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."

38 of 138 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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!
6. 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.
7. 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
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>
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!
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
Re:Almost there. by reboot246 · 2012-05-26 03:03 · Score: 2

Not to mention being raped by TSA perverts.
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.
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
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/
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..
"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.
Re:Almost there. by loshwomp · 2012-05-26 03:44 · Score: 3, Funny

with only small bag of nuts
Speak for yourself, mister.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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
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; }