Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX's Crew Dragon Capsule Returns To Earth After Historic Test Flight (nbcnews.com)

SpaceX's Crew Dragon capsule returned safely to Earth early Friday, wrapping up its inaugural mission to the International Space Station and signaling that the U.S. may soon be able to ferry astronauts to and from space without relying on Russian spacecraft. From a report: The uncrewed capsule splashed down in the Atlantic Ocean, off the east coast of Florida, at 8:45 a.m. ET after spending almost a week at the space station. The spacecraft undocked from the orbiting outpost Friday at 2:32 a.m. ET to begin its descent. "This is an amazing achievement in American history," NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said from the space agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "These are all capabilities that are leading to a day where we are launching American astronauts on American rockets from American soil." The Crew Dragon capsule was lofted into orbit March 2 by a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral, Florida. The flight was a crucial test of the new spacecraft, a seven-passenger vehicle that SpaceX has been developing for the past five years.

121 comments

  1. Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch pad by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Funny

    When astronauts are transported to the launch pad to load into the Dragon 2 capsule, is it true that SpaceX has selected Tesla to provide the transport vehicle? (Model X)

    (that is a serious question. any real information would be interesting.)

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  2. The Zero G indicator by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Zero-G indicator inside the Dragon 2 capsule looks like a stuffed furry plush toy.

    Couldn't they have at least selected a different toy: the stuffed plush Alien Face Grabber? That would have been much better to be in the capsule with "Ripley" on this demo flight.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:The Zero G indicator by Ksevio · · Score: 3, Funny

      There are actually strict NASA regulations on sending Face Grabbers to the ISS....just in case

    2. Re:The Zero G indicator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps a stuffed furry plush dice?

    3. Re:The Zero G indicator by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      I think they should have spent millions on a commitee to design the Zero-G Indicator instead of buying one for $5 at the gift shop.

    4. Re:The Zero G indicator by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing the Falcon 9 / Dragon 2 with the SLS / Orion.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  3. you can return from several days in space.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    & when you get back..

  4. Yeah. Historic ... AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does he truly try to act like it isn't a massive failure, that we lost this ability in the first place?

    Does he think we are so stupid that we don't know that?

    It's like Microsoft or Apple announcing "they" "invented" something... while you already own a device that can do (and do it better) it for years.

    1. Re:Yeah. Historic ... AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it a failure to lose a useless ability? At this point for the human race, manned space "exploration" is like the appendix.

    2. Re:Yeah. Historic ... AGAIN! by BKDotCom · · Score: 4, Informative

      What private company has done this before?
      This is a first.

    3. Re:Yeah. Historic ... AGAIN! by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Rockwell, McDonnell, and Boeing built the landers for the Gemini and Apollo missions, funded by the US government. How much of the Dragon Capsule was funded by the US government? I'm somewhat unclear on why this new generation is "commercial" but what we did in the 1960's isn't.

    4. Re:Yeah. Historic ... AGAIN! by Strider- · · Score: 2

      The difference is how much in the way of specifications, drawings, and input were given to the contractor. In the case of the Apollo era capsules, NASA and the various contractors were tightly integrated from beginning to end. Much of the manufacturing (especially of the larger pieces of the rockets) was conducted at NASA owned facilities.

      When it comes to the Dragon, NASA set various requirements (Must carry x Astronauts, compartment must meet y environmental requirements, must use the IDA, etc...) and otherwise stayed out of the design.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    5. Re:Yeah. Historic ... AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cost of Apollo was $144 Billion in today's dollars.

      "In 2014, SpaceX released the total combined development costs for both the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and the Dragon capsule. NASA provided US$396 million while SpaceX provided over US$450 million to fund both development efforts"

      You'll notice that SpaceX provided over half of the funding up front themselves. Also that Apollo was well over 100 times more expensive, and clearly was driven by the US government and military rather than the underfunded remains of NASA that we have today.

    6. Re:Yeah. Historic ... AGAIN! by lgw · · Score: 2

      "Commercial" doesn't mean what you think in this context. The previous efforts were NASA projects with components farmed out to different vendors for development. NASA is famously bad as managing cross-vendor projects like that (almost every disaster can be traced to a failure to communicate properly netween vendors). This is different: NASA just set some acceptance criteria for a capsule, and bought them as finished projects from vendors: SpaceX and Boeing. The rocket launches to prove these capsules are also "COTS" launches. Crew Dragon 2 was just an "off the shelf" Falcon 9 payload. Starliner will be an "off the shelf" Atlas V launch.

      It's massively cheaper this way as well, even including the grants SpaceX, Boeing, and others got along the way. The difference in cost is a difference in kind, BTW. Launch costs have fallen so far that projects that would have been entirely ridiculous in the 70s are now commonplace. E.g., an Israeli nonprofit putting a lander on the moon for a total budget of around $100M.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Yeah. Historic ... AGAIN! by Strider- · · Score: 1

      Well, not quite. NASA launches require significantly more verification and checkout than standard F9 launches. NASA also required certain changes (new COPV design among others) to permit the "Load 'n Go" style launches, and to avoid an AMOS-6 type RUD.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    8. Re:Yeah. Historic ... AGAIN! by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      Don't count your chickens just yet, Beresheet is still a long way from the surface of the moon.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    9. Re:Yeah. Historic ... AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you're either not really paying attention or you are not being totally honest with yourself or us.

  5. Re:Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch p by mykepredko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I haven't heard that, but I would find it highly unlikely as I believe the crew will be in their pressure suits which would be very tight/awkward in anything less than a van.

    Also, if there are up to seven astronauts going on the flight, that would mean up to four Model X's to transport the astronauts (four if an astronaut can't sit shotgun).

  6. Re:Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch p by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 1

    Unless Telsa won a government contract to provide fleet vehciles to NASA, probably not. The space launch facility is still a government operation.

  7. Congratulations! by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We've replicated 1960s technology!

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous here, or just retarded. This is a major leap in technology over the capsules from the 60's / 70's...
      https://www.ajc.com/news/national/apollo-command-module-crew-dragon-the-numbers/Un1wCkEEGN4p5kICQHubvI/

      Not to mention Dragon2 is reusable, and a heck of a lot cheaper to launch than anything prior.

    2. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The 60s tech was much more fiddly. For instance, a 60s rocket engine had an order fo magnitude more parts than today's.
      We're replicated 60s capability, and it's about time.

    3. Re:Congratulations! by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 2

      Not quite. The Saturn V rocket is still the most powerful rocket on record. The Apollo Guidance Computer was ahead of its time with performance similar to a 6502 microprocessor found in Apple II and other 8-bit computers in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The AGC operating system was crash proof and that light years ahead of anything like it.

    4. Re:Congratulations! by lgw · · Score: 2, Informative

      . The Saturn V rocket is still the most powerful rocket on record.

      Sort of. You can contrive a definition of that statement that makes it true. The Russians certainly launched more powerful rockets, but they didn't do so well. Also, "powerful" could be talking about either thrust or delta-v.

      The Apollo Guidance Computer was ahead of its time with performance similar to a 6502 microprocessor found in Apple II and other 8-bit computers in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

      Not so much, though it did have a surprising amount of memory. Nearly impossible to reprogram to fix a bug though. Also, it was one of the worst-managed software projects around, and entirely failed to meet its goal. All the burn calculations ended up being done on the ground.

      It was amazing in some ways though: first embedded system in a mobile platform. First life-safety system. It was also amazingly robust: it actually crashed (due to external problems) and rebooted during the Apollo 11 landing, and kept doing its job throughout the crash/reboot.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Congratulations! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      We've replicated 1960s technology!

      As with commercial aviation, our big advance over the tech of that time is in reduced cost. This will be what really opens the sky.

    6. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Saturn V rocket is still the most powerful rocket on record"

      and even it would tremble at the thought of trying to lift your fat ass by twelve feet jigglypuff

      " was ahead of its time with performance similar to a 6502 microprocessor"

      um no
      it was a 1MHz 16 bit design
      it had a lot more registers and a divide instruction

      " The AGC operating system was crash proof and that light years ahead of anything like it."

      except for the f-14
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      but hey what's important is that you are trying to karma whore again

    7. Re:Congratulations! by istartedi · · Score: 1

      "Crash proof"? Perhaps. It was certainly very tight code, and while it didn't "crash" in the traditional sense it definitely gave Apollo 11 a tense moment. I'm given to understand the error displayed during the landing sequence was there to inform operators that the computer was running low on resources and was prioritizing jobs. This isn't a crash of course, but the fact that the computer would face constraints in scheduling tasks is certainly a deficiency, and the poorly documented, unfriendly error (just a number, no text to explain what was happening) nearly caused them to abort the landing.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    8. Re:Congratulations! by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to mention Dragon2 is reusable

      Not for crewed flights it isn't. Boeing's Starliner will be re-used for crewed flights, but Dragon2 will not. Used capsules will be repurposed for unmanned cargo flights only.

      This is because dry landings are a requirement for re-use, and SpaceX decided to discontinue propulsive landing development in favour of parachutes and water landings. They did this because they wanted to spend the resources on Starship instead.

    9. Re:Congratulations! by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      I don't think "successfully launched" is too outlandish of a definition to be considered "contrived". Russia never built a working rocket that was more powerful than the Saturn V.

    10. Re:Congratulations! by classiclantern · · Score: 2

      He/she is just a retard trying to be funny. However, I cannot blame him/her for his/her stupidity. As I watched the splashdown live (on YouTube) this morning, my local NBC affiliate was doing a story about when the Star Wars attraction will open at Disneyland. They must assume their viewers are more interested in Disney fantasy than actual human space advancements.

      --
      Now that I said that, I fell better.
    11. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the sense a modern microprocessor replicates Babbage's Difference Engine. And an airliner replicates the Wright Brothers' plane. And a modern car replicates the Ford T. And your cell phone replicates Innocenzo Manzetti's telephone (or whoever you want to credit for thinking up two-way electrical audio signal communication).

      Yeah, modern rockets look like 1960's rockets - there is an engine at the bottom and a payload at the top. Because if you reverse those you end up with a drill instead of an up-goer. Following the laws of physics and logic doesn't mean we are not making a crapload of progress.

    12. Re:Congratulations! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. You just see a lot of very loosely defined claims of why my favorite rocket is best in internet discussions. It's as bad as Ford vs Chevy pickup truck discussion.

      I would rather say "Saturn V successfully launched a larger payload to LEO than anyone else", or other such specific claim. I do find it amusing that China's planned Death March 9, err, Long March 9 rocket will exactly match the Saturn V in LEO capability. Someone has rocket envy.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re: Congratulations! by Type44Q · · Score: 1
      Hardly. Elon's improved upon 60's technology in a revolutionary fashion while the civilian side of the Military/Industrial Complex has been content to slowly make evolutionary changes.

      Reusability makes all the difference.

    14. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all intents and purposes, your sig is broken.

    15. Re: Congratulations! by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Well the Shuttle was intended to be reusable and probably would have been if the Air Force hadn't been involved. It can also be argued the tech wasn't quite there. SpaceX has some pretty tall shoulders to stand on and reach so high.
      IIRC, Gemini capsules were considered for reuse before budget considerations changed that and Gemini 2's capsule did fly twice.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    16. Re:Congratulations! by caseih · · Score: 1

      Not so much, though it did have a surprising amount of memory. Nearly impossible to reprogram to fix a bug though. Also, it was one of the worst-managed software projects around, and entirely failed to meet its goal. All the burn calculations ended up being done on the ground.

      Not quite. I recommend the book, "Digital Apollo" to get a good picture of what was going on. Very enlightening. The AGC was indeed capable of navigating all the way to the moon on its own with only its calculations and inertial guidance. The real reason that calculations were done based on the ground was really the result of a conflict between the faction that wanted to completely automate the entire mission such that the astronauts were just along for the ride, and the air force flyboys who literally wanted to fly to the moon. The astronauts demanded that they have an active part in all phases of the flight. So NASA agreed to do all the calculations on the ground and then radio the burn numbers to the astronauts to punch into the computer so they could feel like they were in control and doing something vital. The original plan was for the AGC to do it all and the ground would just radio up numbers for comparison.

      The AGC was a fabulous success and I assure you it did more than meet its goals. "Digital Apollo" says nothing about the project being badly managed. I'd say they did pretty well given the demands of a government bureaucracy.

    17. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is a karma whore indeed!

      Crash Dummy Redux == CDR == Christopher Dale Reimer == creimer.

      Last year, I proved to creimer that I was running a click bot to inflate the views on his stupid channel and he admitted it! He has even written about it on twitter, go check and you will see.

      I specifically targeted music videos to make him believe that he had just discovered a new Klondike! It was very funny to watch him come on Slashdot bragging about how much his new music videos were successful before I finally told him about the click bot!

      Then, when the party was over, I proved to him that I was the one inflating his views, I told him in advance that I would stop the views on one specific video which I did and he confirmed that fact on twitter.

      Well, he just posted a imaginary story here where he pretends that pedophiles were looking at his kid music video. Maybe he figures that pedophiles are better click bait material. My bot isn't a pedophile! No pedophiles looked at his video at all!

      See his post here:
      https://medium.com/@cdreimerth...

      He is such a liar and a thief! He will say or do anything just to get 1 click on his stupid videos which have amazon affiliate links attached to them all over the place!

      --
      -the biggest loser on Slashdot

    18. Re: Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crash Dummy Redux is a well known Slashdot troll!

      Crash Dummy Redux == CDR == Christopher Dale Reimer == creimer.

      Last year, I proved to creimer that I was running a click bot to inflate the views on his stupid channel and he admitted it! He has even written about it on twitter, go check and you will see.

      I specifically targeted music videos to make him believe that he had just discovered a new Klondike! It was very funny to watch him come on Slashdot bragging about how much his new music videos were successful before I finally told him about the click bot!

      Then, when the party was over, I proved to him that I was the one inflating his views, I told him in advance that I would stop the views on one specific video which I did and he confirmed that fact on twitter.

      Well, he just posted a imaginary story here where he pretends that pedophiles were looking at his kid music video. Maybe he figures that pedophiles are better click bait material. My bot isn't a pedophile! No pedophiles looked at his video at all!

      See his post here:
      https://medium.com/@cdreimerth...

      He is such a liar and a thief! He will say or do anything just to get 1 click on his stupid videos which have amazon affiliate links attached to them all over the place!

      --
      -the biggest loser on Slashdot

    19. Re: Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Chris is a genius and a really nice person! I don't understand why he mentions pedophiles in his post although. He filmed the "Singing Lizards" he published on his site at my request and I can assure you that no pedophiles were around when I supervised the event.

      He is also a good friend of mine and a precious collaborator in our LGBT community,

      I am still trying to convince him to come out of the closet but this has to be his own decision.

      As for myself, I did my coming out many years ago:
      https://www.washingtonblade.co...

      -Liz DeRoche
      The Singing Lizards

    20. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      flew over your head
      definately

    21. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. Hard to tell satire from real life these days.

    22. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It "definately" did.

  8. Congratulations on a great flight! by mykepredko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing more to say, it looks like it was done flawlessly.

    1. Re: Congratulations on a great flight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Including it's flawless inability to dock on its own.

    2. Re: Congratulations on a great flight! by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Including it's flawless inability to dock on its own

      https://www.nasaspaceflight.co...

    3. Re:Congratulations on a great flight! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      You could even say... "FLAWLESS VICTORY!" /KillerInstinct

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:Congratulations on a great flight! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      PEOPLE NEXT TIME! Two astronauts will fly in the Crew Dragon demo 2. That will be the first time since 2011 that a US space vehicle took astronauts to ISS.

    5. Re: Congratulations on a great flight! by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Including it's flawless inability to dock on its own.

      It docked on its own. I watched it live.

      Really, the transparent lies are kind of pathetic.

    6. Re: Congratulations on a great flight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you mean sock?

    7. Re:Congratulations on a great flight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such a monumental waste of money

      Space exploration? Sure

      Manned spaceflight? Useless waste of money that could be better spent on other projects. You spend a fortune making sure you don't kill the astronaut and dealing with all of the contingencies. A needless risk just for our egos.

    8. Re:Congratulations on a great flight! by lgw · · Score: 2

      It's worth adding that Boeing's Starliner will launch on an Atlas V, which uses Russian rocket engines. Boeing is sppinning it as "US astronauts launched from US soil", but only SpaceX can brag about "US rockets".

      ULA hopes to swap out the Russian RD-180 engines on the Atlas V for Blue Origin's BE-4 engines one day, but that's a ways off.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Congratulations on a great flight! by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

      Wrong but thanks for playing. Automation can only do so much. Thinking humans are needed to truely advance us.

  9. Re: Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh aye, serious indeed.
    Another question just as serious: did they use the method of infinite descent?

  10. Re: Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, americans will soon discover space, and join the rest of the world.

    BTW, this capsule still cannot sock on its own. How many years that will take?

  11. Re: Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did you mean dock? If so then this capsule actually did dock autonomously, the only commands sent from the station were test aborts to make sure it would respond, otherwise it docked on it's own.

  12. Re:Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch p by Ksevio · · Score: 2

    But the crew will be in their sexy new spacex suits designed to contour to the seats of the tesla

  13. Re: Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch by BKDotCom · · Score: 1

    Uh.. the capsule socked on it's own

  14. I'm sure Binary Username will be furious at this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    news that makes his buddies at ULA look bad. I'm sure we are due some sarcastic comments about "Mars" from him, and a few AC diatribes about how Musk is a conman stealing tax subsidies.

  15. Re:I'm sure Binary Username will be furious at thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    110010001000 is an admitted liar https://science.slashdot.org/c...

  16. Re: Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the capsule socked on its own

    FTFY

  17. Re:I'm sure Binary Username will be furious at thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a cunt. On this type of thread, he'll come up with something like "Another great achievement for Musk! Mars must now be within his reach ...". Naive posters with mod points might well mod him up, not realising that he wastes most of what's left of his life trolling Musk-related threads. This obviously leads to him wetting his incontinence pants with happiness.

    Oh, and he constantly replies to himself with ACs to make it look like other people support his views. He is a human streak of excrement who plasters himself onto our screens whenever he visits Slashdot.

  18. Re:And No One Was On Board! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Score: -1, Not funny. #jokefailure

  19. Reusability by ghoul · · Score: 2

    The 60s capsules were throw away. the Dragon is reusable. This makes it affordable to build much nicer seats, controls and creature comforts into the capsule. Its the difference between a WW2 Glider and a private Citation 6 seater plane.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
    1. Re:Reusability by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      After landing the Dragon capsule will be reconfigured for cargo only. I guess they can take the seats out and reuse those in another capsule, but they could already do that with any other capsule.

    2. Re:Reusability by ghoul · · Score: 2

      That maybe for NASA missions as NASA is hyperconservative and does not want to reuse. However for commercial space tourism I will bet they will reuse the same capsules. In contrast the 60s capsules were allowed to sink to the bottom of the ocean if not needed for inspection.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    3. Re:Reusability by dryeo · · Score: 1

      In contrast the 60s capsules were allowed to sink to the bottom of the ocean if not needed for inspection.

      Huh? Now that I'd like to see a citation for unless you consider every capsule needed for inspection.
      There was one or two that accidentally sank or allowed to burn up IIRC but most are still around including the Gemini (2) that was reused (unmanned).
      Can't find a citation right now but I believe Gemini was intended to be reusable. It was actually the most advanced of the spacecraft due to being designed latest and originally was meant to land on land using a para-glider.
      Lists of locations of the spacecraft,
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/pl...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re:Reusability by ghoul · · Score: 1

      A simple question which you have already answered partially.
      How many were reused?
      If the answer is 1 , they are not really reusable are they?

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    5. Re:Reusability by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Cost cutting along with doing something new and being really careful.
      Another change was spy satellites removing the military's needs for a reusable spacecraft to go to their observation stations.
      Unlike SpaceX, NASA didn't have any shoulders to stand on and had to do this stuff for the first time, generally with minimal computer power as well, something that is very important for SpaceX.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  20. Musk's focus or lack of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what I've gleaned from business articles, Musk is pretty much just a rain maker for Space X - he's hands off of everything else. Vision? Yes. But day to day operations? No.
    And he uses his celebrity to open doors to talk to big shots and get funding. He left the engineering and management to the experts and kept his nose out of it.
    Space X is well on its way, IMHO.

    Tesla, OTOH, he micro manages and well, look at it. I think he should just do product announcements, leave the car building and management to the pros, stay off of twitter and just STFU otherwise.

    The hardest part with entrepreneurs is figuring out when to leave and let-go. Because many times when they stick around, it's detrimental to the organization - as the case is with Tesla.

    1. Re:Musk's focus or lack of. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      From what I've gleaned from business articles, Musk is pretty much just a rain maker for Space X - he's hands off of everything else. Vision? Yes. But day to day operations? No.

      Really? So the micro-management stories from SpaceX are all lies?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  21. Back to the future? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    "This is an amazing achievement in American history," NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said from the space agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "These are all capabilities that are leading to a day where we are launching American astronauts on American rockets from American soil."

    So "leading" back to May 5, 1961, then? I had no idea NASA now has the capability to travel back in time 60 years.

    My parents let me stay up to watch Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon, and I sent money earned from my first real job to help keep Viking's data gathering operation going after funding ran out. And I was actually in the room at the AAAS conference in Toronto in January 1981, when the pictures from Voyager 1's November flyby of Saturn, showing the braided rings, were released. So I'm old enough to remember what an incredible space program America had, and to understand what world-changing scientific and technological advances it produced.

    All I can do now is shake my head. I feel genuine grief over what it has become of the United States since the bean counters and warmongers took over.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Back to the future? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      "This is an amazing achievement in American history," NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said from the space agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "These are all capabilities that are leading to a day where we are launching American astronauts on American rockets from American soil."

      So "leading" back to May 5, 1961, then? I had no idea NASA now has the capability to travel back in time 60 years.

      My parents let me stay up to watch Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon, and I sent money earned from my first real job to help keep Viking's data gathering operation going after funding ran out. And I was actually in the room at the AAAS conference in Toronto in January 1981, when the pictures from Voyager 1's November flyby of Saturn, showing the braided rings, were released. So I'm old enough to remember what an incredible space program America had, and to understand what world-changing scientific and technological advances it produced.

      All I can do now is shake my head. I feel genuine grief over what it has become of the United States since the bean counters and warmongers took over.

      NASA has had a pretty robust unmanned program that used US technology to send stuff into space. the problem with manned flight, IMHO, was everything was based on the idea that Shuttle would be a reusable, fast turnaround, space transport system (STS), when it failed to live up to the grandiose expectations there was no real follow-on launch vehicle in the works. NASA had a few Shuttle v2 ideas but none of them came to fruition. Part of the problem may have been wanting to continue the idea of a reusable craft so the idea of designing and building single launch boosters and capsules was out of the picture. We could have, perhaps, used a Titan IIIc variant to launch astronauts into Earth orbit and dock with ISS, using a new crew capsule design. That would have been an extension of the old Gemini design, and followed the Russian's approach of using an existing, proven vehicle for launches. I think Shuttle, as it turned out, set the US back quite a number of years when it came to manned launches. That's not to say Shuttle wasn't a success, just that we put too much hope into it being something it turned out not to be; after all early on NASA was contemplating a launch a week.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Back to the future? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Manned space flight just turned out to be a dead end. But by different metrics, say "number of things put into orbit" or "pounds of stuff lifted into orbit" I bet the growth curve has been dramatic the last decade or two.

    3. Re:Back to the future? by Strider- · · Score: 1

      I doubt we would have seen a return to a Gemini/Titan type rocket... The age of Hypergols for main propulsion is pretty much gone due to the toxicity and difficulty in handling the propellants. When you fundamentally change the propellants for a given rocket, you're pretty much stuck with designing a whole new rocket. Also, Titan is too small of a diameter to fit anything larger than a two person capsule on top.

      The better option, had they gone that way earlier, would have been to design/build a capsule to put on top of either Atlas or Delta launch vehicles.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    4. Re:Back to the future? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

      William Proxmire's grave is in Lake Forest Cemetery Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois, USA. Piss on it for me, please.

      Yes, cowardly, craven American politicians including Mr. Proxmire cancelled the last three Apollo missions when we already had the spacecraft for Apollo 18 sitting around, essentially ended manned space exploration for three generations (earth orbit is not exploration), and as far as I can tell achieved no real purpose with the money "saved", other than fighting stupid wars that cost much more than any space program. The Saturn V at the Saturn V Center in Florida is mostly the vehicle that should have flown as Apollo 18. There are also some pieces from Skylab missions, made to look like the Apollo versions.

    5. Re:Back to the future? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I too mourn the lack of funding for our space programs. That said the only reason why it got the funding it did for the Apollo program and such was warmongering with Russia. The Ruskies putting a satellite into orbit really turbo charged the US efforts to get into space. And it's a good thing too, otherwise we'd probably still be picking up the pieces from them raping our churches and burning our women by now if we hadn't beat them to the Moon! Sure for the people involved in the actual space programs and a large part of the population it was about the advancement of science. But for the people controlling the federal purse strings it was definitely all about dominating our enemies, and hence war mongering.

    6. Re:Back to the future? by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1

      The Apollo 18 Saturn V is at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Bruce. I played on that thing when I was kid. In conjunction with the Smithsonian, it was restored back in 2007 and a building was built around it to protect it from the elements. It's quite a sight to behold!

      --

      To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

    7. Re:Back to the future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well if they'd shot more apollo missions we wouldn't have a dope rocket to look at. there would just be more moon rocks in a safe somewhere.

    8. Re:Back to the future? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Two stages from Apollo 18 are at Johnson, but the second stage from Apollo 18 is in Florida. See this detailed explanation.

    9. Re:Back to the future? by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 1

      I think you've got a good point there. I guess some general or other maybe persuaded the congress creatures they could get more bang for the buck with a few more fighter planes, or a semi-useful bomber.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
    10. Re:Back to the future? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      It might well be worth a road trip to do exactly that. I remember his "Golden Fleece" awards, and the damage they did to legitimate scientific inquiry. Oddly, the hypocritical prick never had a problem with all the dairy subsidies flowing into his state.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    11. Re:Back to the future? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Even as a kid (what we now call a "young adult") I remember thinking that putting all the money available for manned space exploration into the Shuttle was a huge, huge mistake. Basically, it led to the death of America's space program. Yes, there has been some very good work done, but it's been done on a shoestring. America could almost certainly have had a colony on Mars by now if they hadn't made some disastrous decisions. And I mean an AMERICAN colony with visitors, not an Earth colony paid for by the United States.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    12. Re:Back to the future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      essentially ended manned space exploration for three generations (earth orbit is not exploration), and as far as I can tell achieved no real purpose with the money "saved", other than fighting stupid wars that cost much more than any space program.

      Proxmire was right in that America didn't need more Apollo missions. I'm of the opinion that the push to the moon queered American manned space exploration for those three generations. For the government, it was a publicity stunt. It created an atmosphere of manned space programs as a point of national prestige instead of a task that a nation's people undertook for some good purpose. So president after president followed in Kennedy's footsteps and set grand goals for manned space flight, with the American aerospace industry functioning as a perpetual jobs program, all the while not achieving much of value. Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, the Space Launch System. Evidence of technical prowess and national prestige, but impractical constructs.

      That continued until businessmen stepped up and built a proper program from the ground up. Yes, they relied on the lessons learned over the past three generations, but their focus is not on national prestige but on building infrastructure and adding value. On getting down to business.

    13. Re:Back to the future? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      If I wasn't already commenting on this conversation, I'd definitely give you a mod point for "Informative".

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  22. Docking vs. Berthing by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative

    Cargo Dragon berths, which means the Canadarm catches it and it is bolted to a berthing port. Berthing ports have a larger opening than the International Docking Adapter, and you can get larger diameter cargo through the door. Crew vehicles dock so that a crew can abandon the ISS or board the uninhabited ISS - nobody would be on board to operate the arm and bolt the vehicle to the berthing port.

    A berthing port can have an IDA attached to it, and then becomes a docking port.

    Crew Dragon docks autonomously without needing assistance from the ISS or the crew on board the Dragon.

  23. Splash? by green1 · · Score: 1

    Am I missing something here? I remember Elon standing up and touting the Dragon's ability to land with thrusters on a launch pad. Did this capability evaporate before this trial? Or did they just not want to try too many things at the same time for this launch and plan that for a future trial? One of SpaceX's pillars of reusability has been avoiding getting everything soaked in salt water.

    1. Re:Splash? by Algan · · Score: 3, Informative

      They were planning three modes of operation: parachute splashdown, parachutes plus thruster assist, and full thruster landings. They decided to focus on the first two, at NASA's request.

      --
      If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
    2. Re:Splash? by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      They decided not to pursue the thruster landing because it would require a lot more effort to prove its safety. A parachute landing is based on well known technology. They may still do it at a later time.

    3. Re:Splash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA probably shot it down, they were freaking out enough about something as simple as Load and Go so landing a crew vehicle propulsive probably made them go ballistic. If they get stuck flying Crew Dragon for a decade or more they might revisit it, but as it stands they're trying to retire the Falcon series as soon as possible once they get the BFR/Starship/Super Heavy up and running as with full re-usability it should be far cheaper to fly.

    4. Re:Splash? by Guspaz · · Score: 2

      In addition to the reasons mentioned by religionofpeas, they decided that it would be expensive to develop and certify, and that the vehicle itself wasn't going to see much use for manned spaceflight (Crew Dragon is probably only ever going to be used for ISS flights). They decided to shift those resources to Starship development, which is also going to land propulsively, and have a lot more potential missions. Starship should be capable of handling the manned ISS flights, but also the manned lunar gateway flights, manned lunar landing flights, manned Mars flights, etc.

    5. Re:Splash? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Dragon 2 is dead end tech for SpaceX now. They have a lucrative contract with NASA and they are going to do the bare minimum to deliver it safely. All development focus is now moving to Starship.

    6. Re:Splash? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      They decided not to pursue the thruster landing because it would require a lot more effort to prove its safety. A parachute landing is based on well known technology. They may still do it at a later time.

      They could, but it wouldn't really make any sense. NASA is their only customer and they're willing to pay the price to have it their way, if there's any savings SpaceX would probably have to give most of it to make them switch. And NASA might eventually turn it down in the end because of the potential political fallout of losing men to what fairly or unfairly will be considered gambling with the safety of astronauts to save a few bucks. If another customer shows up they'll have a NASA certified package ready to go for a ride or two, who'd start messing with that? It seems extremely unlikely they'd get enough business to justify rebooting the thruster project as a stop-gap before the BFR/BFS is ready.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Splash? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      SpaceX is always trying to make things less expensive. Their original plan was to test propulsive landing on cargo missions, so they'd essentially get the rocket and Dragon for free. NASA stopped that, saying the return cargo was too valuable to put at risk. And because SpaceX did not budget to test propulsive landing with separate missions (as Boeing did) they lost out. Also, the feet were supposed to go through the heat shield, which made NASA engineers nervous. However, NASA had an entire hatch through the heat shield for Manned Orbiting Laboratory: photo.

  24. Re:Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch p by AikonMGB · · Score: 1

    Reportedly this is true. See here.

  25. Re:Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch p by AikonMGB · · Score: 1

    Now you have: via Electrek.

  26. This is progress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yay, we invented a space capsule. We're regressing from our space plane back to putting a bobble on the end of a stick and dropping it back in the ocean. Merica!

  27. Historic my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    20+ years now the billionaires have had to prove themselves and now and they can barely do what the space shuttle did years ago.
    Tax the bastards and bring back actual NASA research and development.

  28. No People Next Time - Next is in flight abort test by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    No people aboard - scheduled for July (https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/1162)

    First crewed flight is planned for November (https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/1002)

  29. Re:No People Next Time - Next is in flight abort t by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    Demo 2 is now NET July, not November. I didn't consider the abort test, as that goes up to Max-Q and then aborts, doesn't get close to orbit. Interestingly, they think there might be a chance to get the first stage back after the Dragon detaches at Max-Q. At that point, it's still attached to the second stage.

  30. Re: Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is just APK trying to get some extra business for his shift tonight at the glory hole off in the Pilot Travel Center off of I-85 near his $1 house. He is trying to get his nightly average closer to 600 from about 550 now.

  31. Capsule Spinning by Cephacles · · Score: 1

    I watched the full four-minute video, and was struck by how much the capsule was spinning and lurching beneath the parachutes. I imagined myself in the capsule and it didn't look like a lot of fun. I wonder if the stresses on the astronauts are worse during the return (pitch and yaw) than the launch (nearly vertical acceleration).

    One example is 40-60 seconds into the video, but there are others: Video link

  32. Re:Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch p by bgarcia · · Score: 1
    Yes, it's true.

    NAC provides Starliner, Dragon 2 update – Commercial Crew preps entering final leg to launch

    According to a presentation slide, SpaceX recently completed a “successful dry run of Day of Launch Closeout Crew procedures with representative crew members, space suits, and Model X’s.”

    --
    I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
  33. This is good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had been waiting for new material from The Starship. The face that Musk is bankrolling their new album pleases me.

  34. Re:Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch p by www.2cups.com · · Score: 1

    It was reported on Everyday Astronaut that crew will be delivered to the launch complex - Pad 39A in Tesla Model X's.

  35. Re:Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch p by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Might I suggest you would find more readers interested in your proposal over on Reddit.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  36. Re:Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch p by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    is it true that SpaceX has selected Tesla to provide the transport vehicle?

    Little known fact, that Tesla that got sent to Mars with the empty suit in the drivers seat... that wasn't empty, it was someone who got in to test to see if a suited astronaut would fit and fell asleep.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  37. Re: Vehicle to transport astronauts to the launch by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    Uh.. the capsule socked on it's own

    They meant "docked", but you'll have to forgive the AC. English isn't their first language and Russians have a hard time pronouncing the sound of the letter D.

  38. Not everyone seems to know by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1
    The technology is certainly a huge leap forward from the 1960s but you have to admit that the quote from NASA:

    "This is an amazing achievement in American history," NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said from the space agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "These are all capabilities that are leading to a day where we are launching American astronauts on American rockets from American soil."

    suggests that he is completely unaware of what was happening in the 1960's and 70's which is even more surprising given that he was the NASA spokesperson.

  39. Seven passengers is good... by DigitalJanitor · · Score: 1

    How many cup holders does it have?

  40. One Day the Moon! by Chissblue · · Score: 1

    And one day we might land on the moon? In a rocket. Admission humanity is in a time loop.

  41. Re:I'm sure Binary Username will be furious at thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    110010001000's typical Jew caught lying. It's what they do. Their talmud says to lie https://hardware.slashdot.org/... cryin bein kicked out of dozens of nations for ages for robbing them, raping non-jew "goyim\gentile" 3 yr. old girls is ok, and that non-jews are pigs\cattle to be enslaved. Biggest racists of all and they try "jew guilt" you?

  42. My teenage daughter has a different view - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She said, "What's special about this? That NASA administrator guy must be new. America has been launching Americans into orbit from American soil since the 60's." I didn't have to think long until I said simply, "I agree. That guy must be new."