Dragon crew capsule detached from the ISS around 2:30am EST (7:30am GMT) after a five-day mission
- It descending to Earth and made a landing exactly on time in the Atlantic Ocean 8:45am EST (1:45pm GMT)
- Four red and white parachutes deployed from the nose cone perfectly to slow the Dragon capsule down
- It was steadily slowed from hyper-sonic speeds upon re-entry until it dropped into the ocean without a bump
- A recovery boat, dubbed GO searcher, was tasked with stabilising the spacecraft and bringing it to solid land
SpaceX Won’t Admit That Its Crew Capsule Exploded
There was almost certainly an explosion during a SpaceX test this weekend. Why does the company refuse to use that word?
Sometimes, when you fill a small metal capsule with rocket fuel, it will explode.
That’s what appears to have happened this past weekend when SpaceX attempted a static test of its Dragon 2 capsule. “Crew Dragon capsule explodes,” wrote Scientific American. Business Insider called it a “large explosion.” Quartz said that it “blew up.” There’s even a grainy video of the test that seems to show a fireball.
But SpaceX? The company called it an “anomaly.”
You’d never know what happened if you only read SpaceX’s prepared statement, which downplayed the apparent explosion as much as possible.
“Earlier today, SpaceX conducted a series of engine tests on a Crew Dragon test vehicle on our test stand at Landing Zone 1 in Cape Canaveral, Florida. The initial tests completed successfully but the final test resulted in an anomaly on the test stand. Ensuring that our systems meet rigorous safety standards and detecting anomalies like this prior to flight are the main reason why we test. Our teams are investigating and working closely with our NASA partners.”
SpaceX isn’t the only space agency to use “anomaly” to describe a spacecraft glitch. There are several instances where NASA has used the word to characterize launch problems or spacecraft communication issues. But we haven’t found an instance where NASA said “anomaly” when it meant “explosion” — in that regard, SpaceX stands alone. When something blows up, NASA says so.
Perhaps the problem that led to an explosion was an “anomaly”; it would be confusing if it was expected. But the explosion itself? Calling it anything but is a disservice.
.