SpaceX Aces First Launch of Crew Dragon, Built to Carry Humans, and Falcon 9 Touchdown (cnn.com) 65
"SpaceX's Crew Dragon capsule, its first spacecraft designed to carry humans, took flight for the first time Saturday," reports CNN.
Slashdot reader Applehu Akbar calls it "a perfect launch," noting the test flight is hauling a sensor-loaded dummy named "Ripley" -- plus a 400-pound cargo of essentials for the International Space Station. Crew Dragon will dock on Sunday, CNN reports, then return to earth five days later. "SpaceX's capsule is now en route to the International Space Station, which flies about 254 miles above Earth at tremendous speeds: about 10 times faster than a bullet."
The successful launch puts SpaceX one step closer to a historic landmark: Crew Dragon could be the first commercially built spacecraft to carry NASA astronauts to orbit. And Crew Dragon -- along with a capsule called Starliner built by Boeing -- could end the United States' decade-long reliance on Russia for human spaceflight...
This marks the first and only demo mission that Crew Dragon will fly without humans on board. If all goes well, the capsule design will undergo a few more reviews and safety checks, and it could be ready to fly two NASA astronauts to the space station in July, based on the space agency's current timeline.
Space.com reports that the reusable rocket also landed safely back on earth about 10 minutes after the liftoff, "acing a touchdown on the SpaceX drone ship Of Course I Still Love You, which was stationed off the Florida coast."
Slashdot reader Applehu Akbar calls it "a perfect launch," noting the test flight is hauling a sensor-loaded dummy named "Ripley" -- plus a 400-pound cargo of essentials for the International Space Station. Crew Dragon will dock on Sunday, CNN reports, then return to earth five days later. "SpaceX's capsule is now en route to the International Space Station, which flies about 254 miles above Earth at tremendous speeds: about 10 times faster than a bullet."
The successful launch puts SpaceX one step closer to a historic landmark: Crew Dragon could be the first commercially built spacecraft to carry NASA astronauts to orbit. And Crew Dragon -- along with a capsule called Starliner built by Boeing -- could end the United States' decade-long reliance on Russia for human spaceflight...
This marks the first and only demo mission that Crew Dragon will fly without humans on board. If all goes well, the capsule design will undergo a few more reviews and safety checks, and it could be ready to fly two NASA astronauts to the space station in July, based on the space agency's current timeline.
Space.com reports that the reusable rocket also landed safely back on earth about 10 minutes after the liftoff, "acing a touchdown on the SpaceX drone ship Of Course I Still Love You, which was stationed off the Florida coast."
YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
Money was of course, an issue, and as usual, private enterprise - and not one yet totally involved in crony capitalism, managed to deliver what the government and their heavily subsidized old-school aerospace contractors could not.
.
All possible congrats, props, general hip hip hurray and so forth.
Just wish I didn't have to wait from childhood until too old to fly for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly we need a new "-1, WTF was that?" moderation option.
Re: YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
Tesla is irrelevant, as is your strongman argument. Tesla is a separate company.
ULA gets a bunch of money every year whether they launch or not. Thatâ(TM)s a government subsidy.
SpaceX is paid by nasa to perform tasks or build products. If thatâ(TM)s your standard for subsidies then pretty much every company receives subsidies, since the government buys from many private companies.
Re: YES! (Score:2)
Paying to purchase a product is different than paying to develop one.
Then it's probably important that the government is purchasing the product...
Re: YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed a great deal of antipathy from some parties to anything Elon Musk is involved in.
Now, granted, Musk's actions are often ... somewhat erratic. He sometimes seems to bear a resemblance to a Roger Moore era Bond Villain. I think he does that on purpose for the lulz.
But that doesn't suffice to explain the antipathy.
It looks to me like the source of a lot of this is some very wealthy people who bet heavily that Musk's companies would crash, and it's getting harder to cover their short positions.
Re:YES! (Score:5, Interesting)
Finally, the beginning of delivery of the implicit promise of Apollo. Late, and not by the government that implied human space travel would become commonplace,
It is worth reminding people here that this launch, and this capsule, was developed under a NASA contract (And NASA had funded the development of both Falcon-9 and Dragon before the Crew Dragon project as well).
Not to take away from SpaceX, but just a reminder that this was an example of NASA and industry working together.
instead of a ****-waving political exercise and cancelled at step 1. Money was of course, an issue, and as usual, private enterprise - and not one yet totally involved in crony capitalism, managed to deliver what the government and their heavily subsidized old-school aerospace contractors could not.
More specifically, this was an example showing how government contracts can be done right.
(The booster landing, on the other hand, was NOT a NASA contract-- that was SpaceX all the way. )
All possible congrats, props, general hip hip hurray and so forth. Just wish I didn't have to wait from childhood until too old to fly for this.
Agreed.
Re: (Score:1)
it wasn't government vs. non-government that made a difference, but geeks(tech guys) vs. non geeks
Re:YES! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well so far the only business SpaceX's Dragon has had is to ferry people to the very much so government built and operated ISS. I mean it's great that we've replaced an expensive cost-plus provider with a fixed price service but they're still the whole reason the market is there. Yes, I know SpaceX got a private moon fly-by in the plans but that's still years away and the casual space tourist market will soon be taken by a $200k suborbital joyride from Blue Origin that isn't useful for anything else. What would drive a commercial expansion of space flight?
Don't get me wrong, SpaceX is doing a very commendable job bringing down the cost but even if you could get Apollo for 1/100th of the cost the Moon is just a barren rock with no real income potential other than as a researcher or their support staff. Even if came down to the point where you could literally book a flight it'd probably look like "T/R Moon, Tranquility Bay: $10 million. Hotel: SpaceX Plaza, Tranquility Bay: $100k/night." with prices that make seven star hotels look cheap. The only people who can afford that are those who make millions on stocks while they sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if came down to the point where you could literally book a flight it'd probably look like "T/R Moon, Tranquility Bay: $10 million. Hotel: SpaceX Plaza, Tranquility Bay: $100k/night." with prices that make seven star hotels look cheap. The only people who can afford that are those who make millions on stocks while they sleep.
That's a bummer for non-wealthy would-be space tourists, but it's also a boon in that separating wealthy people from the money they have just lying around in tax havens and putting it to work is absolutely necessary for the economy to work. It's called currency because it moves, not because it lies still.
Re: (Score:2)
We are still using 1940's wiley coyote rocket technology to get into orbit.
It works. When we can build a space elevator, we should do that. Until then, rockets are what we've got.
Re:YES! (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if came down to the point where you could literally book a flight it'd probably look like "T/R Moon, Tranquility Bay: $10 million. Hotel: SpaceX Plaza, Tranquility Bay: $100k/night." with prices that make seven star hotels look cheap.
But this would be an INSANE deal for any government or scientific institution, since until now, that same price tag was $16,000,000,000. Would you really be bitching about a 1600-fold (!) decrease in price? So many people's brains (well, true, mostly geologists') would explode just from the thought!
As to the "just a barren rock" part, the interesting question is whether some kind of avalanche effect would happen or not. True, when Apollo flew to the Moon, it was two guys alone on a barren rock. At one point, it *might* make sense to find and pressurize a lava tube. By that time, you'd be probably going to visit a few thousand people in a moderately comfortable environment, not just jump around in a spacesuit for a few hours.
Re: (Score:1)
The only people who can afford that are those who make millions on stocks while they sleep.
I only make about $1.20 per hour while I sleep. It's not millions, but I'm working on it!!
Re: (Score:2)
People need to dream. If you give them something to dream about, and then take it away, they're not even as happy as they were before. This is bringing back the dream. Boy, people hav
Re: (Score:2)
>the Moon is just a barren rock with no real income potential
Actually, in the Moon has immense income potential if humanity gets serious about expanding into space. Doing that requires raw materials, and the moon is a pretty decent source, with an escape velocity only about 21% as high as of Earth, and no atmosphere to interfere with rail guns and other ground-based launching systems that are far more efficient than rockets(and reaction-mass free).
Think asteroid mining, with a massive honking asteroid t
Actually, ummmm, no. (was Re:YES!) (Score:2)
I think a little bit of history is in order. NASA's charter was to "...provide for research into the problems of flight within and outside the Earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes." These are the first words of the legislation that established NASA in October of 1958. NASA has been delivering what NASA has promised since they opened the doors for business -- data on the problems of flight, and other purposes, like data on climate, crops, and the environment. They've had to deal with wildly diverge
Re: (Score:1)
Was that a Famas?
Re: (Score:1)
Ripley didn't make it, and the ending was tragic. There was an xenomorph onboard.
She made it the first time.It was at the end of her second encounter the xenomorph was on board. But she did come back with super human abilities.
Seriously? (Score:2, Redundant)
the International Space Station, which flies ... at tremendous speeds: about 10 times faster than a bullet.
I'm taking that to the fucking bank. That's priceless.
Who writes this shit?
Re: (Score:1)
Your president.
Re: (Score:2)
the International Space Station, which flies ... at tremendous speeds: about 10 times faster than a bullet.
I'm taking that to the fucking bank. That's priceless. Who writes this shit?
Obviously, written by a fan of comic books and stupid superhero movies. "Faster than a speeding bullet", right?
assumed name (Score:1)
The screen name of the writer of the post (Applehu Akbar) is clever. The cry of Islam is "Allahu Akbar" or "God is great". The author's pen name thus means "Apple is great".
Re: (Score:2)
Correction (Score:5, Informative)
"This marks the first and only demo mission that Crew Dragon will fly without humans on board."
Almost.
Next flight, without crew, is the in-flight abort test, where they launch, but shut the rocket down at about Mach one and let the excape system pull the capsule away. http://www.parabolicarc.com/20... [parabolicarc.com]
Then comes the first flight with crew.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Interesting)
It's important to note that abort is at MaxQ - the point in flight of maximum aerodynamic pressure. Yes, it's above Mach 1, but the reason is that if crew escape works there it works everywhere else.
Since the inside of Falcon 9 will be exposed to atmosphere at MaxQ without a fairing it is expected that the vehicle will be a total loss. They are using a thrice-landed vehicle for the launch, probably without legs or fins to minimize costs.
Correction corrected (Score:2)
The table in the parabolicarc site I linked says that the separation (and subsequent breakup of the booster) is at Mach 1.5 to 2.5.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Congratulations! (Score:5, Insightful)
First âoeCommercial lâ Spacecraft? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hardly.
All of the Apollo hardware was developed and built by private industry. The Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft were built by Boeing (S-IC first stage), North American Aviation (S-II second stage, Apollo command and service modules), Douglas Aircraft (S-IVB third stage), IBM (instrument unit), Grumman (lunar module), and many others (as subcontractors).
To say that the crew Dragon will be the first âoecommercialâ craft to carry astronauts ignores history.
Re:First âoeCommercial lâ Spacecraft? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of NASA's equipment is built by contractors. The key difference is the design specs are created by NASA and the equipment is built by contractors according to those specs with feedback from those contractors' own engineers. The Dragon capsule on the other hand was designed and built entirely by SpaceX. It'll end up with an NSN and NASA will buy them like they buy Dell laptops or Bic pens.
That difference is significant. Even when the Apollo project was ongoing you couldn't buy a CSM and Saturn rocket for any price. With the Dragon being man-rated you, literally you, could buy a Falcon and Dragon pair and get launched into space. You'd probably have to wait as the slated production runs have been pre-sold but SpaceX's production capacity is the only real limitation now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NONE of the companies EVER used their OWN MONEY to develop the technology, they only did it because the government payed for it. Crap all the companies you listed didn't even spend the money to keep documentation on how to build the parts of the Saturn V.