Slashdot Mirror


After Trip to ISS, SpaceX's Dragon Capsule Returns Safely To Earth

thomas.kane writes "SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft has successfully reentered and is now safely in the waters of the Pacific Ocean after more than 9 days in space. The Dragon capsule became the first commercial spacecraft to dock with the International Space Station on May 25; SpaceX is contracted by NASA for at least 12 more flights in the coming months bringing supplies to the space station and returning science done on board back to Earth." Reader MightyMartian adds a link to coverage at the BBC.

150 comments

  1. first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    first!

    1. Re:first! by scubamage · · Score: 0

      first commercial post to dock!

      FTFY

      Uh oh, someone woke the dragon.

    2. Re:first! by camperdave · · Score: 0

      first commercial post to dock!

      FTFY

      first commercial post to berth!

      FTFFY

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beware of space. There be dragons.

  2. Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by BagOBones · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Touched down intact, but I wouldn't declare it safe till they recover it and open it... Re-entry is a bitch...

    --
    EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    1. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I believe they've already recovered a large cheese intact from the previous Dragon launch. Re-entry has already been tested, and fishing stuff out of the water isn't exactly an experimental process.

    2. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by Ashenkase · · Score: 1

      Cheese or no cheese, every re-entry is different. Just because they have tested it once doesn't mean it is fail safe. I will consider the mission complete when Dragon is back on land and has been emptied of its return cargo.

    3. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by A10Mechanic · · Score: 2

      Oh Really? Gus Grissom would like to have a word with you, or would if he were alive.

    4. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Details:

      On July 21, 1961, Grissom was pilot of the second Project Mercury flight, Mercury-Redstone 4, popularly known as Liberty Bell 7. This was a suborbital flight which lasted 15 minutes and 37 seconds. After splashdown, emergency explosive bolts unexpectedly fired and blew the hatch off, causing water to flood into the spacecraft. Quickly exiting through the open hatch and into the ocean, Grissom was nearly drowned as water began filling his spacesuit. A nearby helicopter tried to lift and recover the spacecraft, but the flooding spacecraft became too heavy, and it was ultimately cut loose before sinking.

      Grissom asserted he had done nothing to cause the hatch to blow, and NASA officials eventually concluded that he was correct. Initiating the explosive egress system required hitting a metal trigger with the side of a closed fist, which unavoidably left a large, obvious bruise on the astronaut's hand,[citation needed] but Grissom was found not to have any of the tell-tale bruising. Still, controversy remained, and fellow Mercury astronaut Wally Schirra, at the end of his October 3, 1962 flight, remained inside his spacecraft until it was safely aboard the recovery ship, and made a point of deliberately blowing the hatch to get out, bruising his hand.[26]

    5. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by BagOBones · · Score: 1

      Super heating a capsule, then dumping it into salt water for hours isn't cut and dry... There are MANY things that could go wrong..

      Also if the stuff they sent back is smashed to bits from a hard landing, then well they have lots of work to do before sending humans.

      --
      EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    6. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he totally died during re-entry on the second flight of his spaceship?

    7. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by Talderas · · Score: 1

      But the CHEESE!

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    8. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by wampus · · Score: 2

      Cheese would have either melted or been mashed to bits if the landing was all that bad. It really is just delicious ballistics gelatin.

    9. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also if the stuff they sent back is smashed to bits from a hard landing, then well they have lots of work to do before sending humans.

      The thing landed at 17 feet per second, about 11.5 miles per hour. Future missions call for a touchdown on a launchpad on land with the assistance of rockets, not even a water landing.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    10. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by Metabolife · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can clearly see that it splashed down about a minute earlier than their estimate in the following video. They quickly took the time down and never mentioned it again... A minute's worth of miscalculation at 1000km/s could be a big fast mistake.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWBFeZv5Kvw

    11. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      *km/h

    12. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by yurtinus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Then again, a minutes worth of miscalculation while dangling from a *parachute* might not be as much "mistake" as "acceptable margin of error"

      --
      +1 Disagree
    13. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by MojoRilla · · Score: 4, Informative

      Elon just answered that they were off by a few seconds because of wind. He said that if it weren't for wind, they could land Dragon in someone's backyard.

    14. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The chute opened basically exactly on schedule. That's where you go from precise de-orbit calculations to dealing with localized weather. The chute was open for about 5 minutes, travel speed was about 12 mph with the chutes open. If they had expected a 2-3 mph updraft but didn't get one, then that explains the water landing being a minute or so early. Really no concern here.

    15. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thanks for correcting your typo but not your faulty premise.

    16. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Judging from this, it looks like there might be some significant scoring on the capsule. Hard to tell if that's normal. Like you said, re-entry is a bitch.

    17. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No: he totally died while trapped in the pure-oxygen inferno that was the retroactively-named Apollo 1, along with Ed White and Roger Chaffee. ...but that was a ground-test. I think it effevtively illustrated the flaw, though.

    18. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by rednip · · Score: 1

      No he died on the launch pad during a pre-flight test for Apollo 1 with the rest of his crew.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    19. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, what I saw in that photo makes perfect sense after I saw pictures of the other side of the capsule. It was just part of the parachute deployment stuff. Whew!!!

    20. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by blueturffan · · Score: 1

      The Apollo 1 spacecraft had an inward-opening hatch. If it had opened outward and had explosive bolts like Mercury / Gemini the fire would likely not have been fatal.

    21. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by catmistake · · Score: 2

      Video is fascinating. Appears to be analog video. Amazing that they can track the thing well enough to catch it on video with high-power lenses (if you've ever tried to manually track anything with high power lenses, you get a sense of how difficult it is, so probably must be automated tracking), and yet... the recording equipment apparently is not state of the art.

    22. Re:Safely? in the waters of the Pacific Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Grissom essentially killed himself.

  3. Congratulation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is most excelent news. I, for one, welcome our new private sector space overlords!

  4. Safety... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm happy to see Safety successfully returned to Earth.

  5. Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is fantastic news. I don't care what you think of space policy or anything, this is a good day for everybody.

    Now, let's see NASA make good on their promise to hand over LEO to the private sector so they can think about Mars and beyond!

    --

    Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

    1. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Agreed, if they verify everything is in tact this is an industry-making day. I wish all the best to SpaceX!

    2. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Now, let's see NASA make good on their promise to hand over LEO to the private sector so they can think about Mars and beyond!

      I hope the hell they don't - there's plenty of useful work to be done in LEO yet. (Even though it doesn't give space fanbois any wood.)

    3. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by Moheeheeko · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The funny thing is, SpaceX is already looking to Mars. The heat shield is designed to survive re-entry from a deep space trajectory.

    4. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Until they figure out the medical issues (bone loss, eyesight loss in male astronauts, etc.), they're going nowhere. With the Space Shuttle decommissioned, and the penny-pinchers in charge of LEO, you can just forget about Mars, etc. in your lifetime.

    5. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One question that just came to mind; has anything ever been brought *back* from Mars? I know we've sent a few things there, but they just get left there, right? Imagine the study that scientists could do if they got up close to a few hundred pounds of soil samples brought back from there.

    6. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Lets not assume 1 success means 'turning over' LEO the next day.

      And the will never turn over LEO completely. They will always monitor it and dictate policy. As they should.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by edremy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Have humans brought things back? No. There have been various proposed Mars sample return missions but they've always been too expensive.

      Has nature? Yes. There are quite a few meteorites that originated on Mars.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    8. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Obviously no astronauts have gone beyond low-Earth orbit, nor have been in space for any length of time to figure out how to survive in space beyond a couple of days. I'm glad to see that mankind is condemned to live upon this poor excuse of a rock called Earth.

    9. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Other than the Moon landings, which weren't really LEO missions.

      Nor the Skylab missions, which lasted longer than a few days, nor the ISS crews.

      But you were swooshing me, right?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    10. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by medcalf · · Score: 1

      Traitors is a bit harsh. Actually, uncalled for. That said, it's really bizarre that so many Republicans in Congress keep trying to kill private enterprise in favor of a statist space program. The hypocrisy, it burns. On the other hand, once private enterprise starts becoming really successful at opening space, I expect this to reverse, with GOP pushing private space and the Dems trying to tax and regulate it to death. Both parties suck.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    11. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by yurtinus · · Score: 2

      Simple - the state run space programs are still built by private industries, just not the same ones that line their pockets.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    12. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Elon Musk's primary goal in founding SpaceX is to go to Mars and I would give him as good a chance of acheiving it as anyone.

      The shuttle being decommisioned improves the odds of going to Mars, not reduces them. It was a money sink and it promoted the mind set of being stuck in LEO because it was stuck in LEO. It had also acquired so many restrictions for safety issues it was barely doing its vastly reduced mission. It had turned in to a pork barrell project to make jobs at NASA, Boeing and Lockheed, not do anything worthwhile in space (outside of servicing Hubble).

      Intelsat signed the first commercial contract for Falcon Heavy yesterday and if SpaceX can successfully build and launch those, and even better recover and reuse them, they will be a far more valuable tool in leaving LEO and going to Mars than Shuttle every would be.

      I personally dont think bone loss and eyesight are going to be show stopping issue for Mars. Radiation exposure in deep space and on the surface of Mars is the serious issue unless you can get a ship with enough shielding and propulsion to move the shielding.

      Me personally and I'm sure lots of others would volunteer for a Mars mission even if it was a one way mission and life shortening. To me the ideal mission to Mars is a one way trip with a permenent stay, and a logistics train to support a permenent colony. The zero G issues are more a problem returning to 1G and earth than they would be staying in 1/3 G on Mars which isn't as bad as zero G. A one way trip also saves a long return trip in zero G to get back to Earth. Even if zero G is a problem you can build a larger ship and spin it enough to get 1/3 G. That is an engineering challenge, not a show stopping issue.

      --
      @de_machina
    13. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope the hell they don't - there's plenty of useful work to be done in LEO yet. (Even though it doesn't give space fanbois any wood.)

      I hope to hell they do -- by doing all the useful work in LEO that will enable it, like orbital refueling depots or even shipyards. Getting to LEO is what needs to be handed off.

      If we can make access to LEO routine and cheap (relatively speaking), and allow NASA to develop LEO capabilities instead of wasting all their money on pork launchers so they can start their missions from components launched to LEO on commodity rockets, then we can make getting to the Moon trivial, and Mars easy enough that it's conceivable to do without stopping all other NASA work.

      This is my dream, and it could happen. Crazy.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Same thing though - let them focus on things that no-one else can do just as efficiently but cheaper. In other words, the non-commercially-viable stuff. That's the kind of thing government projects are for.

      The only problem is that Congress is more likely to just cut NASA budget on the grounds that they can now save by using SpaceX...

    15. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by denvergeek · · Score: 1

      ...eyesight loss in male astronauts...

      Whoah, so it WILL make you go blind!

    16. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by demachina · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is hypocrisy but the aerospace companies that have dominated U.S. space access are also defense contractors and the Republican's are completely in thrall to defense contractors. Lockheed and Boeing help run the Republican party alongside big banks, big pharma and big fossil fuels.

      The American manned space program hasn't been about space exploration since Apollo ended. Its been about creating contracts for Lockheed and Boeing and creating jobs in the states of powerful Senators like Hatch in Utah, Shelby in Alabama, Hutchinson in Texas and Nelson in Florida(he is a Democrat).

      You can tell Lockheed has bought out Congress and the DOD because they've received back to back gigantic contracts for fighter jets both of which are staggeringly expensive and neither of which work, the F-22 and the F-35. The U.S. is currently committed to spending over $1 trillion we don't have on F-35's which have proven to be deeply flawed and are entering production without even being half way through flight test. F-22's have such serious oxygen system issues pilots are refusing to fly them and have never been used in combat. When a pilot blacked out and crashed an F-22, the DOD and Lockheed somehow managed to blame the pilot even when they new the Oxygen system was failing which shows how morally contemptible they are.

      --
      @de_machina
    17. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by demachina · · Score: 2

      If you actually want to go to Mars and beyond you need to fix that to:

      Let's see NASA funnel money and contracts to help SpaceX build a reusable Falcon Heavy, long duration crew modules to attach to Dragon, etc.

      NASA, Lockheed and Boeing, in their current form, simply aren't going to succeed in bending metal, building new launchers or probably designing anything usable. I think its open to debate if they have the fire in their belly necessary to do anything hard. As long as they get paid even when they fail, like on Ares I, why would they.

      The NASA model also fails because of constant political interference by Congress. If engineering and design decisions are predicted on job creation instead of what is right they will continue to fail (i.e. requiring the use of Shuttle SRB's to placate Hatch in Utah where they are made). If the goals being set by Congress and the President are also continue to completey changed every four years they will also continue to fail.

      SpaceX has to succeed eventually or they go under. SpaceX benefits greatly from government contracts but Musk designed SpaceX to diversify their revenue base so they aren't totally at the mercy of the bizarre and clueless whims of Congress and Presidents.

      --
      @de_machina
    18. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by bluemonq · · Score: 1

      Or Mir, which has hosted 8 of the 10 longest spaceflights.

    19. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's OK, NASA would contract someone to build it anyway. They can contract SpaceX to go to Mars and SpaceX can also help exploit LEO without NASA's direction.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Republican's are completely in thrall to defense contractors.

      F-35's which have proven to be deeply flawed

      F-22's have such serious oxygen system issues

      Republican's what are completely in thrall to defense contractors? F-35's what have proven to be flawed? F-22's what have serious oxygen flaws?

      Oh, you're using the apostrophe to mean "Look out! Here comes an 's'!" Considerate, but no warning is necessary.

    21. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by Teancum · · Score: 2

      Yes, I was being sarcastic. There have been spaceflights to Mir and the ISS which have lasted longer than it would take for Hohmann transfer orbit trip to Mars, both directions. Indeed that was one of the specific goals of the Skylab missions, at least to document what might happen to astronauts if they were in a microgravity situation for the duration of one-way trip to Mars but with the capability of returning to the Earth quickly (since they were in LEO) if there was some sort of problem they discovered along the way.

      I don't even have the time to refute the conspiracy nuts who think nobody went to the Moon. My solution to deal with them is the same as Buzz Aldrin: punch them in the face and tell them to go to hell.

      There might still be a role for a giant centrifuge, and there simply isn't any knowledge at all about the physiological impact of living in a partial gravity environment at all. There was an ISS module that was supposed to go up with the Shuttle program to specifically investigate potential impacts of a partial gravity environment (which would spin around at about 1 RPM and stow plants and a few small mammals like mice and such) to investigate this very issue, but unfortunately the funding for the module was cut. For myself, I think it is one area of scientific research that is desperately needed and should be studied seriously if people are going to be traveling beyond the Earth, and really should be done before a serious effort to go to Mars is even started. It is also an area of research that could be started today if anybody cared to pay attention to the issue.

      For myself and this is pure speculation and conjecture, I think many of the health problems we see in microgravity environments like on the ISS will go away or at least be significantly reduced in a partial gravity environment like on the Moon. There may still be specific health problems for people who live for a long time on the Moon, and there are some hints that came back from the weekend camping trips that the Apollo astronauts performed on the Moon, but it will take actually sending people there to find out eventually. There may not be any problem at all to live in a gravitational environment as found on Mars. Other issues like being isolated from other people and radiation dangers are easily dealt with and are just engineering problems, not really health problems.

    22. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by lennier · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to see that mankind is condemned to live upon this poor excuse of a rock called Earth.

      A new life awaits you in the offworld colonies! All the dry vacuum you can suck, and all the nickel-iron ore you can chew. Plus a bonus daily bath of fresh, invigorating ionising radiation. It's all yours for a low, low, price of $500 million (one way) per passenger. Send us your starving, huddled masses yearning to breathe through a dirty CO2 scrubber and drink urine recyc. I lift my lamp beside the golden pressure hatch.

      (Lamp may be extinguished if fuel cell main bus voltage is low. Pressure hatch may vent to vacuum without warning. Station control corporate body is not liable for death, personal injury or brain damage due to oxygen starvation. Paying work is not guaranteed. Return transit to Earth requires pre-payment in full. Children of long-term residents may be required to pay any station infrastructure debts incurred by parents. All posts on social networks are monitored and defaming the good name of station control corporate body will be vigorously prosecuted subject to nondisclosure agreement. By removing your suit helmet and inhaling you indicate that you accept these conditions.)

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    23. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Even if zero G is a problem you can build a larger ship and spin it enough to get 1/3 G.

      You don't have to build a larger ship. You can just swing a counterweight on a long tether and get centrifugal gravity that way. The counterweight can be the spent 2nd stage from your launch vehicle, or an external pod containing the fuel for your return trip, or drinking water, or ... ?

    24. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Actually, Falcon Heavy is important because at 53 tons into low Earth orbit (LEO) payload capacity, that's enough to launch components of a spaceship using _nuclear_ propulsion. And that means with nuclear rockets, instead of nine-month transit time to Mars, we maybe talking as little as 45 days! :-) With that short transit time, the need for consumables and radiation protection will be lower, substantially lightening the weight of the spacecraft going to Mars. And it could means it'll even be cheaper to eventually establish a permanent presence on that planet, too.

    25. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by demachina · · Score: 1

      Good suggestions. Certainly better than spending another decade obsessing over zero G health issues while sitting in the ISS going no where.

      I'm pretty sure the zero G biology issues have been inflated as concerns largely to justify the ISS since its one of the few things its good for.

      --
      @de_machina
    26. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      and even better recover and reuse them

      The SpaceX Grasshopper project is about putting landing thrusters on all of the stages, so the whole rocket can be reused up to 1000 times. Launch a payload, rocket stages return to launchsite. Re-condition and refuel for about 50 grand, launch again. Repeat until the satellite ring helps to reduce insolation.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    27. Re:Fantastic. Now let's see NASA push further! by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure you're being sarcastic, but let's work with your scenario.
      First off SpaceX have said they think they can get it down to about $1million per 1 way trip.
      Other than that your post seems to be pretty spot on about what we can expect from early colonisation. Except two things:
      1) There are resources out there to be had, maybe not on planets but if for example you're mining/building the solar arrays that power most of Earth then there's serious money to be made up there. The fewer people are up there, the more money each person can make and vice versa. Once it is at all profitable to be up there supply and demand will kick in. So while it costs a fortune to get up there if you can make a larger fortune when you're up there expect people to start mortgaging themselves to pay for it.
      2) Let's assume it becomes possible for the moderately rich guy to liquidate his assets and with that afford a trip to space. Expect to see everyone from revolutionaries to criminals to geeks who are fed up with the current state of copyright law to try and build a new life there because they are fed up with the current government. It may not be as comfortable a life as the one they had on earth but if they get to set their own laws or it allows them to leave behind ideologies they don't like then I can totally see it happening.

      Even if this sort of thing only appeals to 1% of the 5% of people who could afford it That is still hundreds of thousands of people up there and once they have built the infrastructure the quality of life up there will improve and make it more attractive.
      Yes I'm a dreamer but it's a fun thing to be - and no progress was ever made by giving up.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
  6. Safety? by OttoM · · Score: 1

    Never knew they took safety with them.

  7. Congratulations to the gang at SpaceX by stox · · Score: 2

    The beginning of a new age of space exploration.

    Now stop goofing off, and start building Discovery already. I have monoliths that need checking out.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    1. Re:Congratulations to the gang at SpaceX by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      The beginning of a new age of space exploration.

      SpaceX is doing space exploration in the same sense that trucking companies do land exploration.

    2. Re:Congratulations to the gang at SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says "beginning" for a reason. SpaceX has already expressed desire to reach Mars and beyond, which is far more than your trucking analogy equates to.

    3. Re:Congratulations to the gang at SpaceX by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 1

      Most explorers were "truckers" of their era.

    4. Re:Congratulations to the gang at SpaceX by DroolTwist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ice Road Space Truckers.

    5. Re:Congratulations to the gang at SpaceX by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "I have monoliths that need checking out."

      Exploration is best done by probes. Figuring out how to sustain humans in space is best done by short-range manned missions.

      The two are different. There being no urgency to put meat in space before developing the machines which will be required (forever) for man to interact with the completely hostile environment of space, send robots first. We need those on Terra too.

      This would separate exploration from entertainment while letting "tourists" buy the ride of their dreams.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:Congratulations to the gang at SpaceX by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Most explorers were "truckers" of their era.

      Most explorers explored to serve the interests of regular commerce like "truckers", but they weren't carrying cargo to a already-known place by an established route through previously explored territority. Or, at least, when they did that, it wasn't called "exploration", even if they did that as well as exploration.

    7. Re:Congratulations to the gang at SpaceX by cfulton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Truckers is just what we need. In order for space exploration to be successful we need boring, easily repeated, safe access to LOE. If they can make LOE boring and trucker like then we have a much better chance of getting past LOE. Until then every flight into space beyond earth will have weight and power constraints placed on it be the launch vehicle. Once shipping to LOE is easy and cheap we can build ships that are no longer constrained by the need to be completely contained in the payload compartment of the launch vehicle.

      --
      No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
  8. Observation by PPH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In digging around various information sources on Dragon, I noticed something odd: It appears in thisphoto that the capsule is equipped with standard red/green navigation lights. Are these actual nav lights? Are they an FAA requirement?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Observation by weiserfireman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      interesting

      But I would imagine it has to do more with docking the spaceship rather than reentry. The way they are both oriented on the same side is what makes me believe that.

      Red/green lights are normally located on opposite sides of the aircraft/ship so that you can tell which direction it is going at night.

    2. Re:Observation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ocean vessels use them too.

      Or it could be an orientation thing. Red and green lights allow you to tell at a glance which way vessel is travelling (usually for towards or away).

    3. Re:Observation by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not sure about the navigation lights themselves, but Dragon did have a strobe light that the ISS crew could turn on and off. It served the dual purpose of allowing them to find the craft, and it acted as a confirmation that the Dragon was receiving and processing commands from the ISS.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Observation by PPH · · Score: 1

      Ocean vessels use them too.

      Right. And they were adopted for aviation use.

      Or it could be an orientation thing. Red and green lights allow you to tell at a glance which way vessel is travelling (usually for towards or away).

      And nav lights on boats/aircraft serve much the same purpose. At a distance, you can tell which way the vessel is traveling, if its moving (not an issue for air/spacecraft of course) and something about its size and type. Although the needs would be somewhat different, it would make sense to use configurations already familiar to pilots on spacecraft.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Observation by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Fly upside down.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    6. Re:Observation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fly upside down.

      I see you aren't familiar with how airplanes work.

    7. Re:Observation by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Frequently, there is a combined red/green light on the bow of a ship. The way it works is this: Looking down on the boat and imagining a clock face with the 12 at the front of the boat, from 12 o'clock to (roughly) 4 o'clock would be green. 4 o'clock to (roughly) 8 o'clock would be white, and 8 o'clock to 12 o'clock would be red. Except 8 and 4 are 120 degrees from 12, but the red and green lights only shine through a horizontal angle of 112.5 degrees. The white stern light covers 135 degrees.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  9. Return of the Dragon by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    That should be the title of the soon to be released documentary.

    1. Re:Return of the Dragon by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Starring Bruce Lee?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Return of the Dragon by amliebsch · · Score: 5, Funny

      Re-Enter The Dragon

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    3. Re:Return of the Dragon by berashith · · Score: 2

      when entering the capsule, you must declare "you have offended my family, and you have offended the shaolin temple" . It would be really great if the inside of the caspsule was lined in prisms and mirrors

    4. Re:Return of the Dragon by Megane · · Score: 1

      ...also, your lip movements must not match your speaking.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  10. Everybody's thinking it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so I'll just say it. The Millenium Falcon was built by private enterprise. This is a great day.

    1. Re:Everybody's thinking it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So was Serenity

    2. Re:Everybody's thinking it... by crypticedge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Death Star was built by government labor, as was the Enterprise.

    3. Re:Everybody's thinking it... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The Death Star was built by government labor, as was the Enterprise.

      At least the Empire didn't execute people for using droids. Oh, I mean Happy Shiny Federation, sorry.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  11. The highlight of the trip by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 4, Funny

    Had to be the video of the astronauts opening up the space capsule with the required safety goggles and masks. If something failed and an astronaut got sucked into space I am sure his final words would have been "The goggles, they do nothing...".

    Its great to see private enterprise enter the space race now, maybe NASA will stop billing $20k for a toilet seat and $30k for a hammer because SpaceX can get them at Walmart for $5 a piece.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:The highlight of the trip by tibit · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't get sucked anywhere unless there was an explosive failure of the pressurized shell that would break it apart. A hole/crack may suck all the air out, but it won't suck you out unless you put yourself right against it, and even then it must be big enough to generate sufficient shears to break apart your tissues.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    2. Re:The highlight of the trip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its great to see private enterprise enter the space race now, maybe NASA will stop billing $20k for a toilet seat and $30k for a hammer because SpaceX can get them at Walmart for $5 a piece.

      You expect competition with only two organizations?

      I think we will have to wait until there are at least 2 companies with the intention of competing around.

    3. Re:The highlight of the trip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what it costs to put those things up there? That is why NASA is looking into 3D printers to make the required tools as they need them.

    4. Re:The highlight of the trip by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well.. there's the russians who do it for money. and these guys.

      that's a lot more than just russians.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:The highlight of the trip by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Had to be the video of the astronauts opening up the space capsule with the required safety goggles and masks.

      In microgravity, loose things float around. If something sharp came loose inside the Dragon, you don't want it to get in your eye. In an environment that's been entirely sealed for days, material outgassing or particulate breakdown can cause hazards which wouldn't be a problem on Earth because air movement would carry it away. So goggles and masks make sense.

      Its great to see private enterprise enter the space race now, maybe NASA will stop billing $20k for a toilet seat and $30k for a hammer because SpaceX can get them at Walmart for $5 a piece.

      Which is fine until the toxic outgassing from your $5 Chinese toilet seat poisons the atmosphere over the next month and kills the crew.

      One of the reasons space is legitimately expensive is because many things become complex when you don't have any gravity and are living in a sealed environment.

    6. Re:The highlight of the trip by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Its great to see private enterprise enter the space race now, maybe NASA will stop billing $20k for a toilet seat and $30k for a hammer because SpaceX can get them at Walmart for $5 a piece.

      Which is fine until the toxic outgassing from your $5 Chinese toilet seat poisons the atmosphere over the next month and kills the crew.

      Spend the savings on the $20k toilet seats and $30k hammers on installing and lifting an additional carbon filter. I suspect there will still be some money left over.
      In all seriousness, there is a lot of pork that goes on when the government gets involved that private investors won't stand for.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:The highlight of the trip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a common misunderstanding of what competition is. You can of course define competition as how many active businesses exist in a given market, but they you have to be consistent about what that implies about competition. If you define it as such, your reasoning about what you can expect must match that definition.

      A better definition of competition is the degree to which individuals in society can enter the market and society can approach them and put resources their way. The reason this definition is better is that it permits us to more easily identify what markets will have a more intent focus on serving consumers best. This is because the number of participants in a market do not define how urgently those players will strive to serve customers. It is the easy with which society can dismiss one business and support another new one that determines this. For example, suppose a given society has the desire for only a single provider for some service(say digital distribution gaming service like steam) and would find it worse to devote additional resources to other players and the polarization of customer base it would cause. The fact that only one active business is serving the society does not make it a monopoly, avoiding the incentive to keep costs down. Capital in a free society is always looking for an opportunity to invest in a better solution. If a single company market is not doing as well as some entrepreneur thinks he could do, then all the money in the world comes rushing in to fill that vacuum.

      A single business in the space industry does not prove one way or another that competition is occurring. To see that, you have to look at whether or not society is free to choose the service provider.

  12. New heat shield technology by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

    SpaceX has just announced the great success of its new heat shield technology. It turns out they were burning facebook shares to protect the craft.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  13. The real test are the next 2 flights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    SpaceX has several flights of dragon and one sat coming later this year. The question becomes does SpaceX have their QA in line to handle these without errors. Likewise, can they launch the dragons on-time (in august and dec)? If they get it on-time, then I have little doubt that they will succeed next year.
    Do note that SpaceX is suppose to launch a sat on the F9 in Oct. I would not be surprised to see them carry that through to next year. The reason is that they will have to make sure that sat release is decent. However, I will be impressed if they DO get all 3 off the ground and without any real errors.

    Finally, note that Falcon Heavy is coming. It is 'suppose' to launch this year, but that is not likely. SpaceX will be doing checks and re-checks (even spaceX says that there is little chance of it launching this year). If SpaceX can get that off the ground in the first half of next year again without major errors, SpaceX OWNS the industry.

    Windbourne

    1. Re:The real test are the next 2 flights by tibit · · Score: 1

      Agreed on the Heavy requiring due diligence. The cost of losing one is close to the cost of losing three F9s.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  14. An era of trillionaires by Prune · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It would be interesting to see if the human expansion into space eventually ushers in further extension of the extremes of inequality, with the first trillionaires (as measured in today's currency, adjusted for inflation) being, say, asteroid mining tycoons. I don't yet have much of an opinion here; I'm more interested on reading others' thoughts on this.

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    1. Re:An era of trillionaires by tsotha · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons there hasn't been much commercial interest in space is there's no way to make money. Under no conceivable scenario is it going to be cheaper to mine asteroids and ship back the product than to just mine the stuff here on the earth. You might want to mine asteroids if you want to build something in orbit or at a Lagrange point, but then the question becomes "what are you building that's going to eventually return a profit?"

      Now, maybe, hundreds of years from now there will actually be people living in space or on mars, at which point you could argue some sort of permanent infrastructure makes commercial sense (and could thus be profitable). But that's not going to happen for many generations if it ever does.

    2. Re:An era of trillionaires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you never played Doom?

    3. Re:An era of trillionaires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I can think of one big thing that would be perfect to mine for: fuel, air, and other consumables.

      If I want to leave Earth orbit, I not only need fuel to get to orbit, I need fuel to get out of orbit. And then I need fuel to lift the fuel I need to get out of orbit. Oxygen and the like also add a lot of weight that you then need to lift. But if I could set up what amounts to a series of gas stations in orbit, then I'm now lifting a lot less to orbit. I just need enough leftover fuel and air to be able to abort safely if the refuel goes wrong in orbit. That means my deep space launches can be cheaper once this refueling infrastructure is in place, and I can even do more 'express' missions. This sort of thing is actually what Planetary Resources is after.

      Part of the problem is that there is a catch-22. Deep space missions are expensive in part because of a lack of infrastructure that makes it cheaper, and so we fly a small number of them. Nobody builds the infrastructure because we fly too small a number to make the infrastructure profitable on its own.

    4. Re:An era of trillionaires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You underestimate the power of the lunatic environmentalist fringe. It's already nearly impossible to open a new mine in the United States or Western Europe. It's becoming increasingly difficult elsewhere. China bought mining rights in Chile and had trouble with environmentalists. CHINA had trouble with environmentalists. You know it's getting bad when even that manufacturing superpower is getting flak from human-hating lunatics.

    5. Re:An era of trillionaires by lgw · · Score: 1

      Extremes of inequality as compared to what? We're freaking egalitarian right now compared to most of history -heck, we've nearly eliminated slavery in America, and the poor here (per an article yesterday) have the problem of too many easy sources of electronic entertainment. The long-term trend isn't going the way you seem to think it is ...

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:An era of trillionaires by khallow · · Score: 1

      Under no conceivable scenario is it going to be cheaper to mine asteroids and ship back the product than to just mine the stuff here on the earth.

      That's a problem the brain trust at Slashdot can easily fix. So let's make the inconceivable, conceivable.

      Step 1: Make a self-replicating factory, say in the 1 ton size range, launch it, and land it on Eros or some other relatively large Earth-crossing asteroid. Note that this is the sole physical Earth-side input to the asteroid in question. I doubt it'd cost more than a few hundred million dollars once we discover mechanical self-replication.

      Step 2: Make a bunch of copies of this factory. The number grows exponentially until the surface is covered.

      Step 3: Build mining, smelting, and launch facilities all using local materials. From now on, the only Earth-side costs are operations, development of new infrastructure designs, and time value of money (the opportunity costs of the long times it takes to do some of this stuff).

      Step 4: Start launching high value-density materials like gold and platinum group metals to Earth. You might also have a comparable market for volatiles and such (oxygen, carbon, etc) in Earth orbit or they might just be used for propulsion. At this point, you are generating cash flow which you can use to pay for Earth-side operations and recoup the initial launch investment above.

      Step 5: Move the asteroid to one of the stable Lagrange points (L4 or L5) using a swarm of railguns you built using local materials. This takes a few decades to do.

      Step 6: You now have an asset near Earth that is worth, especially with the infrastructure you have built on it, trillions to quadrillions of current dollars. Auction it off.

      You can repeat this process as desired.

    7. Re:An era of trillionaires by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Actually, I can think of one big thing that would be perfect to mine for: fuel, air, and other consumables.

      ... for what? Sure you can make fuel and store oxygen. But for this to be an ongoing enterprise you need customers. What is the profitable enterprise in which your customers are engaging?

    8. Re:An era of trillionaires by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Well, okay. But it's going to be a few hundred years before we have that kind of technology. Everybody was holding their breath last week on a mission that launched from the earth and came within a few meters of the ISS. You're talking about stuff that we couldn't begin to design with our current technology.

      Besides, while I can envision robots building a smelter for iron ore and maybe even producing steel girders for construction, it's not so easy to imagine the robot horde is going to have access to the materials it needs to build things like semiconductors. Your asteroid is basically a big lump of iron. Where are the rare earth elements going to come from? What about helium they'll need for welding? Where are they going to get aluminum and titanium?

    9. Re:An era of trillionaires by khallow · · Score: 1

      But it's going to be a few hundred years before we have that kind of technology.

      We've had this technology for millennia, though specialized for the Earth environment. Cramming it into a one ton device for use on an extraterrestrial body is a bit of effort, but I don't see the part where we'll need a few centuries.

      I think we're probably ten to twenty years out from building a 3D printer for the tabletop that can work on Earth using a somewhat contrived set of raw materials and build copies of itself.

  15. Re:Should read... by blueturffan · · Score: 2

    ..."Part of Dragon Capsule Returns Safely To Earth."
    Unfortunately, the back half is jettisoned and burns up. It's a wonderful achievement but it isn't a spaceship. The shuttles were spaceships. Earth doesn't have any at present (unless you count the US Air Force's little robot one).

    By this logic, Apollo wasn't a spaceship since the "back half" (a.k.a. Service Module or SM) was jettisoned and burned up prior to re-entry.

  16. Did the launch stages land? by Aesculapius · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if the primary and secondary launch stages landed safely? I can't find any info on this.

    --
    -A
    1. Re:Did the launch stages land? by tibit · · Score: 1

      I don't think they recovered any of their stages from previous missions, so that would be a first. Recovery is hard, and it's a secondary objective for them. They are very slow on online publicity releases, too. Just look at their website.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    2. Re:Did the launch stages land? by medcalf · · Score: 1

      They did not, unless you count high speed impact as landing. Recovery of those stages is planned future capability.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    3. Re:Did the launch stages land? by Vulch · · Score: 1

      The second stages land up in orbit and slowly decay, and unlike previous flights there was no attempt to recover the first stage this time.

  17. they're The Man, now dawg! by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    Safety not guaranteed.
    They have only done this once before.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  18. Looking forward to launch/return of crewed Dragon by k6mfw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Imagine what that would be like of a successful and safe flight of Dragon carrying people to and from ISS. SpaceX may even beat a crewed Orion (so far they are ahead in terms of actually flying something). There are many critics saying it cannot be done, but reminds me back in usenet days, someone posted a story of a sci-fi author who noted names and home phone numbers of every journalist that denigrated Apollo program during 1960s. Then while really drunk while Neil and Buzz walked the surface of the moon, and in middle of the night he called these journalists on the phone, yelled, "Ya dumb son-of-a-bitch!" and hung up.

    Anyone collecting names and phone numbers?

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  19. Re:Should read... by medcalf · · Score: 1

    Your "logic" is inconsistent. The external tank on the Shuttle was also jettisoned and burned up on reentry. This it must not have been a spaceship either.

    --
    -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
  20. Saving "Brainspace" i think by RobertLTux · · Score: 2

    Given that you would need that type of lighting on a craft i would bet that the whole Red/Green thing is saving the amount of needed thought for the various operators

    "Okay we need it with White on top Red on Left and Green on the right ... okay looks good ... keep coming ...."

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    1. Re:Saving "Brainspace" i think by slew · · Score: 1

      Well maybe (white on tail , red on left, green on right).

      I originally thought the spatial separation for the red and green isn't very high (just either side of the solar panel on one side of the dragon trunk) which makes it only visible from one orientation so it's not very useful at all, but if you assume they are only using it for docking with people in control having it be something common is a good idea to save brainspace...

      FWIW, I think the russian module uses flashing nav lights for automatic docking (flashing lights are usable on a monochrome camera), red/green lights seem mostly tailored for human consumption...

  21. Re:Looking forward to launch/return of crewed Drag by Megane · · Score: 2

    Arthur Dent? Arthur Philip Dent?

    You're a jerk. A complete kneebiter.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  22. Re:Should read... by John+Hasler · · Score: 0

    > By this logic, Apollo wasn't a spaceship...

    Correct. Non-reusable "capsules" are not spaceships.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  23. Re:Looking forward to launch/return of crewed Drag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook? :-)

  24. Re:Should read... by John+Hasler · · Score: 0

    The tank never entered orbit. Every part of the shuttle that reached orbit returned (and more importantly, went up again). A ship is not a single-use device.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  25. Stupid Wikipedia by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I read your post and immediately thought "How did he link to the Wikipedia article and not see where it mentions piloted spacecraft?" only to find out someone deleted all references to spacecraft in January with no explanation.

    You can see the previous version here.

    My understanding is that manned, piloted spacecraft are supposed to have nav lights on them. The Shuttle didn't have them because the FAA gave them a waiver and special airspace.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    1. Re:Stupid Wikipedia by PPH · · Score: 1

      and piloted spacecraft, a red light will be mounted on the left or port side of the craft and a green on the right or starboard side. These help two craft in a situation in which their paths cross determine who has right-of-way.

      Think they have enough time at orbital speeds to visually determine who has the right of way and act on it?

      There was a sci-fi writer/director who pointed this out (in one of his own movies). Two spacecraft were passing at a 'leisurely' rate, such that the occupants of one could watch the other pass and take note of its configuration/markings out their window (porthole). In reality, interplanetary travel would dictate that, unless you want to spend a few lifetimes getting anywhere, the whole experience would be over in a fraction of a second.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Stupid Wikipedia by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Think they have enough time at orbital speeds to visually determine who has the right of way and act on it?

      If there is enough time for a sluggish, human operated, mechanical arm to leisurely reach out and grab the spacecraft, then I'd say there's enough time to look out of a port and visually determine by the navigation lights whether the craft is in the right orientation. Orbital speeds don't mean squat if the two spacecraft are in roughly the same orbit. Besides, maybe the navigation lights are not about what's happening in space. Maybe they're about what's happening when the craft is bobbing around in the ocean awaiting the recovery vessel.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Stupid Wikipedia by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Think they have enough time at orbital speeds to visually determine who has the right of way and act on it?

      Oh I thought the same thing when I first read the wikipedia article years ago. But if there's one thing I've learned in four years of working with the FAA, rules often aren't based on reality, much less sense...

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  26. Re:Looking forward to launch/return of crewed Drag by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Imagine what that would be like of a successful and safe flight of Dragon carrying people to and from ISS. SpaceX may even beat a crewed Orion (so far they are ahead in terms of actually flying something). There are many critics saying it cannot be done, but reminds me back in usenet days, someone posted a story of a sci-fi author who noted names and home phone numbers of every journalist that denigrated Apollo program during 1960s. Then while really drunk while Neil and Buzz walked the surface of the moon, and in middle of the night he called these journalists on the phone, yelled, "Ya dumb son-of-a-bitch!" and hung up.

    Anyone collecting names and phone numbers?

    I am pretty sure Neil and Buzz were not drunk while they walked on the moon.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  27. Re:Looking forward to launch/return of crewed Drag by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Yeah, he was only buzzed.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  28. Re:Looking forward to launch/return of crewed Drag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine what that would be like of a successful and safe flight of Dragon carrying people to and from ISS. SpaceX may even beat a crewed Orion (so far they are ahead in terms of actually flying something). There are many critics saying it cannot be done, but reminds me back in usenet days, someone posted a story of a sci-fi author who noted names and home phone numbers of every journalist that denigrated Apollo program during 1960s. Then while really drunk while Neil and Buzz walked the surface of the moon, and in middle of the night he called these journalists on the phone, yelled, "Ya dumb son-of-a-bitch!" and hung up.

    Anyone collecting names and phone numbers?

    I am pretty sure Neil and Buzz were not drunk while they walked on the moon.

    I think he meant the Sci-Fi author did the drunk-dialing bit, while watching a sober Neil and Buzz do the real moonwalk.

  29. Re:Should read... by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

    Good thing the Dragon is reusable then, isn't it?

    --
    Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
  30. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ah, but Dragon IS reusable. The fact that SpaceX has no intention of proving that using NASA's absolutely insane reusability standard that was created for the purpose of improving the pork byproduct of the Space Shuttle doesn't mean it isn't. Instead, it will have to be reused for purely commercial missions that don't involve the ISS. No big deal.

  31. Finally! The first successful space flight... by brian0918 · · Score: 1, Troll

    ...not funded through theft! This is a turning point.

    1. Re:Finally! The first successful space flight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize, of course, that the SpaceX funding for this mission came from NASA, right? Now go back to your Tea Party circle jerk.

    2. Re:Finally! The first successful space flight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Practice what you preach and get off the internet (created by the government and public universities, built up by corporations using government subsidies and right of way). Then stop driving on the roads. Stop expecting the police to keep you safe. Stop drinking water protected by environmental regulation. Stop benefiting from everyone else's contributions to society while calling it "theft" to give something back.

      Fucking leech. Don't even have the excuse of not being able to pay your share, I bet. Not a parasite by necessity. You're fundamentally, philosophically, a fucking parasite.

  32. Re:Should read... by MojoRilla · · Score: 1

    You can keep your "spaceship" at $60,000 / kg to LTO. I'm betting on the "non-spaceship", which costs $5,400 / kg to LTO. Read wikipedia for the consequences of demanding full reusability.

  33. Re:Should read... by blueturffan · · Score: 1

    Correct. Non-reusable "capsules" are not spaceships.

    Let me see if I've got this straight. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Vostok, Voshkod and Soyuz are all not spaceships?

  34. Memo from Elon: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get cleaning with the 1000 lbs of stale feces tossed about inside the Dragon module, lest the pad crew for the next supply mission complain of persistent foul odor within the spacecraft.

  35. Re:Should read... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    The shuttles also jettisoned the part that lifted them into space.

  36. next up, I solve world peace... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    That's why the Death Star was blown up TWICE

    HA! I've got you now!
    The Enterprise was blown up many more times than TWICE! Enterprise WINS. Your argument is invalid.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:next up, I solve world peace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so I'll just say it. The Millenium Falcon was built by private enterprise. This is a great day.

      The Death Star was built by government labor, as was the Enterprise.

      That's why the Death Star was blown up TWICE, and the Enterprise was a crappy ship.

      HA! I've got you now!

      The Enterprise was blown up many more times than TWICE! Enterprise WINS. Your argument is invalid.

      uh... So the Enterprise getting blown up so often is a sign that it was not a crappy ship? I don't follow.

    2. Re:next up, I solve world peace... by xystren · · Score: 1

      And the irony, winning with Star Trek, yet taunting with a line similar to Darth Vader's line - "I have you now!"

  37. Second capsule? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Dragon capsule became the first commercial spacecraft to dock with the International Space Station on May 25

    There was a second capsule that docked with the ISS on May 25th?

  38. second! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it's the second successful Dragon reentry. Also, this mission combines COTS2/3, so it's also considered the third.

  39. 's all about timing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't even have the time to refute the conspiracy nuts who think nobody went to the Moon. My solution to deal with them is the same as Buzz Aldrin: punch them in the face and tell them to go to hell.

    When they start going on about shadows pointing in different directions, set up two lamps, hand them two objects, and tell them to set up the objects so they cast just one shadow each, pointed in different directions.

    When they fail, quietly ask them how long they've believed the shadow thing proved a giant government conspiracy, without checking how lighting actually work.

    Then point out that even if you personally can't disprove every single one of the thousands of ridiculous claims made by the people selling the hoax books/films/etc, your single demonstration shows that they also have never looked, or even thought, about how shadows are actually cast. It seems reasonable to suppose that if they haven't checked the simplest claims, they also haven't checked the more complex. These assclowns don't know how shadows work, and you trust them to tell you whether the astronauts could have survived the radiation belts, or how quickly a space-suit will heat/cool under different lighting, or the behaviour of regolith dust under rocket nozzles or on landing pads?

    And once you see that wonderful magical awareness start to creep across their face, once you realise you've actually gotten through to them, then punch them in the face and tell them to go to hell. Fucking morons.

    1. Re:'s all about timing. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      once you realise you've actually gotten through to them, then punch them in the face and tell them to go to hell.

      Your allegiance to order of operations is impressive.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  40. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The entire capsule returned to Earth. The trunk is not part of the capsule, nor is it a service module. While it contains solar panels it's primarily purpose is to hold some extra cargo. Arbitrarily defining the trunk as part of the "capsule", so you can pretend only part of the capsule returned to Earth, is retarded. If you want to say that a capsule isn't a "spaceship", for whatever moronic reason that's important to you, then just say it. You don't have to make things up to support it.

  41. Re:Should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're confusing about what "shuttle" means. The part that looked like a deformed plane was called the Orbiter. The "Shuttle" is the entire stack, the orbiter, the external tank, and the two solid rocket boosters.

    And the "Air Force's little robot one" is called the X-37. I mean it's not like this stuff is hard to find.

  42. Eat you heart our Armstrong/Repugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subject says it all.