Slashdot Mirror
ISS Robotic Arm Captures Dragon Capsule
puddingebola writes "From the aricle, 'The SpaceX Dragon capsule has been successfully grabbed by the International Space Station, marking the first time a private American space flight has run a supply mission to the orbiting platform. The crew of the ISS snatched Dragon out of orbit ahead of schedule, using the space station's robotic arm to guide the capsule in after its careful approach.' NASA has also posted video of the docking."
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wcknJwgzh4
I seem to be wrong, according to wikipedia, there was demo flight in May, my memory ain't what it used to be. I guess since that is classed as a test rather than a supply mission, hence the "first" in TFA.
Oh no... it's the future.
I don't have time to read all the details, but I don't think we should be messing with any dragons.
I've read enough books to know it usually doesn't end well.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Anyone else think that the reason they got it done so fast was the little freezer full of ice cream on board?
I thought the same. According to SpaceFlightNow.com http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/003/status.html/ and Slashdot http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/05/31/168226/after-trip-to-iss-spacexs-dragon-capsule-returns-safely-to-earth/ The first docking of Dragon with the ISS was May 25 at 16:03 GMT.
It's the second time a Dragon has berthed with the ISS and delivered cargo. The first one occurred earlier this year and was a "demonstration" mission showing that it was possible. This was the first "real" mission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COTS_Demo_Flight_2#Payload
Right, in May they demonstrated docking to the Space Station, but it wasn't a supply mission, it was a launch and docking demonstration flight. That first flight did carry some miscellaneous stuff and some student experiments, but it wasn't carrying supplies critical to station operation.
As the summary says, this was the first actual contracted supply mission.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Yes, but the first time was a test docking. This is the first supply mission.
I really wanted to change my sig to something witty, but all I could come up with is this.
But plenty sci-fi author is able to think up societies where this is possible
You seem to be confusing fiction with reality. (That's usually described as a mental illness.)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Soyuz was docking automatically with the ISS in 1970? You've answered your own question. Soyuz has been around a long time. The bugs have been worked out (for the most part). Dragon has been to the ISS twice and has been in operation for only a year or so. There's no reason to rush automatic docking and a huge reason to not rush it. You know, breaking the ISS and killing everyone inside if it goes wrong. ISS crashing to earth crushing a family of 20.
You do realise the dragon capsule is owned by private company? Nothing to do with government or military
You do realize that the development cost of the Dragon-9 launch vehicle and the cargo transport capsule was paid for by NASA? This is hardly "nothing to do with government."
(The small rocket (Falcon 1) was privately financed.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
IIRC, it's the only rocket that can lose an engine or two and still complete it's primary mission. The last rocket that could do that was the Saturn V.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The OrbComm was the secondary payload. As such, it is at the whims of the primary payload.
So the engine failed, the rocket corrected to ensure the primary payload reached its orbit. Unfortunately the correction was such that the secondary payload could not reach its orbit.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The issue is energy. Energy (required to reach orbit) is too expensive.
The actual energy cost of getting to orbit is quite low-- about 30 MJ/kg; that would cost well under a dollar a kilogram at today's electrical prices.
The problem is that exponential in the rocket equation (along with the fact that you can't pause halfway).
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
A single lightning strike has about 5 billion joules of energy or enough to run an entire household for a month not just one bulb.
Elon Musk is making a big deal about the fact that the majority of his flight manifest for the future is for non-government commercial payloads. One of the reasons why the Orbcomm satellite was a big deal is in part that SpaceX needs to go through that backlog of payloads and get stuff into space.
That the satellite didn't get to where it was supposed to be at was a huge blow, but it is the kind of thing that SpaceX will be doing more of in the future.
Yes, this follows a long trend of marketing hyperbole and rationalization. For example, a car is voted "best in its class," say the ads. The ads don't explain that the "class" is carefully gerrymandered to only include two models, one of which has been out of production for a decade. I've taught my daughter that every adjective is making the marketing claim less impressive, not more impressive. It may very well be the best four-wheel cross-over sport utility soft-topped off-road casual zero-emission vehicle built in North America, but that's not saying much.
[
http://xkcd.com/605/
Describes you. I think.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Apparently there's some talk that it might be possible to boost the OrbComm satellite to it's final orbit. The only bummer is how much that's going to shorten the life of the satellite.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Certainly. OrbComm certainly has reason to be disappointed but they would have known before hand that their payload was secondary to the Dragon capsule. On the other hand, had this been any other rocket their payload would have likely been lost. They at least have the opportunity to get some data out of their payload.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I seem to be wrong
Congratulations! That's the first time I've seen that phrase in a slashdot comment!
It is not hard for me to see how SpaceX could make a good profit and still be cheaper than NASA. I suspect they don't have pensions on their budget. I suspect people work more than 40 hours a week, and without an expectation of overtime. I suspect they don't have 50-year-old facilities scattered throughout states in a way that only makes sense once you consider congressional districts. And finally, if they fail they go out of business. When NASA fails, the schedule slips. I have a feeling that given this incentive, they will manage risk differently...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It doesn't count though, since it's just a test run.
You make the false assumption that NASA is just a whole bunch of government employees. In reality there are thousands of contractors or employees of contractors working for NASA's goals, and they are likely paid the same in terms of salaried, overtime exempt employment contracts as any other high tech engineering employee.
If SpaceX did anything, it removed the, "must build something for the Shuttle in each state" mantra, so that things are built where they make sense to build them. There apparently had been a company that could have built solid rocket boosters for the shuttle as one-piece structures and barged them to Florida instead of multiple 14' segments with those demonized o-rings, but Utah's Thiokol built 'em instead and had to segment them to bring them by rail.
Simply ending the need to split things up stupidly is alone going to help the costs.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
No. Under the NASA contract, each supply run requires a brand new Dragon module. So this is the first time and the only time this particular Dragon will dock at the station.
Having said that, another Dragon has visited the ISS. However, that was during a qualification/demonstration mission, rather than a run-of-the-mill supply mission.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
One thing that you will find is that Soyuz is incapable of sending up larger cargo. In particular, they can not send up a space rack. That is because the opening of their docking mechanism is quite a bit smaller than both NASA's docking AND berthing ports. Russia uses the APAS-89 which has .8M diameter. The Shuttle used APAS-95 docking which is bigger than APAS-89, but smaller than CBM.
Now, NASA has developed the NASA docking System, which is referred to as LIDS, and adopted by the international community (save china who was not offered it). This will allow berthing AND docking via the same mechanism. Bigelow will use it, as well all of the human launchers. At that time, Dragon rider will switch to it, and my understand is that once adapters are brought up to the ISS, then Dragon, HTV, and possibly even ATV will switch to it.
And to be fair, Dragon already has the capability to do automated docking. That is what dragon eye was about. Simply add the adapter to ISS and change out the front of the dragon and you are good to go.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
low-midline full-size? Do you seriously think consumers who buy these things know any of such class lingo?! It's all shit conjured for marketing purposes only. Every damn car out there is "best in X". It's all meaningless crap. You get in the car, drive in it, and figure out if it works for you. That's all there's to it. Car ads are pretty useless to the consumer.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Berthing and Docking are essentially the same thing. The difference is that with docking, the spacecraft is active and the station is passive. The spacecraft lines itself up with the station and connects to it. With berthing, the station is active and the spacecraft is passive. The spacecraft hovers near the station and the station reaches over and grabs it with one of the Canadarms. In both cases, the spacecraft will wind up attached to one of the station's airlocks, so that personnel and cargo can be transferred.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Huge blow? It's a test satellite. It'll do fine in a lower orbit. Sure it won't last very long there (1 year or so I'd think), but it wasn't meant to last very long anyway. Sure it was meant to last longer, but they can do most of the intended tests at the present orbit, I'd think.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
1. The capsule has quite a bit of inertia, so if you nudge it slightly, it will only react, well, slightly. There, all nice and qualitative, no math involved :)
2. The latching mechanism is designed to have effectively zero mating force. The mating force comes from actuators on the robot arm. Once the grappler is in position (prior to any contact), it will pull the Dragon in, not push on it. Again, qualitatively speaking and ignoring some details.
3. You design the arm to apply sufficient torque, like, duh. Have you seen how slender it is? Demonstrably the torques involved weren't an issue.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I suggest you should read up.
The development of Falcon 9 was paid by NASA. You are correct that NASA contracting does not work by cutting a large check and saying "tell us when you're done": contracts have set milestones with incremental payments as work is accomplished. However, these milestones are for things like passing critical design review. Even before the first flight of Falcon-9, they had already received $248 million dollars of NASA funding.
(http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/453605main_Commercial_Space_Minutes_4_26_2010.pdf )
The engines, however, were an incremental improvement over the Falcon 1 engine; so you're right in that the original engine development was not a NASA project.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Actually, many advertisers simply lie. For examples, just look at the pictures on American fast-food ads. They don't show the real product at all. So, you really don't need to analyze every modifier in an ad; simply, view anything promotional written by the anybody with a steak as unreliable.
(||) Nehmo (||)
SpaceX was already working on the development of the Falcon 9 before NASA got into the act.... so it is completely false that it wouldn't exist without NASA's involvement. I'll admit that NASA money was involved and that it is a subsidy of the development of the Falcon 9, but it wasn't a "cost-plus" project nor has NASA been involved with the design choices. NASA's involvement in the Falcon 9 has been more for general mission requirements and technology transfer as required by law... and to help promote the development of spaceflight in America, something also required by law and a part of the agency's explicit mission and charter as given to NASA by the United States Congress.
NASA wasn't the first customer either, as SpaceX had a manifest of several other customers before NASA became one of them. A much earlier customer was the U.S. Air Force (admittedly still the U.S. federal government). Orbcomm was however one of the very first customers to sign on at a time when it was critical to the development of the Falcon class of vehicles. As a matter of fact, it was the government of Malaysia who even beat NASA to space as a paying customer on SpaceX vehicles (which flew on the Falcon 1 flight 5).
A nice try to justify what you think happened, but it doesn't represent the facts nor reflect the manifest of future flights for the Falcon rockets. This early manifest from SpaceX paints a very different story:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070210100122/http://spacex.com/launch_manifest.php
There were customers who were supposed to be launching ahead of the NASA flights to the ISS, but either they dropped out (such as the "classified mission" that I don't think ever happened) or were rescheduled to other flight times. General schedule slippage has also happened... but that is typical of the spaceflight industry as well.