The COG is offset a bit by design; this creates a small amount of lift during re-entry, allowing for greater control. Not as much as a lifting body like the Shuttle orbiter or the Dream Chaser, obviously, but it’s enough. It does mean that one side gets toastier than the other, but AFAIK that’s just superficial.

The “bloody great crack” is the channel from which the parachute lines deploy. It’s not a sign of damage. This image shows them a bit more clearly.

Keith K @ 30:

I’m old enough to remember the Apollo missions; you think SpaceX is throwing away a lot of rocket, you’d cry at how much rocket was expended for those missions. Unfortunately, re-use of Shuttle components really didn’t bring the launch costs down that much.

SpaceX has plans to develop “flyback” stages that return for a landing under their own power (see concept video here). They’ve started work on a test vehicle that will fly up 10-12000 ft and then descend under its own power.

It’s an open issue whether this will be economical. SpaceX admits that this plan will cost them up to 40% of their payload capacity; there may be missions where they’ll have to throw away the first and second stages just to get a payload to orbit. But, even partial reuse would be better than none, if it results in faster turnaround time and reduced cost. I can see the first stage recovery working for the Falcon Heavy; the outer cores will stage lower and slower than the central core.

Thanks guys, I didn’t understand that! I had a long close look at SpaceX’s site after I posted here and realized the ‘crack’ was certainly designed, but I certainly didn’t understand what it was for! Every shot I had seen previously somehow missed that (and I had followed the first COTS flight closely..)

Thankyou all, always willing to learn – but how did you know that (re the parachutes) – I read space stuff everywhere and hadn’t read that.

Incidentally – did anyone else catch Elon’s interview on SpaceflightNow re the scaled up Falcon 9? The uprated Merlin engines (1D) I knew about, but Falcon 9.1 (or was it 9 v1.1?) is (ooh my memory) about a 10% stretch following flight 5 I think..

Thanks,
Nic

I particularly like that there was a “splashdown” timer on the wall in Mission Control last week. THAT has not happened since Apollo-Soyuz in the ’70s.

https://twitter.com/spaceguy87/status/206608225120956416

Ben H
Mission Control, TX

When it comes to ISS, we use the term “dock” to specifically refer to a vehicle that flies into contact at a docking port under its own power. This is how the Space Shuttle, Soyuz, Progress, ATV, and some future vehicles meet up with ISS. It is important ot make this distinction when it comes to SpaceX and HTV (and eventually Orbital) because their method of rendezvous is to fly very close and then become passive so that the ISS can do the tricky part of snagging it with the robot arm (SSRMS, if you prefer). Once the robot arm has grabbed Dragon, it becomes just another “module” to be attached.

The port where Dragon is “berthed” isn’t even a docking port. It doesn’t have sensors or mechanisms that a vehicle could just fly into. Instead it is one of the “common berthing mechanisms”. In the future if Dragon brings people to ISS, we expect it to fly in for a real docking to one of the PMA (pressurized mating adapters) like the space shuttle.

- Ben H.
Mission Control, Texas

The crack is normal, it’s for the parachute lines. The parachutes are packed in the bottom of the capsule to maximize usable space inside, but they’re anchored on top, so they need those grooves to let the lines out.

And at least some of the difference in scorching is hatch side vs. parachute side. They try to protect the hatch during reentry, so it comes through better. The parachute side of the first Dragon was pretty charred too: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qQW-hBn8t-E/ThFynE4BdpI/AAAAAAAAUs8/_0ApJmlSUUE/s1600/SPACEX01.jpg

I personally hope all is fine, but given the well publicized ‘Mars/Moon’ capable heat shield and how rough it looks this time – well I want to see an explanation. Even something like – ‘bit of a thruster fuel oxidizer mismatch, harmless, but made loads of soot’.

We will see!
Nic