Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX To Present Manned Dragon Capsule

camperdave (969942) writes "SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is set to unveil the Dragon V2 at a media event from Hawthorne, California, tonight at 7 pm. Pacific. The 'Dragon V2' is an upgraded, man rated version of the unmanned spaceship that has made several successful cargo trips to the International Space Station. The new craft will carry a mix of cargo and up to a seven crewmembers to the ISS. According to Musk, this is 'Actual flight design hardware of crew Dragon, not a mockup.' Following the space shuttle's forced retirement in 2011, US astronauts have been totally dependent on the Russian Soyuz capsules for ferry rides to orbit and back. The crisis in Ukraine, which has resulted in some U.S. economic sanctions imposed against Russia, also has the potential to threaten U.S. access to the ISS as the Russian government considers reciprocal sanctions of its own. 'Sounds like this might be a good time to unveil the new Dragon Mk 2 spaceship that @SpaceX has been working on with @NASA,' Musk tweeted. SpaceX is one of three commercial space companies competing for funding from NASA's Commercial Crew Transportation Capability program." (You can watch the event as a webcast.)

128 comments

  1. About time. by horm · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for SpaceX to take us to the moon.

    1. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget the Dragon v2, I'm waiting for the Dragon 32!

    2. Re:About time. by Moheeheeko · · Score: 3, Funny

      He isn't going to stop with the moon, Musk's dream is to die on mars (and preferably not in the sudden stop of landing there)

    3. Re:About time. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Why stop at the moon? Elon Musk is so charismatic that I believe that Tesla now completely dominates the U.S. car market.

      I'm probably totally missing the [sarcasm] and [joke] tags on your comment, but the Tesla is certainly the most successful electric car in it's class (or at all right now), and realistically, SpaceX is the most realistic alternative to the Russians. None of the other commercial space companies have anything remotely close to being ready for service; Jeff Bezos' "Blue Trampoline" or whatever he calls it is a "vanity" project that has a long, long way to go to be taken seriously.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:About time. by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      All praise him!

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    5. Re:About time. by Red4man · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't you wait for Luna Park to be built first?

      Slow Down Cowboy!

      Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

      It's been 83 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

      ... but I have positive Karma and am contributing to a discussion, Slashbots!

      And you guys wonder why Digg and Reddit kick sand in your face on a daily basis.

      --
      Sock Puppets: damn_registrars=pudge_confirmer=jimmy_slimmy=raiigunner=cml4524=a_klavan=red4men=ronpaulisanidiot
    6. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, just compare Tesla sales to those pussies and Ford, Toyota, and GM and it becomes immediately clear that Tesla FUCKING OWNS the car market now! I can't even REMEMBER the last time I saw a non-Tesla on the road.

      Also, the sky is green in my world.

    7. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Mozilla ran it, we'd have Dragon 32 next week.

    8. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You do realize that inhabited Mars missions are assessed to be in the 10 to 50 billion dollars ballpark, right?
      And billionnaires typically have that kind of money.
      So it's not really being a gullible cultish fanboy to think that Musk has a good chance to pull it off...

    9. Re:About time. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Green sky?

      Must be ancient Greece (they hadn't invented blue yet).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    10. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guarantee that Ford, Toyota and GM would love to have Tesla's economics in the car market.

    11. Re:About time. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Must be ancient Greece (they hadn't invented blue yet).

      So their Windex was green?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re:About time. by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      Long term goals for the launch recovery include recovery of the second stage, essentially the entire rocket would be recovered and reused. If that can be accomplished (a non-trivial "if" certainly), launch costs could drop to the hundreds of thousands range rather than the tens of millions. You could have 100 launches for the cost of a single one today (already one of the cheapest launch platforms in history). Most of the cost of major missions is getting stuff to orbit; cut that one item by 99% and a lot of budget math changes.

    13. Re:About time. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Shit, just compare Tesla sales to those pussies and Ford, Toyota, and GM and it becomes immediately clear that Tesla FUCKING OWNS the car market now!

      Reading comprehension must not be taught in Troll School. With regards to the Tesla, we're talking about electric . Not gas, not diesel, not hybrids.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    14. Re:About time. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, this is the decade where we start worrying about the economies of space travel instead of just the plausibility.

    15. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and all the astronauts would be LGBT!

    16. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mars is probably a good place to raise your kids and start a new nation.

    17. Re:About time. by Megane · · Score: 2

      In fact, it's cold as hell.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    18. Re:About time. by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And only forty years after the US Government did it. Way to go, private sector!

      And probably ten years before the government does it again, at a hundred times the cost if they're using SLS.

      Next time NASA astronauts land on the Moon, there'll probably be a crowd of tourists from a SpaceX package tour waiting there to film them.

    19. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And not to forget: a whole century after the first electric car! Space X and Tesla really suck.

    20. Re:About time. by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only 28 years since its been legal for an American company to launch things into space using their own equipment, and even after that western governments (including the U.S) were actively hostile towards private space flight. For instance they forced OTRAG operations into a 3rd world country and then banned using them because it might help the 3rd world country to develop long range missiles.

      So no, not 40 years you ignorant statist twat. You give the state so much power that they prevent free markets from working, and then later claim that the "free market" you set up to fail didnt work.

      Give people liberty, and free markets work just fine.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    21. Re:About time. by 0123456 · · Score: 0

      Free markets are just what people do when no statist is pointing a gun at their head to force them to do something else.

    22. Re:About time. by nogginthenog · · Score: 1

      I've still got a working Dragon 32. For those that don't know this was a British COCO clone.

    23. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.thestreet.com/story/12725408/1/how-will-tesla-motors-tsla-stock-react-to-sps-b-junk-rating.html

    24. Re:About time. by preaction · · Score: 1

      And it needs women!

    25. Re:About time. by onkelonkel · · Score: 1
      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    26. Re:About time. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I've still got a working Dragon 32. For those that don't know this was a British COCO clone.

      Hopefully the SpaceX version will connect the heatsink properly, so it doesn't overheat after a few hours.

    27. Re:About time. by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      Musk thinks an 80,000 person colony on Mars can be established for around 36 billion, total.

      "Musk added that he sees the future 80,000-person colony as a public-private enterprise costing roughly $36 billion."

      http://www.wired.com/2012/11/e...

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    28. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give people liberty, and free markets work just fine

      Somalia

    29. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      about Luna park...
      The first park to use the name was Coney Island's second major amusement park, designed by Charles I.D. Looff and opened in 1903. Looff named the park after the spaceship in the Pan-American Exposition ride "A Trip to the Moon"

    30. Re:About time. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a "free market". There has never been a "free market". In fact, they are an impossibility.

      Markets do not exist in nature. They are constructs of civil order. For our purposes, they are made by the government.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    31. Re:About time. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      You do not know rocket history very well. e.g. Von Braun started working at a rocket club in Germany with Oberth where they did a rocket used for a publicity stunt to promote the 'Frau im Mond' movie by Fritz Lang. Some people there had the business idea of using rockets to carry mail quickly point to point. Once WWII started their efforts were redirected to military applications. Eventually the technology got severely restricted and yes people like Lutz Kayzer, who wanted to make commercial rockets, failed due to regulatory barriers that prevented private corporations from launching rockets into space.

      Had WWII and the Cold War never happened we might have had a commercial space launch industry a lot sooner.

    32. Re:About time. by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I saw that in a movie once. Wonder how much the air will cost?

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    33. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there's no-one there to raise them if you did.

    34. Re:About time. by ChoosyBeggar · · Score: 1

      Future technology & economics will differ greatly from the present context, rendering "dollar"-estimates useless. Even estimates of "man-hours" will fall away as robotic labor expands. In even just ten years, the processes of research, development, & manufacturing will again be transformed to a new paradigm.

  2. Seven crew? by joebok · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Transport seven crew to the ISS? Well, I'm impressed!

    1. Re:Seven crew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm impressed by your Karma Whoring with a pointless comment.

    2. Re:Seven crew? by horm · · Score: 1

      The summary clearly states "up to a seven crewmembers."

    3. Re:Seven crew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's what it states. Just like the parent you're commenting on said...

    4. Re:Seven crew? by Delwin · · Score: 1

      Seven crew means it can be used as an escape capsule for the ISS.

    5. Re:Seven crew? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Seven crew means it can be used as an escape capsule for the ISS.

      Well, for seven of them, anyway. There have been times when there have been a dozen people aboard the ISS.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:Seven crew? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Sometimes having an opinion to share is the point.

    7. Re:Seven crew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      An important cirterium for an ISS escape capsule is that it must be able to remain functional while being docked for months. I don't know if the dragon can be stored in space for half a year and still function reliably.

    8. Re:Seven crew? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if the dragon can be stored in space for half a year and still function reliably.

      That's not particularly hard, unless you generate your power from fuel cells, which would have to keep hydrogen liquid for months. And even the Apollo CSM could stay in space for 2-3 months for the longer Skylab missions.

    9. Re:Seven crew? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seven crew means it can be used as an escape capsule for the ISS.

      Well, for seven of them, anyway. There have been times when there have been a dozen people aboard the ISS.

      Not as ISS crew. This was only temporarily, while the Shuttle was visiting (record number
      of people on board the ISS is 13, but just for a couple of days: 6 ISS + 7 Shuttle).

      ISS design crew initially was 7 - but that has been reduced to 6 for the time being,
      due to the unavailability of full crew rescue vehicles.

      At the moment, 2x Soyuz are used as escape pods. A parked Dragon would help to get
      back to the initial crew size and free up a docking port. Very cool.

    10. Re:Seven crew? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Sometimes having an opinion to share is the point.

      That's also precisely the reason why there's a -1, Redundant moderation.

    11. Re:Seven crew? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Apparently the Dragon capsule can remain docked for as much as 210 days... as long as a Soyuz. One of the many videos I was watching today said that the Dragon could be in orbit for two years.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  3. "It will be absolutely safe," said Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...right before the tragic accident.

  4. Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess I should use the term "duomaniac", since his threadshitting obsession seems to focus on both spaceflight and 3D printing.

    The prospect of an actual commercial manned space industry just might be enough to finally push him over the edge.

    1. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by NotDrWho · · Score: 0

      The problem with most private commercial flight companies is that they usually end up serving exactly one customer: the U.S. Government. I don't think it's fair to characterize that as "private." The harsh fact is that, aside from satellite launches, there is pretty much no reason for any other entity to go into space.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      The problem with most private commercial flight companies is that they usually end up serving exactly one customer: the U.S. Government. I don't think it's fair to characterize that as "private." The harsh fact is that, aside from satellite launches, there is pretty much no reason for any other entity to go into space

      Believe it or not, the US Government (and other governments as well) are not the only people launching satellites or other spacecraft...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The harsh fact is that, aside from satellite launches, there is pretty much no reason for any other entity to go into space.

      Yeah, I guess that would explain why there has been at least one person in orbit every year since the last moon shot, and why the ISS has been continuously occupied for nearly 14 years.

      As far as commercial flight goes, unlike the shuttle, anyone with the money can buy a launch from SpaceX. They're not restricted to government launches.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      Looking at their upcoming launch manifest I see: NASA, Orbcomm, Asiasat, Space Systems, Loral, Thales Alenia Space, US Air Force, CONAE, NSPO, Spacecom, Bigelow Aerospace, SKY Perfect JSAT Corporation, SES, Iridium, and SATMEX.

      The US government isn't even the customer for a majority of the launches through 2015. If you're specifically talking about manned missions you might have a better argument. But even then the Bigelow Aerospace launch is tantalizing hints of the future... even if it's only the future for the fabulously, ridiculously wealthy.

    5. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aside from. Look it up.

    6. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess that would explain why there has been at least one person in orbit every year since the last moon shot, and why the ISS has been continuously occupied for nearly 14 years.

      Are you saying that a private company did all that, or you no read so good?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    7. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Those are all either satellite launches or government/government-contractor launches.

      I'll say it again. Aside from satellite launches, there is just no other reason for non-governmental entities to go into space right now.

      Even so-called "space tourism" isn't really going into space, and certainly nowhere near LEO.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    8. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      I'll say it again. Aside from satellite launches, there is just no other reason for non-governmental entities to go into space right now.

      Well, duh. That's why SpaceX are working hard to slash the cost of launching things into orbit until other business opportunities make sense.

    9. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or other spacecraft... Look it up.

    10. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      No, it is totally legitimate to say it is "private" even if the government is the only buyer (and their not –as others have pointed out.) – the profits flow to Musk & Company.

      I think what you are trying to say is that it is not a free market – but that also is not true. For a free market to work all you need is multiple independent agents (publicly or privately owned) who can freely bid for the work. That is the bare minimum in order to have a free market is to have multiple producers or multiple consumers.

      Of course the fewer agents involved the greater the chance of mischief will occur but that would be a different point – the efficiency of the market.

    11. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget it, he's a loon. I mean look at this jewel:

      http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...

      Yeah. Wow.

    12. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I'm saying there are plenty of other customers other than the US government, and plenty of reasons other than satellite launches that private space corporations can cater to. NASA is not the only game in town.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if going to LEO was free, what business could make sense? Grow up.

    14. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But none of that has anything to do with some great market for "commercial manned space". No one's going anywhere you loon.

      Unpack that Mars suitcase and grow up.

    15. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of people from dozens of countries and private companies have found some reason for spending the millions upon millions of dollars needed to get into space. So, clearly there is a market. Denying the facts is lunacy, but go ahead if it makes you feel better.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    16. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I accept that with your late injection of 'right now', however to anyone imaginative there are numerous reasons for non-government entities to go into space:

      - raw material exploitation of asteroids and other bodies

      - zero g manufacturing

      - tourism

      - genome back-up for disaster recovery

      - lack of territorial jurisdiction

      - because it's there.

    17. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of people from dozens of countries and private companies have found some reason for spending the millions upon millions of dollars needed to get into space. So, clearly there is a market.

      It was very expensive Cold War propaganda and military posturing during the "space race." Today, the government space "market" is mostly for PR value and political patronage.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    18. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Even if going to LEO was free, what business could make sense? Grow up.

      If getting to LEO was free, tourists would be flocking up there ASAP, there'd be hotels on the Moon, and cruise ships would be heading for Mars and beyond.

    19. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      ... is lunacy ...

      I se what you did there.

    20. Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Today, the government space "market" is mostly for PR value and political patronage.

      "Why" doesn't matter. Maybe it is national pride. Maybe it is the opportunity to conduct experiments at the finest microgravity research facility in the solar system. "Why" doesn't matter. What matters is that governments and private citizens are willing to pay someone to ferry them into space. SpaceX thinks they can do it cheaper than the competition. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong. Only time will tell.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  5. Private Enterprise Saves the Day! by BoRegardless · · Score: 1, Insightful

    NASA holding onto an out-moded Space Shuttle design, crimped the US's space efforts for decades.

    Welcome to the Space X Dragon and someone finally with GUTS; Elon Musk.

    1. Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      NASA holding onto an out-moded Space Shuttle design, crimped the US's space efforts for decades.

      Welcome to the Space X Dragon and someone finally with GUTS; Elon Musk.

      Well, there are reasons why NASA pushed the shuttle for so long that have nothing to do with incompetency. The whole "Gee whiz! Look kids! It's reusable!" approach was a way to save money in the face of budget cuts. Why were budgets being cut, do you ask? Well, there is no shortage of Americans who say "Why are we throwing away money on NASA for nothing when we have too many problems at home to fix?" It took a long time and 2 spectacular fatal events before the message got driven home so clearly that even a government bureaucrat couldn't miss it that bolting the shuttle to giant launch rockets was always going to have a small but always present chance of a fatal accident that was unacceptably high. Putting a capsule on top of a rocket isn't sexy, but it works. Russia hasn't had even one fatality related to their launch system. NASA's ongoing Orion project is using the old school capsule approach because it just works. I fully commend Musk for getting Space X to where it is as he's going to basically save the space station, but NASA does now understand that right now the whole reusable shuttle idea is a bad one. Columbia drove it home that the shuttle could never be as safe as it needed to be because the whole idea was fatally flawed, so the only way to quickly get things done was to turn to private industry. Orion is going OK as far as I know, but the pace is pretty slow and it won't be passenger ready until probably a few years after Space X is already taking people to the space station.

    2. Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! by hey! · · Score: 1

      That's because launch system designs don't just appear out thin air. They have to be paid for.

      What's more, there isn't enough money in the world to pay for a launch system project that is "privatized" the way politicians mean "privatized": undertaken by contractors with no competition and no money of their own at stake.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because it's so easy to design a new orbital vessel.

    4. Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NASA holding onto? Are you insane? The space shuttle was MANDATED by congress, just like the heavy lift rocket they are developing for no reason. Not only does congress tell NASA what to build, they insist certain companies and states manufacturing capacity be used. NASA often isn't even allowed to price shop because it would price ATK and other defense contractors out of competition. NASA is treated by congress as one great big pork barrel where rather than giving NASA options to reduce cost they force NASA to buy and build things they don't even want. Not unlike the military where congress frequently forces the military to buy defense products they don't want because some congresscritter's district holds the factory.

      Remember Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex? Well NASA is a key component of that abuse because just like the DOD NASA spends enough money to draw the attention of those with influence who can make lots of money on those items.

    5. Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! by Lodlaiden · · Score: 2

      GUTS: Getting Us To Space!

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
    6. Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      "there isn't enough money in the world to pay for a launch system", but wait there is enough money for a $1 trillion dollar program that has NOT achieved its stated desired results as verified by the GAO!

      Head Start = No Start

    7. Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! by hey! · · Score: 1

      "there isn't enough money in the world to pay for a launch system", but wait there is enough money for a $1 trillion dollar program that has NOT achieved its stated desired results as verified by the GAO!

      Head Start = No Start

      QED.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! by gman003 · · Score: 1

      The Space Shuttle is a really weird mix of qualities. The boosters are actually very good at their job - they're extremely powerful, and surprisingly reusable. The main engines are also good - they're some of the most efficient engines to be flown, period, and they're the most efficient that ever flew regularly. Using an external tank also is a good move - it's much cheaper, and it means the only thing getting thrown away is an empty tank. On paper, the Shuttle should have been an amazing craft.

      The biggest problems with the Space Shuttle are deeper.

      The first problem is the choice of fuel. Liquid hydrogen is amazingly efficient, but it's both bulky (look at the external tank) and expensive. I suspect NASA thought that, by flying dozens of shuttle missions per year, they could build up a large LH industry in the US, the same way UDMH and other fuels went from chemical curiosities to made-by-the-ton commodities. That didn't happen, possibly because the Shuttle never flew as often as it was designed to. But a more conventional fuel would have been both cheaper to use, and would have allowed for a smaller vehicle.

      The second problem is the airframe. The basic idea of the Shuttle is a good one ONLY if you regularly need to recapture satellites and deorbit them intact. This basically never happened. Without that, the Shuttle is a massive, heavy airframe with no purpose. This is getting fixed with SLS/Orion, which is basically a Space Shuttle with a capsule instead of pseudo-spaceplane. Well, assuming NASA actually makes it. Considering how simple the design is, I don't know why it isn't flying already, except for politics.

      The third problem is the politics. To get Congressional support, parts for the Shuttle were made all over the country. That's inefficiency for the sake of inefficiency. Then, once Challenger happened, bureaucrats went through everything and OSHA-fied it. Things that were designed to be reused a few times were made disposable, or were rebuilt after every flight. Training times went through the roof. That made the program as a whole slower and less effective - so Congress started slashing funding, because who wants to fund such an ineffective program?

      That third problem is honestly the biggest one. If they had been flying them according to the original plan, and using all the capabilities of the Shuttle, it would have been a great spacecraft. And you could easily use the parts of the Shuttle program to build a great spacecraft still. But you won't be seeing that from NASA, at least without some major changes in other parts of the government.

      Still, I hope someone can buy up the SSME design. One of those would make a good upper stage for a heavy lift rocket.

    9. Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dragon 2 should be nicknamed Tramopline for multiple reasons.

    10. Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government Unlimited Tax Source! What's so appealing about space? I really don't get it. It's not like Star Trek up there, you know?

    11. Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a way to save money in the face of budget cuts"

      Except it didn't save money, at 1.5B$ a pop it was most expensive way to get to space in history. So 3 shuttle flights = blowing up 1 Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

  6. Excellent! by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2

    Let's get this baby loaded, do a couple unmanned tests, including the crew escape system and lets roll.

    I have to imagine if you're the Russian Space Agency this has to be very unwelcome news.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They have been testing a crew escape system, that has been one of the main things being tested for the man rated dragon design over the last few years.

      Its a novel design, it uses the RCS system to blast free from the rocket instead of an apollo style throw-away rocket tower mounted on top of the capsule.

    2. Re:Excellent! by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2

      It makes complete sense. Why add weight and complexity when you've got a perfectly good propulsion system already on your capsule.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    3. Re:Excellent! by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      It makes complete sense. Why add weight and complexity when you've got a perfectly good propulsion system already on your capsule.

      Isn't this one reason why SpaceX want to remove the parachutes, too? If you design it to land with the thrusters, they can perform launch abort, in-orbit maneuver, and landing with the same fuel (obviously, if you do a launch abort, you don't need any fuel for in-orbit maneuver, so it can be used for landing).

    4. Re:Excellent! by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      > SpaceX want to remove the parachutes, too?

      No, they are not removing the parachutes, they'll be kept as a backup system in case the landing thrusters fail.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  7. Re:The US will of course forbid this by ModernGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    Musk is actually a huge Obama supporter, and Obama has been seen talking to, giving praise to, and visiting with Elon Musk. SpaceX and Elon Musk have been a huge part of the Obama Space Strategy. Any anti-obama sentiment comes from the ending of Republican-politican-approved programs, such as the Space Shuttle through companies like ATK and Boeing.

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
  8. What if? by sls1j · · Score: 1

    It's hard to tell from the picture, but they looked lined up. What happens if a front seat rider spews during take off. I'd hate to be seated below.

    1. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite the picture, a launch is not going to be a shirtsleeve environment. If someone spews, it will be into their own helmet.

    2. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to tell from the picture, but they looked lined up. What happens if a front seat rider spews during take off. I'd hate to be seated below.

      If only they sent people on some kind of training before sending them into space, to, you know, see how well they handle that kind of thing...

    3. Re:What if? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      If only they sent people on some kind of training before sending them into space, to, you know, see how well they handle that kind of thing...

      If the training is going to involve someone puking on my face, I'm withdawing my application to NASA to become an astronaut...

    4. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you are very likely to puke on yourself. More than half of the people that go into space actually throw up multiple times for the first couple of days. And that is still with plenty of training.

  9. "Man rated"? Who talks like that? by pla · · Score: 1

    The 'Dragon V2' is an upgraded, man rated version of the unmanned spaceship that has made several successful cargo trips to the International Space Station.

    The Dragon V2: Strong enough for a man, gyroscopically balanced for a woman!

  10. Re:"Man rated"? Who talks like that? by Shatrat · · Score: 1

    Nasa talks like that. Musk knows his audience. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-420...

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  11. Re:"Man rated"? Who talks like that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's short for human rated. http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002B_ And that's the NASA standards document laying out all the requirements for same.

    Posting as AC as I'm at work.

  12. Boycott? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry if this was already asked but I only occasionally visit this site and it seems like there are far fewer comments and insights here. Is there some sort of boycott going on over the new format?

    1. Re: Boycott? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the current slashdork readership only comments on stories with possible conspiracy, ties to the NSA, climate change, politics, vaccination, or a chance to exclaim that "correlation does not equal causation"

      Basically, you have a bunch of ignorant faggots here these days.

      Does that answer your question?

  13. Re:"Man rated"? Who talks like that? by necro81 · · Score: 2

    Actually, my quibble isn't with the gender connotations of the statement, but with the verb tense of the statement. The V2 hasn't, as far as I know, actually received certification for manned space flight. Rather, it has been designed (and probably some testing complete) to be able to receive such a rating.

    It hasn't been rated yet, just that it could be and is intended to be. In that sense, it is more accurate to call it "man ratable" (the subjunctive tense) rather than "man rated" (past tense).

  14. But when will he come out with his own cologne? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His name has always sounded like some kind of cologne.

  15. How was it not private before? by laing · · Score: 2

    NASA is helping SpaceX. Is Boeing a branch of the Federal Government? How is now different from before?

    1. Re:How was it not private before? by Megane · · Score: 1

      How is now different from before?

      Fixed price contracts?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:How was it not private before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fixed price contracts are a change in the way government does business, and the other players are still private businesses. And even with a fixed price contract, if something goes wrong [government agency] will usually buy an investigation and pay for corrective action - so in a way it is still cost-plus. On huge, complex tasks it is often cheaper to investigate and fix a problem than it is to start from scratch with a new vendor.

  16. we need at least two carriers by swschrad · · Score: 1

    given the incidents in which Russia is posing like the Bad Old Days are back, we need at least two operating alternatives to their facilities.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:we need at least two carriers by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The bad old days of being attacked by Germany or further back, being attacked by France. You really can't blame them for getting paranoid about a superpower spending billions in a neighbouring country to overthrow the elected government, a country that is in the process of putting missile defences on its borders as well as having missiles very close to its borders. You can imagine if the roles were reversed and Russia was spending money like crazy in Mexico to incite the population to overthrow their government and become Russia's ally. Actually you can look at history and the present to see how America reacted to Cuba and continues to react.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    2. Re:we need at least two carriers by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      That would be the elected government that turned out to be a bunch of corrupt pigs with their snouts in the trough. Just because you where democratically elected does not give you immunity to being overthrown if you turn out to be rotten eggs. Remember Hitler and the Nazi's where democratically elected.

    3. Re:we need at least two carriers by dryeo · · Score: 1

      When there is an election on the horizon it seems that that should be the first option. If elections are cancelled like what happened in Nazi Germany then it's time to think about violence.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  17. Re:"Man rated"? Who talks like that? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    Actually, my quibble isn't with the gender connotations of the statement, but with the verb tense of the statement. The V2 hasn't, as far as I know, actually received certification for manned space flight.

    Nor did the shuttle, as far as I'm aware. Certainly it couldn't meet NASA's current requirements for commercial crew (1 in 500 loss on ascent and 1 in 500 loss on descent, according to Wikipedia).

  18. Soyuz influence? by Max_W · · Score: 1

    Chairs and cabin look like on Soyuz space ship.

    1. Re:Soyuz influence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Considering it's the only system not having massive failures in 30 years, well...

    2. Re:Soyuz influence? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Considering it's the only system not having massive failures in 30 years, well...

      It's come pretty close, though. If I remember correctly, the last decade has had at least one backward reentry when the service module failed to detach, and at least one ballistic reentry when the computer lost contol for some reason.

    3. Re:Soyuz influence? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      One of the nice things about the Soyuz design is that it will passively self-orient. Even if it starts re-entry backwards, the drag will pivot the craft into a heat-shield first orientation.

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

      You have to be kidding. It is nothing like Soyuz.
      Tell me how that looks like Dragon.
      Or this.
      Or this.
      The soyuz is a tight tin can with no windows and horrible controls.

  19. Machete kills...in space! by Enry · · Score: 1

    Really? I'm the first person to mention this? Before you decide to mod me into oblivion yes, it's on topic. Go watch Machete Kills

  20. Re:"Man rated"? Who talks like that? by k6mfw · · Score: 2

    back in the days "man-rated" meant the ICBM was modified to not shake the man apart in pogo oscillations and speed the capsule up to 17,500 mph.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  21. Re:The US will of course forbid this by erapert · · Score: 0

    I want to see someone get Musk's full opinion of Obama, say, two years from now...

  22. Re:The US will of course forbid this by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

    I've read that Musk contributes to both Republicans and Democrats (but more to Dems IIRC). Dude understands that the reality of the world is that certain wheels need to be greased, especially if what you're doing will rock certain boats.

    --
    "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  23. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's currently certified to dock with ISS which means it's already met 85-90% of the requirements towards NASA's "manned-rating". So for the current Dragon capsule to start carrying astronauts is not really a big leap. They're already done 90% (really 100%) of the work towards carrying astronauts.

  24. Re:The US will of course forbid this by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

    Nah man. For one the Space Shuttle was planned to be retired back when W was still President. It was deemed necessary to retire it to save money for the abortive uber expensive Ares rocket that NASA Administrator Mike Griffin was pushing. When Obama got into power most of the Shuttle maintenance facilities had already been closed down like the rocket engine manufacturing and refurbishing plant. Little he could do but cancel it as scheduled at that point. The plan was always to rely on Soyuz launches until an alternative vehicle could be developed.

    There is broad bi-partisan support for the SLS rocket (Ares Strikes Back) in the Senate against Obama's wishes and those people in the Senate are those opposing his space policy. Which was to privatize the ISS launch services and rethink how to do Moon and Mars exploration in an economically sustainable way.

    The Senate basically cut the funding for the Commercial Crew program. Setting back for like 2 years a US crew transportation vehicle to the ISS and sploshed it all down on SLS

  25. Re:"Man rated"? Who talks like that? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    Thank God someone does not do this politically correct BULLSHIT.

    I still remember when Mankind was used as a word.

  26. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mother Russia shoots down cheap american copy of Soyuz flown over 48 years ago, wheels of capitalism turn wery slowly

  27. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    99% done. All that is left are 2 launch tests (on ground and at maxQ), and to finish documentation.

  28. Re: by necro81 · · Score: 1

    50%, 90%, 99%. I stand by my original statement: it is "man-ratable", and not yet "man-rated". I fully expect that they've done their homework and will, after additional flight demonstrations, receive the certification. But they haven't gotten it yet.