That seems like a pretty significant oversight?
> The software in this cargo version of Dragon (Dragon 1), Musk explained, is inert on ascent and was not programmed to release the parachute in the event of a failure. Software in the version of Dragon under development for taking people into space (Dragon 2 or Crew Dragon) is programmed to do just that.
While it sounds like simple thing, remote control of the 'chutes would add significant complexity and cost.
1. http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/failed-strut-likely-ca...
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/john-aaron-apollo-12-curios...
I guess we can forgive Bean for frying the color TV camera, then.
After having learned in real world conditions that it can handle those sorts they figured, what the heck... might as well add it.
The crewed Dragon (Dragon 2) uses powered thrusters to push itself away from a failing rocket.
Net result, failed launches are not really worth trying to recover unless it's people. Though, deploying parachutes may have marginally reduced the risks to a passing boat.
Didn't it fall in the range safety exclusion zone, which ships were warned away from?
(I'm not sure if there was a reason or not)
The second failure was a second stage exploding. Had the payload been a crewed Dragon V2, those inside would have survived. Even without a launch escape system, the Dragon V1 was fine[2]:
> The Dragon CRS-7 capsule was ejected from the exploding launch vehicle and continued transmitting data until impact with the ocean. SpaceX officials stated that it could have been recovered if the parachutes deployed, however the software in the capsule did not include any provisions for parachute deployment in this situation.
Overall, it's a much safer design than the Shuttle. The crew vehicle is on top of the stack instead of along side it. If anything goes wrong, the capsule can GTFO and land with parachutes.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-7