Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Sets April 8 For Next Dragon Launch

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the my-sister's-birthday dept.

schwit1 writes: SpaceX has scheduled April 8 for the next Falcon 9 launch, set to carry its first Dragon capsule since the launch failure last year. Though this is the most important news contained by the article, its focus is instead on the various preparations that SpaceX is doing at its Texas test facility to prepare for this launch as well as the increased launch rate required for the company to catch up on its schedule. Note that the Dragon launch will also be significant in that it will be carrying Bigelow's inflatable test module for ISS, built for only $17 million in less than two years. NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required at least half a billion and several years to have accomplished the same.

42 comments

  1. LAUNCH!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just make sure it's warm outside.

    1. Re:LAUNCH!! by D.McG. · · Score: 1

      Why? SpaceX doesn't use SRBs with O-ring seals.

  2. As a tech site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the information was pretty lacking. Links talked and talked and didn't say what the inflatable module was.

    1. Re:As a tech site by G-forze · · Score: 4, Informative
      It's really nothing more than that - an inflatable test module which wont be used for anything, at least yet. Here's a NASA blog post which contains some information.

      The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) is an experimental expandable capsule that attaches to the space station. After installation, the BEAM expands to roughly 13-feet-long and 10.5 feet in diameter to provide a large volume, where a crew member can enter. During the two-year test mission, astronauts will enter the module for a few hours three-to-four times a year to retrieve sensor data and conduct assessments of the module’s condition.

      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
    2. Re:As a tech site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA doesn't state any uses for it at this time, because if it didn't work out, there would be some nasty questions about how this failure affects this and that. It is not essential to the station, so they downplay it as a simple test article that can fail just fine, no big deal.

      Once it is in orbit, has been inflated and verified to check out, they'll almost certainly use it as a storage closet for stuff that isn't needed daily or something like that, simply because room on the ISS is at a premium. Heck, whenever it is disposed, I wouldn't be too surprised if it gets disposed filled with trash...

    3. Re:As a tech site by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Retrieve sensor data? So those silly science click-fests in Kerbal Space Program are realistic after all?

    4. Re:As a tech site by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      That reads as if the module will be behind a closed door most of the time.

    5. Re:As a tech site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is pretty much the plan, yes.

    6. Re: As a tech site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get significant life safety critical engineering for $17m. You sure don't get much flight rated engineering, much less space rated. It's a reasonable science fair project, just not one safe enough to enter without a pressure suit and a good plan to extract the victim if it fails.

    7. Re:As a tech site by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Do understand that Bigelow has Genesis 1 and 2 which are currently in orbit.

      They've launched stuff before and (as far as they're saying) it's held up.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    8. Re: As a tech site by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      I suspect they'll keep it closed, with a pressure sensor connected to the ISS network. They'll use it as a spot to store things they don't care that much about in case it was to depressurize.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    9. Re: As a tech site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it flies off into space will it go Fffththllbllbllbllbllbllbllbll?

    10. Re: As a tech site by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      That actually would be cool... if they could use it as a garbage scow... fill it with trash, close the hatch and then see if the escaping air could be used to propel it into a decaying orbit.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  3. NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary claims "NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required at least half a billion and several years to have accomplished the same"; this is simply not true. NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required at least half a billion and several years to construct an actual, fixed, rigid, non-inflatable extension to the ISS of the same size. If it turns out that the inflatable module works well, it presents an enticing alternative to rigid construction, and the company should be lauded for that. But it certainly isn't the case that NASA (or ESA, or JAXA) were estimating a ludicrously high cost for an inflatable module.

    Bonus: CAPTCHA for this post was "bureaus"

    1. Re:NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I just wonder how it will handle impacts by space debris. The ISS has lots of pits caused by micrometeorites, I hope the inflatable module has some kind of self healing properties when it gets punctured.

    2. Re:NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, never mind, I just looked it up and it seems that its 24 to 36 protective layers will actually be as hard as concrete and provide better ballistic protection than the rest of the ISS.

    3. Re:NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required by Vulch · · Score: 4, Informative

      NASA were working on the TransHab module for the ISS which got killed by the US Congress. Bigelow picked up the work and have turned it into actual orbiting items.

    4. Re: NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but it's fashionable for the private space cheerleaders to pile scorn on anything and everything having to do with the space agencies. It's like the libertarian idiot in space show.

      Actually it's more like how today's silicon valley dot com twerps do nothing but insult and deride everything that was ever done before them in computing, all the while reinventing it (usually less efficiently) and expecting a participation medal or something for their alleged genius.

    5. Re:NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 2

      Actually, never mind, I just looked it up and it seems that its 24 to 36 protective layers will actually be as hard as concrete and provide better ballistic protection than the rest of the ISS.

      Concrete balloon, huh? That should go over well.

    6. Re:NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required by Eloking · · Score: 4, Funny

      Concrete balloon, huh? That should go over well.

      Why? You expect it to fly?

      --
      Elok
    7. Re:NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      To be fair to Bigelow, he's been working on this for a really long time; I don't think there was a whole lot more to this than ideas when he took it over.

    8. Re:NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Concrete balloon, huh? That should go over well.

      Like a Lead Zeppelin.

  4. Re: Dear Stupid Atheist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Call them what you like. They are untermensch, and always will be.

  5. how long and how much for russians? by sittingnut · · Score: 1

    "... built for only $17 million in less than two years. NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required at least half a billion and several years..."
    how long and how much will it take russians?
    after all they are ones who still have regular flights to iss on which this would be 'tested', and only ones still capable of transporting humans to space to test it.

    1. Re:how long and how much for russians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... built for only $17 million in less than two years. NASA, ESA, or JAXA would have required at least half a billion and several years..."
      how long and how much will it take russians?
      after all they are ones who still have regular flights to iss on which this would be 'tested', and only ones still capable of transporting humans to space to test it.

      About as much, and you wouldn't like the results. The glorious days of russian space exploraiton are long over, best they can do is keep milking the decades-old Soyuz technology. Anytime they try to do something new it explodes. Here's a link for you, enjoy :DDDDD http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/05/16/years-failure-haunt-russian-space-program/

      And even Soyuz, the Pride of the Empire is about to be upstaged by a tiny private company :DDDDDD

    2. Re:how long and how much for russians? by sittingnut · · Score: 2

      crucial words "about to be ..." !
      would have been much better if they were "already ..." instead.

      btw whatever your private web blog link says, there was less "explosions" and failures, in russian program recently than in those of private companies . and this in spite of doing much more, and with lot more launches and tests.

        -
      in any case there was no factual answer to my question "how long and how much will it take russians?"
      saying it would be same as " NASA, ESA, or JAXA" wont be right, since they, unlike russians, no longer offer of regular flights to iss and are incapable of transporting humans, as i said before .
      and comparison with russians is the one that counts. after all if these 'private' companies really start offering space transport and infrastructure services on commercial basis, and unless russians get banned for non commercial reasons, they would be the main competition.

    3. Re:how long and how much for russians? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      RSC Energia has made press releases about its work on inflatable space station modules since 2013 and has not flown one yet, nor have they announced when they will fly one. There is so far no evidence that they are handling the project with more speed or lower cost than NASA, ESA, or JAXA, or indeed that the project will ever result in flown hardware.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    4. Re:how long and how much for russians? by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the crew situation will change next year with SpaceX, Boing and Sierra Nevada's offerings.

  6. Re:Dear Muslims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right on. But you can't shame the shameless. Neither you (EU) nor we (US) are yet willing, through our political leadership, to take the next steps. End immigration. Conduct mass deportation. But after enough painful incidents, it will happen.

  7. I like to keep an open mind, but... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Not sure if I want to be first in line to try out a radical new space habitat design by a guy that believes in big black triangles and shapeshifting skinwalkers.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  8. Heres hoping we see olympus some day, by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

    or the BA 2100. Wiki Image

    I still will never to this day understand why NASA dumped transhab.

    1. Re:Heres hoping we see olympus some day, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same reason why they haven't made any real advancements in rocket reusability (in fact we're going back to Apollo), some people are not interested in upsetting the status quo. There is simply too much money and too many entrenched players in the current aerospace industry, just look at how hard SpaceX had to fight to get in. Larger orbital space facilities would necessitate bringing down launch costs, which until a few years ago were on the way up due to the monopoly in the US launch market brought about the the creation of ULA (United Launch Alliance, AKA Boeing & Lockheed). Not that NASA is completely to blame, in fact in recent years they've been trying to break the cycle. But at the same time congress and various regulatory/lobbying groups continue to try to keep things the way they are.

  9. Has anyone watched a launch in Brownsville? by rockmuelle · · Score: 1

    After a childhood living on the wrong coast to watch shuttle launches, I'm finally within driving distance of a launch facility (live in Austin).

    Has anyone gone down to Brownsville to watch a launch? Any tips?

    -Chris

    1. Re: Has anyone watched a launch in Brownsville? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brownsville/Boca Chica is still under construction. Give it another year or so as they have to stabilize the soil before pouring the pad.

    2. Re:Has anyone watched a launch in Brownsville? by jittles · · Score: 1

      I have watched a few launches from the Cape, including the last shuttle launch. In my experience, these types of launches are less exciting than a shuttle launch. However, I would say that the best thing is to show up early and bring something to do while you're waiting around. You probably won't have too much of a crowd to compete against, but I don't know. I've never watched a Texas launch. If you want to film it, bring a tripod. You'll want to watch the launch itself with your mark 1 eyeball. It's just way easier and more exciting. Get as close as safety and security rules allow. The best part is the first 30 or so seconds during its initial acceleration, so try and get an unobstructed view, if possible. Once it gets to about 10k feet it'll get less interesting as its harder to see.

  10. ULA launched cygnus last night! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is the story? Or is it because the ULA CEO doesn't wear a velvet jacket and talk about changing the world. The Atlas V/Cygnus launch was a complete success, by the way, unlike Musk's last attempt to supply the station.

    1. Re:ULA launched cygnus last night! by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

      Last I heard brett Tobey resigned, there is actually quite a bit of controversy over his last remarks

  11. NASA didn't dump Transhab. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    NASA didn't dump Transhab - Congress passed a law zeroing it's budget specifically forbidding NASA from continuing work on it.