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."

56 of 89 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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 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
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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
14. 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).
15. 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
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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
21. 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?
22. 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!
23. 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!
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Re:Nice work ... by GNUThomson · 2013-03-03 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  they're building about 400 per year.
  Citation needed.
28. 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.
29. 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.'"
30. 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.'"
31. 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...
32. 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
33. 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.'"
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Re:Nice work ... by ender06 · 2013-03-04 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Haha, pretty much. Wish I could mod/upvote your comment.
37. 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.
38. 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
39. 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.
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.'"
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.