule.

military decisions are not based on rational thinking.

It's all fun and games until they bring an alien back with them!

Beyond security, do you think the Navy would pass up the PR opportunity.

// security was a concern - that was the U-2 era

Reply on news.ycombinator.com