Astronauts Open Dragon Capsule Hatch

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."

Comments

To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[ickleberry]

Would that be hard to shift in 0 gravity, could it be done by one person in one go?

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[bobstreo]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[Greyfox]

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...

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[pesho]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[YrWrstNtmr]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[Cold hard reality]

Union rules requires at least three workers over four days

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[modmans2ndcoming]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[queazocotal]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[queazocotal]

Of course, that should read mm/s.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[aaarrrgggh]

Unloading 1,000 pounds in microgravity requires the same energy as in 1G. 450kg however would be significantly easier.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[camperdave]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[sjames]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[BriggsBU]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[sahonen]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[crawling_chaos]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[jandoedel]

everyone is an immigrant on ISS..

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[Cold hard reality]

No, cm/s.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[camperdave]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[DanielRavenNest]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[DanielRavenNest]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[witherstaff]

Forget the immigrants. I want to know about the illegal aliens.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[findoutmoretoday]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[Hognoxious]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[Hognoxious]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[sjames]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[Savantissimo]

It's a darn good thing they don't have to show their passports every time they cross a national boundary.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[Jeremi]

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'.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[queazocotal]

Oh, g.

I overthought. :)

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[Doc Ruby]

The same person will stop and turn it with the same strength and time as they started it moving.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, if you jump at a nearby wall you will split your skull. Even here on Earth.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[shiftless]

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.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[sjames]

Now try it in an environment your nervous system did NOT evolve in.

Re:To unload more than 1,000 pounds of cargo

[Coren22]

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.

Sadly, it's all business...

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:Sadly, it's all business...

[deblau]

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.

Mass

[pgn674]

You mean 31 slugs.

Re:Mass

[bill_mcgonigle]

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!

Re:Mass

[jbeaupre]

Yeah, they should have corrected to 940lbs.

(hint: gravity ain't zero at the space station)

Re:Mass

[spire3661]

Gravity aint 0 anywhere in the universe.

Re:Mass

[jbeaupre]

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.

Re:Mass

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Mass

[jbeaupre]

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).

Re:Mass

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Mass

[jbeaupre]

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.

Re:Mass

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Mass

[jbeaupre]

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.

Re:Mass

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Mass

[Man Eating Duck]

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.

Re:Mass

[Man Eating Duck]

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 :)

Re:Mass

[jbeaupre]

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.

Re:Mass

[Coren22]

How would you measure that on a scale?

my eyes

[j00r0m4nc3r]

the goggles do nothing.

Re:my eyes

[Lumpy]

Oh yes they do. The goggles are there to prevent....

S P A C E - M A D N E S S !

Re:my eyes

[WrongSizeGlass]

A Ren & Stimpy reference to go with your earlier Futurama reference (and in reply to a Simpsons reference)? <Mr. Burns>Excellent </Mr. Burns>

Re:Almost there.

[Lumpy]

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.

They opened a DRAGON CAPSULE in SPACE

[Anonymous Coward]

Was there a space dragon inside?

Re:They opened a DRAGON CAPSULE in SPACE

[Frosty Piss]

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.

Re:They opened a DRAGON CAPSULE in SPACE

[xmundt]

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

Re:They opened a DRAGON CAPSULE in SPACE

[Hognoxious]

No, a bobcat.

Would not buy again.

Premature e-hatch-ulation....

[taiwanjohn]

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!" ;-)

Re:Premature e-hatch-ulation....

[taiwanjohn]

I don't blame them, of course. Just being snarky...

Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Thagg]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Whatsmynickname]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[taiwanjohn]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Teancum]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[camperdave]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[kermidge]

"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!

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Megane]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Teancum]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[khallow]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[DerekLyons]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[DerekLyons]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Sosarian Avatar]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[MrKaos]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[lennier]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Coren22]

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.

Re:Nice to see, but not really revolutionary

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Here's hoping the crewed Dragon happens soon

[Vandil X]

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.

Re:Here's hoping the crewed Dragon happens soon

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Almost there.

[reboot246]

Not to mention being raped by TSA perverts.

Before opening the hatch ...

[PPH]

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

"Good day, commander. All crews reporting."

[loshwomp]

The video narrator sounds like he should be piloting a terran battlecruiser.

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons!

[PPH]

For you are crunchy and taste good with barbecue sauce.

Re:Almost there.

[loshwomp]

with only small bag of nuts

Speak for yourself, mister.

Re:Almost there.

[Wandering Voice]

Hahah, I get it!

After all your trips through the TSA chechpoints, you're left with a small bag of peanut butter.

Enter the Dragon

[funnyguy]

I've heard that somewhere...

Re:Almost there.

[Brucelet]

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.

Revolutionary economics

[sjbe]

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

[MichaelSmith]

I expected to see Elon Musk hiding inside.

Falcon 9 Splashdown

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Falcon 9 Splashdown

[Megane]

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.

Re:Falcon 9 Splashdown

[chrisxcr1]

The have a video. http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=0

Re:Almost there.

[Doc Ruby]

That's right - rentacops are so much better than government cops.

Re:Almost there.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Well, yeah, they are, because you can fire them.

Re:Almost there.

[Doc Ruby]

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?

Re:Almost there.

[Man On Pink Corner]

(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.

Re:Almost there.

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Almost there.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Ah, I've apparently graduated from "anarchist" to "libertarian." At this rate, I'll be a Republican by next Tuesday. Catch you then.