Slashdot Mirror


ISS Captures SpaceX Dragon Capsule

Today at 9:56AM EDT (13:56 GMT) the robotic arm on the International Space Station successfully captured SpaceX's Dragon capsule. It's the first time a commercial craft has connected with the ISS, and the first time a spacecraft made in the U.S. has gone to the station since the retirement of the shuttle. The approach was delayed temporarily as engineers worked out bad sensor readings due to light reflected off the ISS's Kibo laboratory. "To work around the problem, SpaceX narrowed the field of view for the laser sensor so that it wouldn't pick up light from the offending reflector. Dragon then returned to the 30-meter checkpoint and moved in for the final approach." If all goes well today, the capsule will most likely be opened tomorrow. Video of the operation is being broadcast live on NASA TV.

12 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Hooray. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's it. Just hooray.

    1. Re:Hooray. by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, you're saying they're really good at covering it all up.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Hooray. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They enslaved a whole race of people to build their space ship, and funded it by committing terrible acts of piracy on the high seas. The cannon balls whooshed over head and the pirates plundered everyone's sense of humor. It was terrible. A dark day for humanity and jokes.

    3. Re:Hooray. by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I will be mourning the death of publicly-funded space travel. Now, we hand it over to the pirates, slave-traders and privateers of our own era.

      Uhm... I think you got that wrong. If anything it's the death of "publicly-unfunded" space travel... Because your precious PUBLIC funding is instead funnelling trillions into fighting unwinnable wars on intangible ideas, and trying to spend as little as they can get away with on space travel. It costs more to air-condition our troops than NASA's whole budget. Every time I hear about NASA funding being cut back, or some congress critters mandating purchasing & building around dated rocket tech to keep their lobbyist friends' business afloat I died a little. Now there seems to be a light flickering on at the end of the tunnel.

      OPTIONS are good, people. It's not the death of anything in all actuality. NASA's not decommissioned, it's not like they've even stopped rocket research; It's just that we have MORE OPTIONS other than a bureaucracy driven platform held back by the opinions of the ignorant masses...

    4. Re:Hooray. by rufty_tufty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the difference between:
      NASA: We want a shuttle
      Boeing/etc: Right give us $5billion and we'll go build one for you.,
      NASA: Here's $5 Billion
      BOeing./etc: Thanks but we had need some more
      NASA: okay
      Boeing/etc: Nope still more and if you don't give it to uss you'll have wasted all the moey you threw at us
      NASA: okay, well while you're doing that we need to change the requirements
      Boeing/etc: Oh, few more billion please, and did i mention it doesn't work very well so we'll want a few more billion.
      etc

      verses
      SpaceX: we want to develop manned flight, look here's us launching a satellite. Anyone interested?
      NASA: cool, hey we want that, need some funding?
      SpaceX: Sure if you're offering it to us.
      NASA okay, well if you can deliver a Falcon 9 and meet the design targets for your Dragon we'll give you $500 Million to build them
      SpaceX: Done, can we have our money now?
      NASA: Cool you've had a successful launch. We'll pay you for the next launch now then

      If you don't see the difference between these two models then I'm somewhat worried. Not that I blame NASA or Boeing or anyone else, it's just what happens when this much money is in play. the only way to fix that is to get the cost down.
      If anything this distraction of manned flight has taken them away from their initial goal of developing cheap satellite launch capability. Not that I think they mind but still it shows that they had a business plan without NASa that still exists. See Biglow as well for uses of this manned capability they plan to use.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
  2. sorry, unconstructive emotional comment'n'all, but by jthill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fucking awesome.

    --
    As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
  3. That Kibo, still making trouble... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that Usenet is fading into history, is He monitoring the Slashdot feed? We'll see.

  4. Re:I missed the live video by patlabor · · Score: 5, Informative
  5. Its not just "Private Good - Government Bad" by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The strive for profit will necessarily lead to advancements in space tech, as they have in all other industries where long-term profitability is the primary incentive (Silicon Valley being the prime modern example).

    SpaceX, Virgin Galactic et. al. aren't going into space because they are private sector.

    SpaceX, Virgin Galactic et. al. are going into space because they are run by individuals who have made shedloads of money in other ventures and, instead of being good capitalists and starting work on their next shedload, have decided instead to try and realise their childhood ambition of being an astronaut, if only vicariously (has Elon Musk been sighted since the launch? :-) )

    Kudos to them of course - and they may even end up making money - but without that sort of motivation the private sector would, at most, look at ways of making a risk-free buck by launching comms satellites rather than trying to put people into space.

    As others have pointed out, the real test will - unfortunately - come the first time someone gets killed. I'm not sure the private sector could afford a Challenger inquiry.

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  6. Mixed blessings by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (Disclaimer: I work in aerospace)

    Private sector space exploration is a mixed blessing without regulatory oversight.

    The FAA does wonders for ensuring consistent manufacturing and engineering policies, as do the various ISO industrial process certification programs for industrial centers.

    Government sponsored engineering tends to be a total money and resource sink, and what comes out tends to look like the engineers went out of their way to make things needlessly cryptic and arcane to justify their bills.

    Essentially, the equivalent of a 500 line "hello world!", which ignores normal OS window classes, allocates and frees its own memory, and has an integrated kernel runtime to make sure nobody is snooping on the secret sauce from outside of userspace.

    Private designs tend to shy away from uniqueness, and toward stringent use of the KISS principle, but may excessively use protected engineering documentation and practices. (Imagine somebody writing their own application API on top of the perfectly functional standard one for their target, and locking that bitch down so tight that its like watching a snuff film, then using it religiously to keep people from "copying" their ideas. Nevermind that all their competitors are also working from the KISS handbook on the actual engineering, and that the differences are all almost entirely process related. Fit form and function is conserved.)

    Oversight helps to keep these proprietary engineering toolbases under control, and helps ensure interoperability of critical systems, like runway boarding ramps on the aircraft's skin, type of fuel used, and standard cabin pressures.

    Without the unifying influence of such oversight, no airplane in the sky would follow any standards except internal OEM ones. An airbus and a boeing offering would not use the same cabin pressure (just to throw something out there), because one of them would get the brightt idea to lower it 5psi so they could fly a little higher and reduce skin stresses as a competative edge.

    Space vehicles, being radically new to private industry, would be especially vulnerable to marketing and PR drones dictating on the engineering so that the vehicle stands out from the crowd, even though that is a terrible thing for interoperability.

    So, while I like the leaner design implementations that come out of private companies, I strongly advocate oversight and regulatory compliance for safety and interoperability reasons.

    Otherwise the specs on a private spaceship will be a countless mess of cross-referencing NDA laden proprietary internal standards docs, and as an engineer for a company that does outsourced work from the big boys, I only have so much goddam space on my desk for binders full of proprietary specifications so I can read somebody's engineering properly. "Torque bolts to LES####" is fine and dandy if you work for learjet. For the rest of us, I'm happy to get an AME or NAS number that I can look up instead of calling your support line, talking with a string of bobbleheads behind desks who are more concerned over weather or not I might discuss what's in a spec for tightening bolts with "unauthorized" people, and if I am indeed authorized to know the secret of the bolt tightening in the first place. I'm an engineer. Just give me the damn spec, your corporate crap smells up my day.

    Regulatory oversight makes things magically simpler, because it forces LES#### to be compliant with a standard AMS#### or similar regulatory body that I don't have to suck a dick to get my hands on.

    I'm thrilled that the dragon heavy lifter works. It opens all sorts of doors for much cheaper orbital deployments, and the soyouz capsules were starting to have unreliable failure rates from excessive use and improper maintenance downtimes. This will work wonders.

    But for FSM's sake, institute some damned industry regulations!

  7. Privately funded by sjbe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If the money that's paying for it is coming from taxes, its not commercial.

    You are correct in a sense. The current primary customer (NASA) happens to be a government agency and that agency does pay with tax dollars. Saying it is commercial is very much a short hand for a more complicated story. SpaceX also already has contracts with private sector companies as well. Furthermore its operations and R&D were funded privately initially to the tune of something like $400 million. Funding from NASA has come from progress payments on launch contracts. The fact that NASA is a government agency is somewhat incidental to the operations of SpaceX. Our company has had the government as a customer (we've sent products into space) in the past but that doesn't mean we aren't a private company or that what we do isn't commercial.

  8. Re:sorry, unconstructive emotional comment'n'all, by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a reason every time something cool is done it's done in America first

    First train? English.
    First commercial train service? Manchester to Liverpool.
    First car? German.
    First TV? Invented by a Scotsman.
    First TV broadcast service? English.
    First freeway/motorway/autobahn? German.
    First satellite? Russian.
    First man in space? Russian.
    First man to orbit the Earth? Russian.
    First woman in space? Russian.
    First moon rover? Russian.
    First space walk? Russian.
    First space station? Russian. (The ISS has a Salyut-derived core)
    First probe to land on another planet? Russian.
    Countless records broken for long duration stays in orbit? Russian.
    Inventor of the jet engine? English.
    Home of first electronic computer? Manchester, England.
    First supersonic airliner? Anglo-French.
    Inventor of the World Wide Web? An Englishman working in Switzerland.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars