Astronauts Open Dragon Capsule Hatch

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Astronauts Open Dragon Capsule Hatch

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday May 26, 2012 @01:12AM from the no-snakes-found-so-far dept.

Hexydes writes "Early in the morning (5:53 am EST) on May 26th, 2012, NASA gave the go-ahead for the Expedition 31 crew to begin the procedure to open the hatch on the Dragon capsule, now directly attached to the ISS. 'The hatch opening begins four days of operations to unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo from the first commercial spacecraft to visit the space station and reload it with experiments and cargo for a return trip to Earth. It is scheduled for splashdown several hundred miles west of California on May 31. Wearing protective masks and goggles, as is customary for the opening of a hatch to any newly arrived vehicle at the station, Pettit entered the Dragon with Station Commander Oleg Kononenko. The goggles and masks will be removed once the station atmosphere has had a chance to mix air with the air inside the Dragon itself.' Here is a video of the procedure."

138 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by ickleberry · 2012-05-26 01:19 · Score: 1

Would that be hard to shift in 0 gravity, could it be done by one person in one go?
1. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by bobstreo · 2012-05-26 01:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yeah except for the part where you're trying to stop the 1000 pounds of cargo trying to bash it's way out of the space
  station part.
  Also I'm guessing it's not just sitting on one pallet in the middle of the capsule.
2. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Greyfox · 2012-05-26 01:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  IIRC, even if the gravity is 0 you still have mass and inertia to deal with. "Heavy" stuff will be harder to get moving and stop moving once it's where it's supposed to be. Also, with Newton's third law, even tossing something with fairly low mass will have an effect on your position. So you'd have to brace or bounce off a wall or something. That would probably make the logistics of unloading a large cargo fairly... interesting...
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
3. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by pesho · 2012-05-26 01:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There is this thing called inertia, and it is a bitch, especially at 0 G with no/little friction to help. Once the 1000 pounds of stuff gets in motion it will bounce around the place until everything gets smashed to pieces.
4. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-05-26 01:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's not all in one box. Whatever it is has to fit through the hatch. Inventory, move (inertia!), stow. Now do it in the other direction for the stuff that needs to come back to earth.
5. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Cold+hard+reality · 2012-05-26 01:31 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Union rules requires at least three workers over four days
6. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  A single person could probably get it all moving, but stopping it and turning it without getting crushed into a wall might be an issue. Not to mention the cargo is probably going to places all over the station so moving it all might be a silly proposition anyways
7. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 01:34 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly!. This is the procedure, whether a private capsule is attached, the former shuttle or the Soyuz capsule. The news here is not the transfer of 1,000 lbs of cargo, but that it is the first private capsule (vs government).
8. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by modmans2ndcoming · 2012-05-26 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  while there is no weight, objects still have mass and momentum so producing enough force to start moving 1000 lbs and producing enough to stop 1000 lbs is a big issue.
9. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by queazocotal · 2012-05-26 01:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Slow and gentle.
  Press on a thousand pounds in freefall with a force of a pound, and in ten seconds, it's moving at 10cm/s.
  This is probably faster than you want in a confined environment.
  If you need more than your little finger to exert the pressure - you're doing it wrong.
10. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by queazocotal · 2012-05-26 01:49 · Score: 2
  
  Of course, that should read mm/s.
11. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by aaarrrgggh · 2012-05-26 01:55 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Unloading 1,000 pounds in microgravity requires the same energy as in 1G. 450kg however would be significantly easier.
12. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  Because a pound refers to weight and not mass? Is that your assumption?
13. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by camperdave · 2012-05-26 02:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  while there is no weight, objects still have mass and momentum so producing enough force to start moving 1000 lbs and producing enough to stop 1000 lbs is a big issue.
  No. It is no issue at all. You could push it with your finger. A fly could move it. If you apply 10 pounds of force for one second, it will start moving, and it will take exactly 10 pounds of force applied for one second in the opposite direction to stop it... or you could stop it by applying 5 lbs of force for two seconds.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
14. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  Not as big an issue as it is when there's practically no friction involved. I can still manage to get 3200lbs moving all by myself with some greatly reduced friction here on Earth, but then again I guess not everyone has had to push a car that wouldn't start while it's shifted into neutral. Momentum can still be a bitch in terms of control, so slow and easy is the way.
  However I doubt it's all one big package going to the ISS. It's probably a bunch of smaller crates and boxes which would weigh 50lbs on Earth. It's likely the astronauts just station at points along the path the boxes are supposed to take when loading/unloading and play a little bit of slow-motion catch with them.
15. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by sjames · 2012-05-26 03:05 · Score: 2
  
  Consider, a pallet sitting in the middle of a room in 0G (a MUCH easier setup than the tight quarters in the capsule and ISS). You grab the load and lift. Slowly it starts to rise from the floor (designated). It's high enough so you start pushing down and end up going for a ride on the cargo. Here comes the ceiling! CRUNCH!, squashed like a bug.
  So, no. Not easy and not a 1 man operation.
  In reality, the cargo is divided into many smaller packages in racks. It takes time to inventory ans stow all of that.
16. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by BriggsBU · 2012-05-26 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Try pushing the car while standing on ice, because with no gravity to push you down on the ground your feet are going to have very little traction.
17. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by sahonen · 2012-05-26 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Think of it this way: It's hard to push a car, even though there is very little friction in its wheels. Zero gravity doesn't mean zero mass, it just means you don't have to counter gravity.
  
  --
  Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
18. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by crawling_chaos · 2012-05-26 03:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Actually, it's a non-union shop, so they are waiting for immigrant workers that they will immediately throw out the airlock instead of paying when they are done.
  
  --
  You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
  -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
19. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by jandoedel · 2012-05-26 03:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  everyone is an immigrant on ISS..
20. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Cold+hard+reality · 2012-05-26 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  No, cm/s.
21. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  "Because a pound refers to weight and not mass? Is that your assumption?"
  He assumes that in the INTERNATIONAL Space Station there are no pounds.
22. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  I think you underestimate the effects of friction. It's easy to push a heavy cart. It's easy to roll something heavy on logs. It's easy for a Maglev to accelerate. If you remove the friction caused by gravity, it gets quite easy even for a single human to push stuff around.
23. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by camperdave · 2012-05-26 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  If you watch the video, at 0:40 and 2:10, you'll notice the astronauts wedging their feet under bars, and in other crevices. That would give them all the traction they need. In fact, those are there specifically for that purpose. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the entire ISS is outfitted with similar anchor points.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
24. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by DanielRavenNest · 2012-05-26 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Not one person, but two people could do it. The "standard racks" on board the Station can mass up to 500 kg each, and are swapped out regularly with new experiments. The large square hatch is sized to fit one of those racks, but you need two people for enough control of the movement so it does not smash things along the way.
  The standard racks are derived from earthly 19 inch equipment racks, with two of them side by side, and aircraft "seat tracks" are on the front to attach things to. Seat tracks are what the seats in an airplane are mounted to. They did not see a need to invent new things from scratch for the job of mounting hardware.
25. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by DanielRavenNest · 2012-05-26 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it is, hand holds, foot restraints, and outside they have bars for hooking safety cable clips to. Human muscles would be useless without something to push or pull against.
26. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  The coefficient of elasticity of collisions would still be less than 1, the stuff will probably stop before smashing all into pieces
27. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by witherstaff · 2012-05-26 06:11 · Score: 2
  
  Forget the immigrants. I want to know about the illegal aliens.
28. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by findoutmoretoday · 2012-05-26 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  There is this thing called inertia, and it is a bitch
  On a tow path - towing was also done by children last century, the bitch is not the 50000 pounds of inertia, but the wind.
29. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Hognoxious · 2012-05-26 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  I can easily push a car if I'm on ice. That's assuming there's a convenient tree, wall, rock etc. to brace my butt/feet against.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
30. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Hognoxious · 2012-05-26 08:04 · Score: 2
  
  if you're strong enough to accelerate it you're strong enough to decelerate it provided you have enough distance to do it over; the processes are exact mirror images.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
31. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by sjames · 2012-05-26 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  But if you slip or just lose your presence of mind for a moment, suddenly all that force you applied over a nice slow 1 meter of lifting with your legs is applied much more quickly to your ribcage over a few centimeters. That's why it has to be taken slowly and deliberately and always with a spotter at least.
32. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Savantissimo · 2012-05-26 09:00 · Score: 2
  
  It's a darn good thing they don't have to show their passports every time they cross a national boundary.
  
  --
  "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
33. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  That makes me want to slug you.
34. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Jeremi · 2012-05-26 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  That's assuming there's a convenient tree, wall, rock etc. to brace my butt/feet against.
  Of course then you are no longer 'on ice' so much as 'on tree'.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
35. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by queazocotal · 2012-05-26 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, g.
  I overthought. :)
36. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  It takes time and strength to stop the half-ton cargo load equal to the time and strength used to start it moving. As long as someone of similar power begins stopping it no later than halfway to the far bulkhead, it's no problem at all. In fact the push to start it should probably be pretty weak, as the spaces are small and there's no great rush, leaving the same or lesser strength able to overpower it in the event of a sudden recalculation of when and where it should stop.
  All this will be second nature to astronauts with more than a few weeks' experience in microgravity. If not, the loads can be secured with cables at length to stop them before colliding, then released as they slow to as stop, or restrained if the stop doesn't go as planned.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
37. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  It will be easy to get going, but somewhat hard to speed it up (just not as hard as when there's friction along the bottom enforced by gravity). It is exactly as easy/hard to slow and stop it.
  In orbital microgravity, every action on a separate object requires either bracing oneself on infrastructure, or accepting the opposite reactive motion from what you pressed away, eventually contacting some infrastructure. This has been the case since the first orbit, though some spaces are getting bigger and the possibility of losing contact with infrastructure greater, requiring actual deliberate bracing more often.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
38. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  The same person will stop and turn it with the same strength and time as they started it moving.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
39. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, if you jump at a nearby wall you will split your skull. Even here on Earth.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
40. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  It's easy to push a car with good bearings on level ground. I have pushed cars that weight over 10x my weight without any problem. And good bearings still have substantial friction compared to the air resistance inside an orbiting capsule, especially as the RPMs get up there with any speed. Otherwise cars would get far more MPG on cruise control than they do. Even lightweight, aerodynamic electric vehicles designed for maximum coasting still consume about 125W:Km.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
41. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by shiftless · 2012-05-26 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  But if you slip or just lose your presence of mind for a moment, suddenly all that force you applied over a nice slow 1 meter of lifting with your legs is applied much more quickly to your ribcage over a few centimeters.
  Good thing I don't slip or "lose my presence of mind for a moment" when I'm moving around loads that are large enough to kill me if I fuck up.
  Otherwise I'd have been dead long ago.
  Right?
  
  That's why it has to be taken slowly and deliberately and always with a spotter at least.
  Spotters are for pussies.
  If you need one, by all means, use one! .... Pussy.
42. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by sjames · 2012-05-26 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Now try it in an environment your nervous system did NOT evolve in.
43. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 20:32 · Score: 0
  
  IIRC, even if the gravity is 0 you still have mass and inertia to deal with. "Heavy" stuff will be harder to get moving and stop moving once it's where it's supposed to be. Also, with Newton's third law, even tossing something with fairly low mass will have an effect on your position. So you'd have to brace or bounce off a wall or something. That would probably make the logistics of unloading a large cargo fairly... interesting...
  Just a quick note: Gravity is not 0 up there. Think of it as this: If it were 0 the station would travel in a straight line...
44. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-28 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  They just tape them to the windows.
45. Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo by Coren22 · 2012-05-29 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  I was wondering how they determined it was 1000 lbs at roughly 0g, that must be some massive stuff to weigh that much in micro-gravity.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Almost there. by DamienNightbane · 2012-05-26 01:21 · Score: 0

Now all we need to do is start using the private sector to launch astronauts into space and we can finally do something about the bureaucratic nightmare that is NASA.
1. Re:Almost there. by Lumpy · 2012-05-26 01:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No thanks. They will make the seats tiny so they can fit 8-10 astronauts in there, plus charge $35.00 per bag. On top of that imagine 3 days in a capsule with only small bag of nuts, and not being able to use your ipad until you are above 150 miles.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
2. Re:Almost there. by reboot246 · 2012-05-26 03:03 · Score: 2
  
  Not to mention being raped by TSA perverts.
3. Re:Almost there. by loshwomp · 2012-05-26 03:44 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  with only small bag of nuts
  Speak for yourself, mister.
4. Re:Almost there. by Wandering+Voice · 2012-05-26 03:53 · Score: 2
  
  Hahah, I get it!
  After all your trips through the TSA chechpoints, you're left with a small bag of peanut butter.
5. Re:Almost there. by Brucelet · 2012-05-26 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Frankly, if the coss per weight was low enough that I could pay only $35 per bag to go into space I'd be there in a heartbeat.
6. Re:Almost there. by DamienNightbane · 2012-05-26 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  Except that the TSA is more government and not part of the private sector at all.
7. Re:Almost there. by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's right - rentacops are so much better than government cops.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
8. Re:Almost there. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-05-26 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yeah, they are, because you can fire them.
9. Re:Almost there. by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  What a completely naive statement, completely ignoring all the ways in which rentacops suck far worse than government cops. To the point where rentacops generally aren't allowed the kind of power that government cops are allowed.
  You do listen to what you say before you try to convince someone with your anarchist word salads, right?
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
10. Re:Almost there. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-05-26 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  (Shrug) Mall cops didn't kill 100,000,000 of their own fellow citizens in the twentieth century alone.
  I'd be a little careful throwing around terms like "naive" if I were you. Read some history.
11. Re:Almost there. by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  Because we didn't have nearly the amount of mall rentacops as we had real cops. They didn't have the power of real cops. They mostly didn't even have guns. They didn't get sent to face the kind of threats that real cops face.
  You are talking nonsense, and it's perfectly clear your libertarian trance cannot be broken. Enjoy your paradise in Somalia. Goodbye.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
12. Re:Almost there. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-05-26 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I've apparently graduated from "anarchist" to "libertarian." At this rate, I'll be a Republican by next Tuesday. Catch you then.
Sadly, it's all business... by Lumpy · 2012-05-26 01:41 · Score: 5, Funny

I would have rigged up two things.
1 - a huge "planet express" sticker on every box.
2 - a small device rigged to play "never gonna give you up" 30 seconds after they open the hatch.
Come on, a futurama joke and a ISS rickrolling would be utterly epic.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:Sadly, it's all business... by deblau · 2012-05-26 04:57 · Score: 2
  
  Nah, 30 seconds is way too soon, hatch openings can take a lot of time. Make it 2 minutes; give the crew some time to overcome that slight adrenaline bump from opening a door into a brand new room. And while a Rickroll would be pretty cool, I think playing the Final Countdown would be funnier.
  
  --
  This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Mass by pgn674 · 2012-05-26 01:42 · Score: 1

You mean 31 slugs.
1. Re:Mass by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-05-26 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  You mean 31 slugs.
  Oh, now I get it. I didn't understand at first that TFS meant 1000lbs at ground level in Earth's gravity field. So confusing!
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:Mass by jbeaupre · 2012-05-26 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, they should have corrected to 940lbs.
  (hint: gravity ain't zero at the space station)
  
  --
  The world is made by those who show up for the job.
3. Re:Mass by spire3661 · 2012-05-26 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Gravity aint 0 anywhere in the universe.
  
  --
  Good-bye
4. Re:Mass by jbeaupre · 2012-05-26 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, there are points with zero gravity. Find 2 large masses near each other. There should exist a point near L1 that has absolute zero gravity.
  
  --
  The world is made by those who show up for the job.
5. Re:Mass by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  As relativity explains, every point in the Universe is to some degree "near" any number of "large" masses, with the proportional gravity effect on/by them that Newton described.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
6. Re:Mass by jbeaupre · 2012-05-26 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  No, relativity describes the effect of gravity, not the size of the universe or the distribution of mass within. In fact, relativity predicts that if a point in the universe is far enough away from any mass, the effect of gravity has not reached it yet. Thus the effect of gravity is not as Newton described.
  Not only did you get both parts wrong, they contradict each other.
  All of the points in the observable universe have a mass within range, but there isn't a restriction saying that the universe isn't bigger than what we can observe. And Newton's description of gravity still doesn't hold (due to relativity).
  
  --
  The world is made by those who show up for the job.
7. Re:Mass by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-27 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, relativity says that all mass in the universe acts on all the other mass, even though the effect moves at the speed of light which is pretty slow over most of the vast universe, but most of the mass has already curved space by now since it has existed for so long. Newton's gravitation also says that all masses act on each other. Both of which models support my point that every point in the universe is affected by gravity, and there is nowhere that is "absolute zero gravity" as the comment to which I replied claimed.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
8. Re:Mass by jbeaupre · 2012-05-27 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  I think we are quibbling on the definition of universe and time. The difference being you say relativity says all of the universe has been acted on by gravity, whereas I say relativity states all of the universe will be acted on by gravity given enough time (e.g. that we lack proof that the entire universe is only as large as the universe we can observe and cannot make statements about the parts we cannot observe).
  If you are trying to be pedantic, you would have done better to say that I should have said "net zero gravity." We would still likely fight over whether that means zero gravity. I would maintain that gravity is defined by relativity as the gradient of the curvature of space. And there do exist points with zero curved space gradient.
  
  --
  The world is made by those who show up for the job.
9. Re:Mass by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-27 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  The curvature is relative to other points, hence the name "relativity".
  What we're talking about was the reply to the comment " gravity ain't zero at the space station" , that said "Gravity aint 0 anywhere in the universe." You say it is some places. I say it ain't.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
10. Re:Mass by jbeaupre · 2012-05-27 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, so you are saying that there is no reference frame in which a point with zero curvature exists?
  Or are you saying that no point exists for which curvature is zero in all reference frames?
  One would seem untrue. The other reaching pretty far to prove a point.
  
  --
  The world is made by those who show up for the job.
11. Re:Mass by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-28 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  No point exists for which curvature is zero in all reference frames. Since any reference frame in the Universe that has a mass in it exerts gravity on each point, there is no point at which there is 0 gravity. That's why I agree with that previous post. It might be reaching pretty far, but that is the point of having comprehensive theories of gravity - they reach as far as there is.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
12. Re:Mass by Man+Eating+Duck · 2012-05-28 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, so you are saying that there is no reference frame in which a point with zero curvature exists?
  Or are you saying that no point exists for which curvature is zero in all reference frames?
  One would seem untrue. The other reaching pretty far to prove a point.
  Zero gravity != free falling (you were originally talking about free falling, or micro gravity, as smarter people than both of us call it). And no, he didn't reach too far too "prove a point", you're just plain wrong. There is no point in the observable universe where forces from gravity are zero. Even if curvature is flat because forces even out, gravity is not absent.
  
  --
  Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
13. Re:Mass by Man+Eating+Duck · 2012-05-28 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  You mean 31 slugs.
  Oh, now I get it. I didn't understand at first that TFS meant 1000lbs at ground level in Earth's gravity field. So confusing!
  No, it does not. Assuming you're from the U.S (that would explain some things), your pound as a unit of mass is defined in terms of the kg:
  
  "In the United States, the avoirdupois pound as a unit of mass has been officially defined in terms of the kilogram since the Mendenhall Order of 1893."
  You imply that it's clear what it means, which is obviously ridiculous as you're severely muddled on the issue. Of course, the grown-ups use SI-units to avoid this confusion. On a side note it would be amusing to request a quote for an otherwise serious request to SpaceX for lift to LEO with mass expressed in lbs :)
  
  --
  Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
14. Re:Mass by jbeaupre · 2012-05-28 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, my original point was that free fall isn't zero gravity. At it's current altitude, gravity is about .94g's at the ISS. It was meant to be a humorous observation.
  The argument we got into was whether there is even such a thing as zero gravity. According to Einstein's equivalence principle, there is (for the right reference frame).
  There are also local points, near large masses, where space is locally flat at a point. Mathematical saddle points.
  If you view curvature as a product of gravity, yes, there is no point in the observable universe without gravity (but points with a net vector sum of zero do exist). We cannot make such claims about the universe, just the observable universe.
  If you view gravity as a product of curvature (caused by mass), then yes, there are points without gravity.
  What I found highly amusing was the contention that there is no point with no gravity in all reference frames. Which is true for the observable universe, and a caveat not attached to the original statement that there is no such thing as zero g.
  
  --
  The world is made by those who show up for the job.
15. Re:Mass by Coren22 · 2012-05-29 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  How would you measure that on a scale?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
my eyes by j00r0m4nc3r · 2012-05-26 01:48 · Score: 1

the goggles do nothing.
1. Re:my eyes by Lumpy · 2012-05-26 01:54 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Oh yes they do. The goggles are there to prevent....
  S P A C E - M A D N E S S !
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
2. Re:my eyes by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-05-26 02:11 · Score: 2
  
  A Ren & Stimpy reference to go with your earlier Futurama reference (and in reply to a Simpsons reference)? <Mr. Burns>Excellent </Mr. Burns>
youtube ads by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 01:58 · Score: 0

C'mon, isn't it obvious that the submitter is just pulling for YouTube views and ads? Where did s/he get this video feed from anyway?
They opened a DRAGON CAPSULE in SPACE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 02:00 · Score: 1

Was there a space dragon inside?
1. Re:They opened a DRAGON CAPSULE in SPACE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  Space Herpes
2. Re:They opened a DRAGON CAPSULE in SPACE by Frosty+Piss · 2012-05-26 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Was there a space dragon inside?
  Perhaps a large insect like creature wearing platform boots with giant extendable razor sharp teeth who wants to implant eggs in your belly... Something like that.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
3. Re:They opened a DRAGON CAPSULE in SPACE by xmundt · 2012-05-26 03:28 · Score: 2
  
  Greetings and Salutations;
  Hum...I have, for years, wanted to see some of the outtakes from "Ice Pirates". It is a truly awful film, but, right after that line, there is a cut and from the expressions that remain on the actor's faces I suspect there was something terribly amusing and probably pretty crude that got said.
  Now, I am going to have to get a copy of it and inflict it on some folks....Sigh.
  Pleasant dreams
  dave mundt
  
  --
  YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
4. Re:They opened a DRAGON CAPSULE in SPACE by Hognoxious · 2012-05-26 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  No, a bobcat.
  Would not buy again.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
5. Re:They opened a DRAGON CAPSULE in SPACE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, what else were you going to get from a company called SpaceSex?
Premature e-hatch-ulation.... by taiwanjohn · 2012-05-26 02:02 · Score: 2

I missed the live broadcast because the bastards opened the hatch an hour an a half early. The flight director, Holly Ridings, had warned they might be "a bit early" in yesterday's press briefing, but I had no idea they'd be that early.
Anyway, it's cool to have it all ship-shape and working fine. I was amused by Don Pettit's comment: "It smells inside like a new car!" ;-)

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
1. Re:Premature e-hatch-ulation.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  I missed the live broadcast because the bastards opened the hatch an hour an a half early.
  Can't blame them really, just like Christmas.
2. Re:Premature e-hatch-ulation.... by taiwanjohn · 2012-05-26 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  I don't blame them, of course. Just being snarky...
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Thagg · 2012-05-26 02:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

I have tremendous respect for Mr Musk and his team at SpaceX. To have designed and built the Falcon 9 and the Dragon, and to have them work perfectly every time, in the short time they had, is an amazing achievement.
On the other hand, this really isn't the first "privately built" spacecraft. Almost all of the "NASA" rockets and spacecraft were built by independent contractors. NASA did a lot of the design work on the Saturn rockets and the spacecraft, but the Redstone, Atlas, and Titan rockets were all designed by private contractors for the military. SpaceX has some advantage in that it's doing everything under one roof (literally).
It is impressive to see that hatch open -- showing the depths of the cooperation between NASA and SpaceX. NASA has to have been working on this almost as hard as SpaceX over the past year to develop the procedures for the rendezvous, capture, and berthing of the Dragon. The opening of that hatch might not be as historic as the Apollo-Soyuz docking of the '70s but it's right up there.

--
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
1. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Whatsmynickname · 2012-05-26 02:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It is revolutionary from the standpoint that the government didn't lay down the requirements for what they wanted (or just designed the item themselves) in a space vehicle, just ISS interface requirements. SpaceX built what they wanted without NASA or DoD people sticking their noses in. And SpaceX actually completed the project and docked with the space station, instead of just making a ton of Powerpoints and 3D animated videos on what it would look like if they actually did it. If others follow SpaceX, then instead of Slashdot bitching about the difference between a capsule and a delta winged re-entry vehicle, private companies can actually BUILD it and we'll conclusively see which is better. THAT is what is revolutionary.
2. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by taiwanjohn · 2012-05-26 02:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  True, but this is different. SpaceX funded the development of its Falcon rockets almost entirely with private funding, and they are selling rides at a fixed price, rather than the "cost-plus" accounting that has been the standard for NASA since the 60's. Also, NASA has had a much "lighter touch" in the Dragon development than they've traditionally had with other contractors. They set the goals and guidelines (and provided a LOT of expertise and some funding too) but allowed SpaceX a lot of freedom to solve the problems in their own way. Elon can't say enough about how grateful he is for NASA's help. But by the same token, NASA officials are quick to note how "different" this has been from the previous business-as-usual.
  Regardless, I agree this is a "Big F---ing Deal" (as V.P. Biden might say). I've been looking forward to this mission for a LONG TIME. It's damn satisfying to see it all coming together at last.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
3. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Teancum · 2012-05-26 02:37 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The Dragon spacecraft is the first vehicle which has been built primarily with private funds, where the "ownership" of the vehicle does not belong to a government agency. When this vehicle returns to the Earth, while NASA will get all of the stuff that is inside of the vehicle, it doesn't "belong" to NASA. In fact SpaceX has even hinted that this particular vehicle might see a 2nd or 3rd flight in the future (in terms of the capsule itself). NASA's COTS contract requires a new vehicle for every flight, so those subsequent flights will likely go to paying commercial (read non-government) customers, but the spacecraft doesn't "belong" to NASA.
  The comparison here is more like how commercial airlines can lease their aircraft and crews to other people, including government agencies.
  In the case of most of those "privately built spacecraft", there is a huge difference between them and the Dragon. For things like the Space Shuttle, the Apollo spacecraft, or even things like the probes to other planets, they were designed by NASA engineers where all of the specifications and design requirements were decided upon by NASA management and had NASA personnel at nearly all levels of production. Any "private" companies were really contractors and sub-contractors who followed the lead of NASA supervision.
  Also it is important to point out that the other spacecraft that have flown to the ISS by American companies have also all been "owned" by NASA. If you tried to buy a Space Shuttle from North American-Rockwell International (yes, I know those companies are now owned by Boeing), you would have been politely told you simply can't buy them at any price. There were some people who tried to buy a Shuttle in the 1980's and simply couldn't. In the case of the Dragon, SpaceX will gladly sell you one and even help you out with the government paperwork needed to be able to use it and help schedule a launch for you as well. They will even help you through the process if you aren't an American (which does add paperwork and some hassles, but it can be arranged).
  I'll admit that commercial companies have been involved with the construction of spacecraft in the past, but this is something new. How different it can be will be seen with other projects that SpaceX is doing that will be completely private for-profit ventures not involving NASA at all.
4. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 03:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  SpaceX built what they wanted without NASA or DoD people sticking their noses in.
  Mod parent up. There is a huge infrastructure of NASA and DOD folks whose job it is to stick their noses in. They are expensive, their cost comes out of your budget, and they cause huge delays in your program. SpaceX is a brilliant idea in that it keeps those expensive noses out of most things.
  There are places for those noses, like launch safety and docking, where there can be risk to citizens or government equipment (the space station). But, many times, those noses simply waste money assuring 100-percent space mission success.
5. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  "It is revolutionary from the standpoint that the government didn't lay down the requirements for what they wanted (or just designed the item themselves)"
  I don't know how broadly you define "the government", but i know of no case where politicians actually designed anything technical.
  "SpaceX built what they wanted without NASA or DoD people sticking their noses in."
  Surely NASA had some requirements. It's just that it's not called regulation, so it's ok.
6. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Patch86 · 2012-05-26 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  What large organisation buys hardware (or software) without defining their requirements first? Is NASA comprised entirely of marketing executives?
  Usual rule of business is- if you're the one paying, you're the one who gets to decide what you end up with. I'd be shocked and stunned if, when NASA tendered for the huge contracts and subsidies they're offering, they didn't list in no uncertain terms what they expect the contract winner's product to be able to do.
7. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by thePig · 2012-05-26 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  I actually would congratulate Obama on this. He forced everybody's hand on this, and it looks like a completely new future is beckoning...
  
  --
  rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
8. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by camperdave · 2012-05-26 04:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Actually, NASA behaved exactly like they should as the government agency for Space Administration: provide the specifications for interfaces, safety factors, and the like, act as a clearing house for technical information, set guidelines and milestones. NASA told commercial interests WHAT to do, and let the commercial interests decide HOW to do it.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
9. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah I remember when he was elected 10 years ago and got SpaceX started.
  Thank you Obama!
10. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by MightyMartian · 2012-05-26 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  You're quite right. Historically companies building space vehicles for NASA were contractors. These vehicles were not strictly speaking private craft, any more than an aircraft carrier is a private ship.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
11. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by spire3661 · 2012-05-26 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  "SpaceX built what they wanted without NASA or DoD people sticking their noses in." Surely NASA had some requirements. It's just that it's not called regulation, so it's ok. He later qualified what he said with this "There are places for those noses, like launch safety and docking, where there can be risk to citizens or government equipment (the space station). " So yeah, you're an idiot.
  
  --
  Good-bye
12. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  So yeah, Mr. Troll, there are some places for nose-sticking, of course.
  But, you are clearly unaware of how much unnecessary nose-sticking goes on. Millions upon millions are wasted.
  For the analysts, any problem is good for business, be it real or imagined.
13. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by kermidge · 2012-05-26 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  "but the Redstone, Atlas, and Titan rockets were all designed by private contractors for the military"
  Redstone was designed by von Braun and team at Army Ballistic Missile Agency at Redstone Arsenal, the _building_ of it was contracted out to Chrysler as prime. Most of the rest followed the more normal process, bids to spec.
  Your first and last paras, right on!
14. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Megane · 2012-05-26 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  tl;dr: NASA is paying for the ride, not the rocket.
  I hadn't heard that the COTS program requires a new vehicle for each flight, but that just means that SpaceX is going to have a lot of spares for non-COTS missions.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
15. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Teancum · 2012-05-26 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  First of all, the decision to begin shutting down the Shuttle program happened under the Clinton administration and was accelerated under the Bush (W) administration, arguably even going back to the Reagan administration due to policy changes that happened after the loss of the Challenger. Regardless, the actual shutdown process was begun by Michael Griffin, administrator for NASA. To blame Obama for shutting down the Shuttle program and giving us the mess that NASA is in right now is patently unfair to the guy for a great many reasons... other than the horrible lack of leadership that the Obama administration is providing at the moment.
  This is ditto for the COTS program that SpaceX is operating under for this flight, which was another program started under the Bush adminsitration (through Griffin) as a sort of back-up contingency plan to the Constellation program. At best all Obama did was continue the program.
  As far as a lack of leadership in space is concerned, the last president who actually gave a damn about NASA and spaceflight in any meaningful way was Lyndon Johnson, with perhaps Reagan getting an honorable mention with at least pushing forward the concept of Space Station Freedom and getting the Endeavor built. Both Presidents Bush announced plans to go to Mars yet failed to provide any leadership in terms of getting funding to get it to happen or even building any infrastructure to make it happen.
  Constellation was such a horrible mess of a program that it simply had to be shut down, with more money spent on the Ares I launch tower alone than SpaceX has spent in its entire history as a company including launching 8 rockets (with admittedly 3 failures), building three spaceport complexes (launch pads at Cape Canaveral, Vandenberg, and Kwajalein), two factory complexes (one that SpaceX simply outgrew), developed three different rockets (Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and the soon to be launched Falcon 9-Heavy), three different rocket motors, and still managed to get something to the ISS all on that same budget. For another billion dollars or so, ATK managed to send the Ares 1-X on a suborbital flight that looked impressive but didn't really do anything at all, and those were the "successful" parts of the Constellation program. The Orion spacecraft is all that is left from the several billion dollars spent towards the development of that program, and I would give it at best 50:50 odds of even making a trip into space on any kind of spacecraft.
  It should be pointed out that the appointment of Charles Bolden as administrator of NASA was nearly the very last of any high level agency appointments made by Barack Obama, and the longest it took for any president since Eisenhower to appoint somebody into that position after taking office (assuming the chair of NACA was the predecessor to the NASA administrator position). Obama has basically put any sort of serious discussion of space policy on the back burner and doesn't really care to offer any real leadership. Then again neither does Mitt Romney, so it doesn't look good for NASA in the next decade or so.
16. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by khallow · 2012-05-26 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  but i know of no case where politicians actually designed anything technical.
  The government consists of more than politicians. And requirements are how politicians can intrude on the design.
  
  Surely NASA had some requirements. It's just that it's not called regulation, so it's ok.
  Of course, they did. But the requirements were more along the lines of safety requirements for something near the ISS than the manufacture and testing requirements that they imposed on the Shuttle supply chain. That allows SpaceX to incorporate manufacture-side innovations that couldn't be done with the Shuttle.
17. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong word, asshole. When somebody shows you up, it's called "pedantic", not "troll".
18. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  They are expensive, their cost comes out of your budget, and they cause huge delays in your program.
  Which your aerospace contractor insists be expensive, since your budget is charged cost-plus to the government/taxpayer. So your aerospace contractor wants its costs to rise, since that's the basis for its profits to rise. Which is why NASA wants to be expensive, because NASA's every move is scripted by lobbyists from aerospace contractors who write the legislation and budgets that control NASA.
  It will indeed be good to get NASA out of a lot of that loop. Even though these private space companies like SpaceX will still be paid by NASA/taxpayer, they'll take some unindemnified risks and losses. Eventually they'll have enough private orbital infrastructure that the public will have only a purely regulatory role, not any expense role except enforcing the regulations. If we're lucky. More likely private space operations will have rid themselves of regulation entirely, and the only justice for people there will be what they can buy from the giant exoplanetary corporation.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
19. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  The percentage of people who directly work for (and so are) the government who are elected politicans is smaller than the rounding error on the turnover of government employees. Most of what the government does is to enforce and obey laws, not make them.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
20. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 11:50 · Score: 2
  
  At best all Obama did was continue the program.
  [...]
  Both Presidents Bush announced plans to go to Mars yet failed to provide any leadership in terms of getting funding to get it to happen or even building any infrastructure to make it happen.
  Then again neither does Mitt Romney [really care to offer any real leadership]
  Indeed that is why Obama deserves credit. He continued the programme. Despite also handling a catastrophic economic collapse that literally threatened to delete America's main industrial engine, the automotive industry. It took a lot of political capital and risk to continue that programme, instead of just lying about it the way those other presidents did.
  
  the appointment of Charles Bolden as administrator of NASA was nearly the very last of any high level agency appointments made by Barack Obama, and the longest it took for any president since Eisenhower to appoint somebody into that position after taking office
  Again, it's not easy spending money on something like NASA when the country is flooded by propaganda calling any government spending "socialism" during the biggest economic collapse in a lifetime. Appointing someone against that headwind, and NASA getting its various work done especially since a Republican Congress has insisted on interfering with anything Obama could take credit for (including killing Binladen), was real leadership.
  So it's a good thing Obama will be defeating Romney in 6 months. That makes it look a lot better than if Romney and his party of Bush, Bush, Reagan (who did nothing but keep the Shuttle programme on the treadmill while pimping the Star Wars SDI boondoggle), Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower were running NASA. Those people showed leadership only in screwing the best thing America's ever done, our space programme. Obama deserves credit for keeping NASA going, even growing private industry into space the way Republicans would always lie about but never do. He will get that credit, and will do more to deserve more credit when reelected. Especially the fewer Republicans around to interfere with it.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
21. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by DerekLyons · 2012-05-26 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  It is revolutionary from the standpoint that the government didn't lay down the requirements for what they wanted (or just designed the item themselves) in a space vehicle, just ISS interface requirements. SpaceX built what they wanted without NASA or DoD people sticking their noses in.
  That's the geek urban legend. And it's utter bullshit.
  
  Nothing flies from the Cape that doesn't meet DoD safety requirements and (for commercial flights, of which there are many) FAA requirements. Nothing docks to the ISS that doesn't meet NASA safety requirements. Etc... etc... The DoD, and NASA, and the FAA, and the State Dept, and... well, a whole raftload stuck their noses in.
22. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by DerekLyons · 2012-05-26 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  The Dragon spacecraft is the first vehicle which has been built primarily with private funds, where the "ownership" of the vehicle does not belong to a government agency.
  Wrong. There's a whole raft load of satellites on orbit built entirely with private funds, launched on private boosters by private companies, with no "ownership" whatsoever by any government agency.
23. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Sosarian+Avatar · 2012-05-26 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  The sad thing is that the investigation report after the Columbia disaster indicated that the complex "informally" hierarchcial infrastructure at NASA ultimately was to blame.
  
  --
  Apathy Sucks, Nobody for President!
24. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by MrKaos · 2012-05-27 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  Again, it's not easy spending money on something like NASA when the country is flooded by propaganda calling any government spending "socialism" during the biggest economic collapse in a lifetime. Appointing someone against that headwind, and NASA getting its various work done especially since a Republican Congress has insisted on interfering with anything Obama could take credit for (including killing Binladen), was real leadership.
  It's hardly surprising that people are so apathetic whilst political parties spend their energies on seeking and maintaining political power instead of fixing the structural issues with good policy. NASA is another in a long line of victims used for political expediency.
  
  So it's a good thing Obama will be defeating Romney in 6 months. That makes it look a lot better than if Romney and his party of Bush, Bush, Reagan (who did nothing but keep the Shuttle programme on the treadmill while pimping the Star Wars SDI boondoggle), Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower were running NASA. Those people showed leadership only in screwing the best thing America's ever done, our space programme. Obama deserves credit for keeping NASA going, even growing private industry into space the way Republicans would always lie about but never do. He will get that credit, and will do more to deserve more credit when reelected. Especially the fewer Republicans around to interfere with it.
  I long thought that it no longer matters who is the president of America Inc. The political system is being interfered with by political donations and private appointments of retired government policy makers. Voting is no longer enough to create change, only direct political lobbying by the shareholders of the American Government (actually *many* governments) seems to have any hope in out influencing the paid political lobby.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
25. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-27 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  It clearly matters who is president of America Inc. As I pointed out, Republican presidents of it are intolerable, while Democratic presidents of it suck, but are tolerable. There's plenty of other supporting data. Like the GDP and the stock market each growing faster under every Democratic president than Republicans, since Eisenhower. Of course we can always do better. Then there's the warmonger record, which Republicans dominate (except are roughly equal on Vietnam, which is now just a middling war). It's absolutely false that the two parties are equivalent. And when there are only two on the ballot that can govern, let alone win, we have to be honest about which one is an unacceptable choice.
  Of course America was designed for the Congress to primarily determine how much the country sucks, and Republicans are the source of most of the suck. If we call them "Conservative" (and its "Libertarian" flavor that's really "corporate anarchy"), we can include the Democrats who make the case for equivalence. This is the problem. But it's far too easy, because it's wrong, to say that it doesn't matter which party rules. When Republicans rule, all but a few suffer and pay for it. When Democrats rule, far fewer suffer.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
26. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by lennier · 2012-05-27 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  America's main industrial engine, the automotive industry.
  Yikes. America is depending on its automotive industry to do... much of anything? From this side of the world (New Zealand), Japan has been the only place making decent cars since the 1980s.
  If your statement is true, America is in pretty deep trouble.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
27. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-28 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that's why the world depends on New Zealand's opinion.
  The US of course depends on its automotive industry to drive our entire manufacturing industry, the core of the US economy. Our manufacturing that is still by far the largest in the world, about 20% of global output. Manufacturing employs about 20% of American workers. We invent most of the world's manufacturing techniques, materials and responses like recycling; most of the rest of global manufacturing uses American machinery and feeds America's manufacturing supply chain.
  The US automotive industry is the epitome of all that. New Zealanders bought more Ford Rangers last month than any other model car; 5 other Fords were in the NZ Top 25. GM isn't as popular in NZ, but it's the world's biggest car company again, over 10% larger than Toyota. Meanwhile my wife has 2000s Toyota that should have been recalled, and we've watched the later model years of them turn to crap we'd never buy.
  And then there's all the great cars made in Germany, which evidently you've never heard of. America might indeed be in pretty deep trouble. But you better hope not. Because if America's manufacturing does collapse around a cratered car industry, we'll stop spending the money shooting movies Americans drive to see. Then your Top 25 will be dominated by classic 1980s Yugos.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
28. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Coren22 · 2012-05-29 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Ford has been doing pretty amazing stuff recently, but Toyota is still king of reliability. I can't imagine why you would think your wife's car should have been recalled, which recall do you think affected it? My Camry was recalled for the "people can't figure out the difference between the gas and brake when panicing", but I never had a single issue with that car.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
29. Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary by Doc+Ruby · 2012-06-01 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  The catalytic converter's computer values for the sulphur content in the gasoline are wrong. So when especially sulphurous gas is burned, the converter pumps sulphur dioxide into the cabin. It stinks like an antisocial gastric event. It's also somewhat toxic. Toyota pretended to diagnose the car for over 2 years until the lemon law no longer could force them to replace the car. Even though it turned out that Toyota had issued a notice to its dealers describing exactly the problem, the 2 dealers my wife used claimed they couldn't figure it out. Until the obligation period expired, when suddenly they figured it out.
  That car should have been recalled. When I discovered their scam (too late) I should have driven it through the dealership front windows, "overcome by a toxic cloud from the dashboard", and let the lawyers sort it out.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
Tonight's film will be... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 02:05 · Score: 0

Enter the Dragon
Waiting for the air to mix. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 02:06 · Score: 0

Can't send a capsule filled with farty air to Dutch oven the ISS, the smell would dissipate before the payoff. Damn...
Here's hoping the crewed Dragon happens soon by Vandil+X · 2012-05-26 03:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's great that we have U.S.-based cargo delivery/recovery capacity again. This is definitely a huge milestone. However, the crewed-version of the Dragon will be the true, emotional U.S. milestone, as it replaces the human element lost with the retirement of the space shuttle.

--
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
1. Re:Here's hoping the crewed Dragon happens soon by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  I was very moved by the human element of the human ground crews roaring applause as the human arm pilot completed the capture.
  I'm all for human space colonization and exploration. But I want to see all human presence preceded by machines either remotely controlled or (at real distances) autonomous. Their scouting, sensing and preparation (construction, cleaning, etc) will make the humans far more productive than when humans have to do everything manually.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
Before opening the hatch ... by PPH · 2012-05-26 03:30 · Score: 1

... did anyone say, "Here be dragons"?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
"Good day, commander. All crews reporting." by loshwomp · 2012-05-26 03:34 · Score: 2

The video narrator sounds like he should be piloting a terran battlecruiser.
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons! by PPH · 2012-05-26 03:40 · Score: 2

For you are crunchy and taste good with barbecue sauce.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Enter the Dragon by funnyguy · 2012-05-26 04:18 · Score: 1

I've heard that somewhere...
5:53 am EDT not EST by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 05:07 · Score: 0

This is the second time in two SpaceX stories. Is it deliberate?
What the fcuk is pound? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 08:28 · Score: 0

Pound? Isn't that something you do on someones head for not using metric measurements.
Revolutionary economics by sjbe · 2012-05-26 09:15 · Score: 1

Almost all of the "NASA" rockets and spacecraft were built by independent contractors.
Yes but NASA owned them after they were built. NASA does not own SpaceX's equipment. They are launching stuff on behalf of NASA but it's not different than NASA contracting the Russians to launch for them. It wasn't contract manufacturing like Boeing does for NASA, it was their own product. The technology isn't the revolutionary bit, the economics and funding models are.
Passenger by MichaelSmith · 2012-05-26 10:04 · Score: 1

I expected to see Elon Musk hiding inside.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Falcon 9 Splashdown by Doc+Ruby · 2012-05-26 11:06 · Score: 1

AFAICT, the Falcon 9 rocket was disposable, so as its exhausted stages dropped away from the Dragon payload, they broke and burned up in the atmosphere, landing as scorching hot chunks and dust hopefully on unoccupied oceans. But couldn't they be shaped to break into steerable, durable chunks that sail down to land on the surface for collection? Making them less dense than water would also make the rocket lighter, a big benefit. All this seems to call for aerogels, the least dense synthetic material, which was developed for this purpose: reusable reentrant space vehicles, but all in one piece (ie. space shuttle). Send in an automated barge to scoop up the pieces, and the mission cycle impact on the Earth where we're all stuck is much lower.

--
--
make install -not war
1. Re:Falcon 9 Splashdown by Megane · 2012-05-26 14:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Specifically, THIS Falcon 9 was disposable. At some future time, the first stage, and I think the second stage too, will land vertically after a powered descent, and will even have fold-out legs to land on. Only the "trunk" section behind the capsule and the solar panels attached to it are specifically not going to be reusable, because they reach orbit without a heat shield.
  There are also plans for the crew capsule to do a powered ground landing, but that will make use of the enhanced maneuvering rockets that will be designed to work as a (non-disposable) launch abort system.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
2. Re:Falcon 9 Splashdown by chrisxcr1 · 2012-05-26 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  The have a video. http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=0
If you want to Troll them... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:21 · Score: 0

How about hiding an evil-a-tron in a few of the packages? It makes random noises like creaking, scratching, breathing, child laughing, whispering 'can you hear me?'
And "Battery included lasts over a month."
[Or a sonic grenade. Although that's a quick way to lose your contract.]
Re:My God... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-29 05:54 · Score: 0

How is this -1?! Awesome quote that should at least be +1 slightly off topic.