Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Cargo Capsule Reaches International Space Station
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."
Congrats SpaceX and their NASA Counterparts!
"Chance favors the prepared mind." ~Me
I think it's a throwaway. Looks like it burns up on re-entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_(spacecraft)
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.
it's like throwing away your semi-truck after every shipment.
Yeah... no.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Really, do you have evidence for that, or are you just saying that because you don't like them for whatever reason?
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.
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!
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.
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