SpaceX Cargo Capsule Reaches International Space Station

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Cargo Capsule Reaches International Space Station

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday March 3, 2013 @10:27AM from the home-sweet-home dept.

Despite having some trouble with maneuvering thrusters a few days ago, SpaceX's Dragon cargo capsule has successfully reached the International Space Station. from the article: "Astronauts aboard the outpost used the station's robotic arm to pluck the capsule from orbit at 5:31 a.m. EST as the ships sailed 250 miles over northern Ukraine. Flight controllers at NASA's Mission Control in Houston then stepped in to drive the capsule to its berthing port on the station's Harmony connecting node."

89 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I hope they brought a HOSTS file with them by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-03 10:28 · Score: 0, Troll

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski
Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.
Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?
Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.
If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.
I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.
Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.
Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.
I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.
If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!
You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel,
Congrats! by CryptoJones · 2013-03-03 10:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Congrats SpaceX and their NASA Counterparts!

--
"Chance favors the prepared mind." ~Me
Nice work ... by Kittenman · 2013-03-03 10:49 · Score: 1

TFA was saying that with the demise of the Shuttle, only Dragon now has the reusability aspect. Anyone know if Orbital Sciences' freighter is reusable, or a throwaway?

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
1. Re:Nice work ... by Alex+Vulpes · 2013-03-03 11:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I think it's a throwaway. Looks like it burns up on re-entry.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_(spacecraft)
2. Re:Nice work ... by ender06 · 2013-03-03 11:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Orbital Sciences' Cygnus freighter is one time use, so throwaway. Don't understand all the throwaway freighters, it's like throwing away your semi-truck after every shipment.
3. Re:Nice work ... by wbr1 · 2013-03-03 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  There are these amazing things.. called wikipedia and google... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_(spacecraft)
  
  --
  Silence is a state of mime.
4. Re:Nice work ... by wonkey_monkey · 2013-03-03 11:07 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  it's like throwing away your semi-truck after every shipment.
  Yeah... no.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
5. Re:Nice work ... by icebike · 2013-03-03 11:08 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually TFA said "Dragon is the only station freighter that makes return trips", but that doesn't necessarily mean reusability.
  The SpaceX site claims it is reusable, but I don't know if it actually has been reused to date.
  The last picture on the above linked page shows the condition of the returned vehicle. Its significantly crispy that it might be less expensive
  to simply build a new one. Especially for manned missions coming later.
  There is a comparison of cargo vehicle on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_space_station_cargo_vehicles
  None mention re-useability explicitly.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
6. Re:Nice work ... by ender06 · 2013-03-03 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you disagree? Not looking to argue, just curious.
7. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-03 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  ...it's like throwing away your semi-truck after every shipment.
  Kindof. Throwing away half of a truck ( semi means half ) would assume that the freighter is half is the launch system.
  Maybe you meant part-truck?
8. Re:Nice work ... by Nutria · 2013-03-03 11:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Don't understand all the throwaway freighters, it's like throwing away your semi-truck after every shipment.
  Truckers would readily throw away their trucks on every voyage if it were insanely expensive and difficult to bring them back in any kind of functional condition.
  And that's exactly why we use single-use rockets.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
9. Re:Nice work ... by Animats · 2013-03-03 11:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The Dragon spacecraft/capsule is partially reusable. So far, the Falcon boosters are single-use. Space-X hopes to start recovering the first stage boosters, but that isn't working yet.
  Meanwhile, they have 9 Merlin engines per Falcon first stage, one per second stage, and they're building about 400 per year. So they get manufacturing economies of scale. That's more valuable than reusability with heavy refurbishing, which tends to be a labor-intensive custom job. Refurbishing was the big cost problem with the US Space Shuttle - the amount of labor required for each turnaround was very high.
10. Re:Nice work ... by ender06 · 2013-03-03 11:17 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If it's so insanely expensive and difficult, then why is SpaceX working on just that, a reusable rocket? The pie-in-the-sky has always been a readily reusable rocket. That was the idea behind the shuttle. Didn't work out so well, but that was the idea.
11. Re:Nice work ... by ender06 · 2013-03-03 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  I've always referred to them as semi-trucks, I guess in this case I would mean the large 53ft trailer. Could argue the truck part (or lorry for the British), is the rocket.
12. Re:Nice work ... by ender06 · 2013-03-03 11:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Dragon capsules are reusable, however, NASA has specifically contracted new capsules for every resupply mission. There's nothing stopping SpaceX from reusing the capsules for other missions, however. I know the demo 1 capsule, that performed a few orbits before returning, and demo 2 capsule, the first to berth with ISS, are both hanging outside mission control at the SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, CA.
13. Re:Nice work ... by ZankerH · 2013-03-03 11:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's really a misnomer to call the space shuttle reusable. "Rebuildability" is more like it. The things had to spend months after each flight being torn apart and having every part inspected over and over and a big chunk of them replaced.
  The key to economic space flight is full and rapid reusability. Payload launchers need to become as reusable as passenger aeroplanes for space flight to become routine.
14. Re:Nice work ... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-03-03 11:37 · Score: 2
  
  it's like throwing away your semi-truck after every shipment.
  I don't suppose that your semi-truck needs several months of extensive servicing, refurbishing, checking, and fixing the heat shield after every shipment.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
15. Re:Nice work ... by benjfowler · 2013-03-03 11:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  NASA only ordered new hardware for COTS missions.
  SpaceX has said that Dragon hardware from COTS missions will be refurbished for DragonLab missions. I'd be interested in seeing if refurbishing actually results in significant cost savings or not (I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I guess it depends on how much value is tied up in parts, versus labor).
16. Re:Nice work ... by Nutria · 2013-03-03 11:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If it's so insanely expensive and difficult, then why is SpaceX working on just that, a reusable rocket?
  Because it's a worthwhile goal, which IMNSHO SpaceX is working on in the proper method: incrementally from simple, known-working parts.
  That was the idea behind the shuttle. Didn't work out so well, but that was the idea.
  Many at NASA in the 1970s should be flogged for over-promising and under-budgeting a single-stage-to-orbit "truck".
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
17. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-03 11:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The problem is, re-usability is tough when you are dealing with the extreme requirements of space travel. Noone has proven it to be viable in cost yet, the shuttle shown it was possible though at a expensive cost. SpaceX is not reusable *yet* but their rocket is designed to be. Time will only tell if they succeed. Even Musk acknowledges that it may not be fully reusable (the difficulty of getting the 2nd stage rocket back) as Rocketry is HARD. But you gotta applaud them in their efforts and success will help to reduce cost further while failure will keep costs at the same level (which is currently already low). So it only makes sense for them to push for re-usability. Unlike the shuttle, their rocket doesn't have a high initial cost. The shuttle couldn't fallback on one time usage launches because of the extreme cost of building a single one but SpaceX can though re-usability is still a major goal for them. If they can't get re-usability to work with their current design, I'm sure they will definitely choose the cheaper option while working towards the future.
18. Re:Nice work ... by mpthompson · 2013-03-03 12:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The Dragon's are designed to be reused. However, if I recall correctly, NASA requested that SpaceX use a brand new capsule for each of the 12 scheduled delivery missions. This likely means that SpaceX is building up a stock of used Dragon capsules that can be repurposed to other missions at a reduced price.
  If someone could confirm this, I would like to know if this is because NASA is stuck in the old ways of doing things with capsules, or if there is a legitimate safety/efficiency reason used Dragons could not be recycled for future supply missions.
19. Re:Nice work ... by Alex+Vulpes · 2013-03-03 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  Reusability, while a good idea, isn't too important for CRS—because reusable or not, NASA wants a new capsule for each mission.
  
  CRS may well be Orbital's only ambition in the cargo delivery sphere (normally they launch satellites), while we know for a fact that SpaceX has... other plans.
20. Re:Nice work ... by Macrat · 2013-03-03 13:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Many at NASA in the 1970s should be flogged for over-promising and under-budgeting a single-stage-to-orbit "truck".
  Keep in mind that Congress and the Air Force were back seat designers on the Space Shuttle. It wasn't all NASA's fault.
21. Re:Nice work ... by AK+Marc · 2013-03-03 13:43 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I don't see why you disagree. In many cases, the "load" is the trailer. And so, yes, truckers do leave the trailer behind on trips, throwing away the cargo container with shipments. I've seen people in rural Alaska make houses from the containers that things come it. It's cheaper than paying to ship them back once delivered.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
22. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-03 14:11 · Score: 0
  
  TFA was saying that with the demise of the Shuttle, only Dragon now has the reusability aspect. Anyone know if Orbital Sciences' freighter is reusable, or a throwaway?
  It's a "throwaway" for now. I put quotes around it because it can probably be reused. The last Dragon capsule only has some scorch marks on it and could be reused. This one probably can be reused too. However they are being upgraded substantially with each shot so this one differed greatly from the last. And the next Dragon will be substantially different too. Before the year is out the Dragon capsules will be landing softly wherever is most convenient. Perhaps on NASA grounds or perhaps on private property.
23. Re:Nice work ... by ender06 · 2013-03-03 14:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Really, do you have evidence for that, or are you just saying that because you don't like them for whatever reason?
24. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-03 15:09 · Score: 0
  
  On your lawn, old man!
25. Re:Nice work ... by camperdave · 2013-03-03 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  Get your facts straight. The SpaceX rocket is not reusable, nor is it designed to be. It is a throw-away. However, the Dragon Capsule, which sits atop the Falcon 9 rocket, is designed to be reusable. Nevertheless, the contract with NASA calls for a new caspule each time.
  
  Having said that, SpaceX *is* working on a rocket where the first stage is reusable. However, that is a few design generations away. They are currently working out the kinks on a test-bed rocket system called Grasshopper. Grasshopper can currently lift off, hover a couple of dozen metres in the air, and then return to the launch pad. However, it is nowhere near capable of boosting anything into space.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
26. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-03 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  I was able to tour demo 1 when it was on display at the kennedy space center, the same day as the last shuttle launch. For something that was de-orbited, it was in excellent condition up close.
27. Re:Nice work ... by camperdave · 2013-03-03 16:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That "crispy" look is just soot/ash from the heat shield. You can see several places below the channel for the drogue chute's cord (the diagonal groove) where it has been rubbed off, showing a pristine white underneath. Besides, that picture only shows the bad side of the capsule. Take a look at the capsule from a few different angles. You see, contrary to popular belief, capsules like this do not traverse through the atmosphere straight on. They "fly" in a tilted orientation. That's why the soot marks are on an angle, and one side of the capsule looks charred, while the other looks barely singed.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
28. Re:Nice work ... by strack · 2013-03-03 16:19 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  you think that the small amount spacex is spending compared to the shuttle means its rockets are unsafe. what it actually means is its a good design, which costs a lot less to make safe compared to the shuttle, which is a bad design, that cost a incredibly large amount of money to make sorta, kinda, not really, safe.
29. Re:Nice work ... by tibit · 2013-03-03 18:36 · Score: 1
  
  Gaetano Morano, is that you?
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
30. Re:Nice work ... by tibit · 2013-03-03 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably due to considerations for the safety of ISS. If a Dragon were to crack and explosively depressurize, the ISS would be lost.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
31. Re:Nice work ... by GNUThomson · 2013-03-03 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  they're building about 400 per year.
  Citation needed.
32. Re:Nice work ... by tsotha · 2013-03-03 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  The Air Force was a "back seat designer" because NASA forced them to use the shuttle in an attempt to hijack part of the AF budget.
33. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-03 22:24 · Score: 0
  
  It's likely that NASA would rather have others test the reusability first.
34. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-04 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  SAS the Scandinavian Airline did an environmental study on it's food services and found that it was actually better for the environment to use a plant based throw away plates over washable plates since washing them wasted water and polluted it with soup. Also the cost of moving the plates on back and forth to be washed plus flying them on return trips didn't help. So reusablity is not always a best practice.
35. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-04 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  I don't suppose that your semi-truck needs several months of extensive servicing, refurbishing, checking, and fixing the heat shield after every shipment.
  What idiots would by a truck like that? Other than the U.S. Government?
36. Re:Nice work ... by drinkypoo · 2013-03-04 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Either it will, and they'll keep doing it, or it won't, and they'll use the lessons learned from failing to save money in the next version. Either way, something good will happen.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
37. Re:Nice work ... by drinkypoo · 2013-03-04 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen people in rural Alaska make houses from the containers that things come it. It's cheaper than paying to ship them back once delivered.
  In most of the coastal USA you can get a container of varying description delivered for $2-5k, sometimes including long and tall refrigerated units. They might be even cheaper in Alaska, which has few exports that cannot be shipped by pipeline or jet stream. They're literally a problem at some ports.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
38. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-04 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  It could also be a favour to SpaceX - they get to build and streamline a significant number of capsules, which gives them valuable experience in manufacturing. Secondly, they get lots of 'free' capsules that they can use for their own purposes later on.
39. Re:Nice work ... by mu51c10rd · 2013-03-04 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  polluted it with soup
  Nothing a 10 dollar recipe book wouldn't fix...
40. Re:Nice work ... by AK+Marc · 2013-03-04 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Much of rural Alaska gets one barge a year that doesn't stay long enough to pick up the empties. Either you store them for a year and pay to ship them out (maybe fill them trash), or build with them. No idea what they cost, but they are not uncommonly turned into buildings, or parts thereof.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
41. Re:Nice work ... by drinkypoo · 2013-03-04 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they're probably pretty cheap any time the population isn't growing, but I only have specific knowledge of what it costs to get them delivered in nocal. They probably still cost money in the midwest, which still exports some stuff in them. They are probably damned near free in LA.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
42. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-04 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Disclaimer: I'm probably wrong, but I've always wondered the following. If anyone can clear this up for me, that'd be awesome:
  What's always confused me with re-entering the atmosphere is why have anything re-enter fast enough to burn up. From what little I know, the heat shielding and much of the exterior of the shuttle needed to be replaced after each use, because it burned up in the atmosphere. But they're re-entering the atmosphere at ridiculously high speed, and tearing through the atmosphere. Why the need to return to Earth so damned fast?
  Why can't they take that same shuttle idea, but orbit the earth for 4 or 5 days, gradually slowing down, and gradually reentering the atmosphere over the course of days instead of hours? They can fire the shuttle through the atmosphere and make it barely reuseable at X angle... why not reenter the atmosphere at 0.1X angle instead? It'd take 10 times as long to get through that atmosphere, but in that time you can both slow down, as well as plow through less vertical atmosphere over the same period of time. Shouldn't that logically do significantly less damage to the shuttle?
  Again, I assume I'm just unaware of why this can't be done, but it's always confused me. They've been in space for a long-ass time already, I can't see why they can't prep things to hold another few days worth of food.
43. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-04 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure there's some reason they're requesting new capsules for every mission... but that seems on the face of it like a horrendous waste of money.
  That's like buying a stack of high quality cutlery, glasses, plates, and other tableware, then after every meal just gathering up the tablecloth with everything on it, throwing it all away, and buying new plates, cutlery, etc for each meal.
  Sadly (although you'd have to be pretty goddamn convincing to convince me otherwise), I get the feeling the root of it is purely so that some higher-ups friend or family member is making a ton of money because of it. "Sure, this is reusable... but then my brother Johnny over there only gets money for having made ONE door of the capsule. He'd make 12 times as much money if he got to sell 12 of them instead, so it's settled... order 12 brand new reuseable capsules, instead of just the single one that we actually need."
44. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-04 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  NASA hasn't explicitly ruled out reused capsules, they just required cost/schedule estimates, pricing, analysis to be based on new capsules. This is a prudent exercise when laying out an initial contract as it reduces the risk of dramatic overruns later-- we don't have to worry about uncertainties in the difficulty in refurbishment or uncertainties due to the differences in certifying a refurbished vs new capsule.
45. Re:Nice work ... by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-03-04 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  If it's so insanely expensive and difficult, then why is SpaceX working on just that, a reusable rocket?
  It'll be insanely difficult and expensive right up until SpaceX succeeds with soft-landing a first stage, at which point it will be routine and normal and why isn't everybody doing it?
  But of course, we will first have to suffer through the clowns telling us how the first soft-landing was a failure because they had to make two tries to restart the engines after separation, so it landed with dry tanks instead of the 5% safety margin it was supposed to land with so it was a CATASTROPHIC FAILURE. Nevermind the rocket sitting upright on the recovery pad, clinking as it cools...
  Oh, and after SpaceX hauls it away, we'll be told it's not actually reusable because they didn't turn around and launch it again TOMORROW.
46. Re:Nice work ... by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-03-04 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  In short, fuel. Slowing down first before reentering the atmosphere requires an enormous amount of fuel. Not as much as getting up there in the first place, but still so much that it's infeasible to take that much along with you into orbit. The mass of heat shielding to use for atmospheric braking is substantially less than the mass of fuel required for equivalent retro-rocket braking.
47. Re:Nice work ... by ender06 · 2013-03-04 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Haha, pretty much. Wish I could mod/upvote your comment.
48. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-04 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  Nuts. I just ran out of mod points, or I would have moded you up. I suspect that is exactly who it is.
  
  Windbourne (moderated).
49. Re:Nice work ... by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-03-04 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  The SpaceX rocket is not reusable, nor is it designed to be.
  You get your facts straight. Yes it was designed to be reusable, from the beginning.
  The original plan was to put parachutes on the first stage and use a boat to recover it after ocean splashdown. SpaceX did in fact recover a first stage in service of that plan. There's pictures on the SpaceX site of the recovery operation. As it turns out, the impact of even a parachute landing does enough mechanical damage, coupled with the corrosive effects of seawater doing chemical damage, that the original reusability plan failed. By the time you fix everything that happens to a rocket after it slams into the water and then soaks for a few hours, it's not worth the effort to reuse it.
  But just because the first attempt to reuse it failed doesn't mean it wasn't designed to be reused—it was.
50. Re:Nice work ... by Nutria · 2013-03-04 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  gradually slowing down, and gradually reentering the atmosphere over the course of days instead of hours
  That means the craft would be traveling through the atmosphere at 17,000 miles an hour for many, many hours. Even at high altitude, that speed causes ginormous friction.
  Anyway, gravity is trying to accelerate the fall, so you'd need lots of fuel to retard the pull of gravity.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
51. Re:Nice work ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-04 12:58 · Score: 0
  
  Not only the ISS, but the cargo up/down. That is actually a LOT of money involved with building equipment or getting results.
52. Re:Nice work ... by cwsumner · 2013-03-06 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if NASA is actually trying to force them to build up a stock of capsules. If they started out by re-using them, there would probably be no stock available for emergencies.
Answer this... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-03 11:03 · Score: 0

And exactly HOW is it a "troll"???
Harbor pilot in space? by RelaxedTension · 2013-03-03 11:07 · Score: 1

Who'd have thought you'd still have harbor pilots in space. Same difference though, I guess.
1. Re:Harbor pilot in space? by icebike · 2013-03-03 11:16 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, If I was sitting in the ISS, I'd want my guys in control too.
  Still, you have to wonder who would be better at flying this thing, the guys who built and designed it, or guys from NASA?
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
2. Re:Harbor pilot in space? by RelaxedTension · 2013-03-03 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  If I was sitting in the ISS, I'd probably want to do it myself.
3. Re:Harbor pilot in space? by drinkypoo · 2013-03-04 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Still, you have to wonder who would be better at flying this thing, the guys who built and designed it, or guys from NASA?
  That depends. Who's spent more time playing Lunar Lander?
  Serious answer, though, the person with eyes on the item and who is right there with less chance of communication problem is the person who should be trained for the job and then do it.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
CA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-03 13:52 · Score: 0

I bet this could be a lot cheaper if SpaceX wasn't based in California.
1. Re:CA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-03 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Outside of California you'd have Ivy league types figuring out ways to pay the engineers nothing while paying themselves close to 1000x the average engineer. Like it is done everywhere but in crazy CA.
Who's covering the story for NYT - Broder? by Smerta · 2013-03-03 15:12 · Score: 4, Funny

I sure hope the NYT's John Broder isn't going to cover this story.

When he's done with the article, Dragon will have caromed off a couple comets, run out of fuel, and started floating backwards towards a black hole or something.
Potential set back for private space flight succes by Grayhand · 2013-03-03 16:01 · Score: 1

A huge move forward for private space flight. The fact they had a major problem and still achieved the goal was a huge move forward for private space missions. Private companies are becoming a viable alternative to NASA.
They DID NOT achived the goal by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-03 16:38 · Score: 0

The goal was SAVED by another company who unlike SpaceX already had a track record of SUCCESS.
Re:Potential set back for private space flight suc by DigiShaman · 2013-03-03 16:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

The fact Russia didn't ass-rape us over the cost this time is always a viable alternative. They took advantage of the situation of us not having a Shuttle and we (NASA/American public) knew it! Screw those guys. I'll take SpaceX any day of the week over them.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Could you explain? by robbak · 2013-03-03 17:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

SpaceX built and lauched the rocket into an initial orbit, had a problem with the capsule's booster's supply of propellant that they were able to fix, and delivered the capsule to the right point, orbiting alongside ISS within reach of it's Canadarm, a little later than originally scheduled.
In what way did SpaceX not succeed? And who, in your opinion, was the party who 'saved' this mission?
I agree that, while SpaceX is establishing a good record of recovering from issues, it would be better if they could develop a record of not having issues!

--
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
1. Re:Could you explain? by tibit · 2013-03-03 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, it's just the man a.k.a. Gaetano Morano spewing his FUD. Nothing to see, move along. Even the grammar mistakes match with that G.M. persona.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
2. Re:Could you explain? by TheDarkMaster · 2013-03-03 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that wrong things ALWAYS happen sooner or later, I would trust more in a company that knows how to solve contingencies than one who has never had to deal with it.
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Capsule crash into the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-03 18:08 · Score: 0

The next time the cargo capsule approaches the ISS, if the capsule's maneuvering is messed up somehow, might the capsule crash into the ISS? If the capsule crashed hard enough into the ISS, I don't know if the astronauts in the ISS could survive.
1. Re:Capsule crash into the ISS? by tibit · 2013-03-03 18:41 · Score: 1
  
  The next time you get into a car, if your brain is messed up somehow, might you crash into a school bus? If you crashed hard enough into the school bus, I don't know if the kids in the school bus could survive.
  Yeah, makes just about as much sense as the parent.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
2. Re:Capsule crash into the ISS? by Thud457 · 2013-03-04 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Dat's de Roosians yer thinkin' about...
  
  Progress M-34 undocked from Mir at 10:22:45 UTC on 24 June, in preparation for a docking test planned for the next day. On 25 June, the spacecraft re-approached Mir under manual control, in a test intended to establish whether Russia could reduce the cost of Progress missions by eliminating the Kurs automated docking system. At 09:18 UTC, whilst under the control of Vasily Tsibliyev, the Progress spacecraft collided with the space station's Spektr module, damaging both the module itself, and a solar panel.[4] Following the collision, Progress M-34 was manoeuvred away from the station, before being deorbited on 2 July.[6] Its deorbit burn was conducted at 05:34:58 UTC, with the spacecraft being destroyed during reentry over the Pacific Ocean at 06:31:50.[5]
  Ho lee fook, that sounds like a Chernobyl type scenario all over again. Turn off automated safety systems for some sort of harebrained manual test and surprise surprise, they run into problems.
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
3. Re:Capsule crash into the ISS? by Spy+Handler · 2013-03-04 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  that's why NASA requires approaching spacecraft to have triple-redundant thrusters. The Dragon capsule has FOUR sets... quadruple redundancy.
4. Re:Capsule crash into the ISS? by WindBourne · 2013-03-04 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  That is why when a ship is coming to berth/dock, the crew is put on alert and sequestered away from the maneuvers.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Potential set back for private space flight suc by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-06 13:44 · Score: 0

http://www.jetek-pcb.com