Go SpaceX
Feel like my parents must have watching the Lunar landings.
It's another moment of truth for upstart space startup SpaceX as once again the company attempts to do something that has only ever been accomplished to date by major government space agencies: docking one spacecraft to another in orbit and transferring cargo. Dragon spacecraft seen on flyby beneath ISS above the Pacific, …
Yes, I had those same feelings. I reflect on them as I stand in front of the viewport of the Space Station, watching the universe spin gently around me, and I look forward to seeing the site in person when I travel to the moon next week for a long-awaited vacation. It's not quite the freedom of the solar system I thought we'd have when I was seven years old and reading everything I could get my hands on about space, but I salute the politicians, scientists and pioneering astronauts (and of course, cosmonauts) who kept the long-term vision and made it all possible when it would have been so easy to pander to factional politics and venal self-interest.
Time to pour another billion of taxpayer dollars into the failing, horizonless economy so those poor bankers can buy another yacht or whatever it is they do with other people's money.
It's a great achievement, no doubt, but I'd be cautious about saying a private company is docking a spacecraft. A more accurate version is that a private company is bringing a craft within close proximity, and the ISS/NASA/ESA etc is performing the dock via the robotic arm.
Pedantic I know - and in no way posted to detract from the enormous achievement they are making.
The biggest achievement of SpaceX is in doing what they've done at a low cost. That's the advantage of a private enterprise over a government programme. It's also the future of space development.
What we need now is to introduce a little competition into the game - hopefully without a patent-war. That will help turn the current "old technology" solutions into something better and innovative. That's really the only role governments should have in space development: to be the munificent customer.
But when you haven't got taxpayers breathing down your neck about "wasting" their tax dollars you can just go ahead and do it. When you're the biggest single shareholder then you don't have to worry about other shareholders either.
And let's not forget that they are "standing on the shoulders of giants". Without all the (government) expenditure on Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle missions (plus numerous others) to do the basic research and then turn it into reality then Musk would have needed even deeper pockets.
None of which is to diminish in any way what he has accomplished. I am in awe of his vision and all that he has achieved. As a boy I grew up watching the space race, and I sat up late to watch the Apollo 11 landing. This impresses me every bit as much.
"The biggest achievement of SpaceX is in doing what they've done at a low cost. That's the advantage of a private enterprise over a government programme. It's also the future of space development."
The only problem with that approach is that it starts with SpaceX and ends with Weyland-Yutani.
Seems a bit beyond pedantic. Ignoring that (I believe) the use of the Canadarm to dock was made by NASA (given the control that they need to exhibit in order to be given the green light, there seems to be no technical reason Dragon couldn't do the dock), at what point is a (for all intents and purposes) docking arm small enough that it counts directly as docking?
If they got to within 10cm* and robotic arms pulled it the rest of the way, is that docking? What about 1m? How about 10m?
Not having a dig, it just seems like an arbitrary designation to make.
* Actually, I think APAS might be more than 10cm.
@Ian Yates - technically speaking if it involves an arm to capture a passive object, it's defined as "berthing".
The space shuttle "docked" with ISS as it guided itself onto the station. The supply modules, including this Space one, are berthed.
"beyond pedantry" it may be, but there's a recognised difference in definition - there's even a wiki about it.
The docking/birthing port they are using doesn't allow for automated docking. The port door is opened from the inside of the station and is optimised for cargo delivery allowing for much larger items to be transferred through it compared to the docking module used by automated and manned spacecraft such as the Soyuz, Shuttle and ATV. The Japanese HTV cargo carrier works in the same way as Dragon and will be connected to the same birthing port sometime in July on its third delivery flight. The HTV does not however allow for any cargo to be returned to earth other than in the form of a thousand mile long burnt up debris trail with the odd bit that survives going to the bottom of the south Pacific.
actually what they are doing is 'berthing', not 'docking'. it is also quite a bit more difficult than docking, partly because of the position of the various ports on the ISS, and partly because they have to rendezvous with an empty point in space, instead of a nice hard space station that stops you in your tracks if you overdo it (there was some argument when the original COTS contracts were drawn up whether to require them to do this, since it is more difficult).
to 'dock' with the ISS, a spacecraft basically approaches the ISS along it's orbit. it has to match the orbit closely (complex), but once that is done, it is stable. then it is a case of forwards/backwards until it docks.
to 'berth' with the ISS, they have to approach from 'under' the ISS (between the ISS and earth). because they are 'below', they are in a different orbit than the ISS. that means that Dragon has to continually fire thrusters at precisely calculated levels as it approaches to keep it aligned with the ISS (imagine yourself balancing on a ball that is slowly getting bigger, and reaching up to change a lightbulb at the same time).
when it is in the precise spot 30 feet away from the station (still balancing using thrusters, remember) the ISS robot arm is positioned inches away from the spacecraft, then thrusters are cut and the robot arm grabs it before it 'falls' away. to complete the example, imagine someone kicks the ball out from under you, and you have to grab the lightbulb a split second later so you don't fall..
so, why did NASA want the commercial providers to berth, instead of dock? because these are cargo missions, and the berthing ports are much larger than the docking ports - so they can move big, bulky supplies to/from the ISS. there's also another benefit of the 'approach from below' to the berthing port: if Dragon (or Orbital's Antares) suddenly fails, just before berthing, it will simply fall away from the space station. if it were instead in the same orbit for docking, there's a pretty good chance the two would collide.
"They were using the appropriate units throughout - metric."
Indeed, NASA has used metric measurements exclusively since 1990. In fact, when Lockheed-Martin provided navigation parameters in English units, which were correct, it nevertheless caused the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter in 1999 because NASA was, of course, expecting metric units. What idiocy inspired Lockheed-Martin engineers to use English units for a NASA mission is a mystery. So, one can see why NASA and ESA are now cautious when dealing with input from private industry. Lockheed-Martin has already proven to them what private industry is capable of.
Because there's no real comeback on them if they cockup. This is what happens when you sup at the teat of the military-industrial complex for too long and get too cozy in bed with the same.
SpaceX survive or die on their craft working. They can't afford to get it wrong - unlike Lockheed or Boeing.
" we'll use appropriate units "
Everyone wishes you would.
"It's an American spacecraft"
Well sort of. Although what's exciting about this is precisely that it isn't built and deployed by a national government organisation. It happens to be done by an American from the USA (albeit South African born) but he could in principle up sticks to somewhere else and work for whoever he chooses on whatever projects take his fancy and suit the commercial ends of the company.
"he could in principle up sticks to somewhere else and work for whoever he chooses on whatever projects take his fancy and suit the commercial ends of the company"
no, he can't. there is a complex law call ITAR which classes rockets and space vehicles as 'controlled exports'. that means, effectively, that you'll be thrown in jail if you try to do what you suggest. because SpaceX did all the development in the US, it has to *stay* in the US.
there have recently been some moves towards relaxing the law a bit on the 'space vehicle' side, but rockets would still be considered 'controlled' (not surprising really, since they bear a striking resemblance to missiles).
'ITAR' so, in essence, by blasting it into orbit he's already exported it from the US or are the 'Merkins laying claim to space too?
I ask because there's a few Europeans, Russians, Chinese and assorted others who might havea bit of an issue with that.
"You know, American Football? Like Rugby, only slower and wrapped in body armour."
Must be why an American football player won the bronze medal in the 100m at the last Olympics. Had he been a rugby player, I'm sure he would have taken gold.
There's still a long way to go, but they have made remarkable progress. Kudos!
But WRT:
"Such a launch abort capability is regarded as essential for manned flight, given the nature of launch rocket stacks (essentially huge lightweight towers packed with volatile explosive fuels, which will be set on fire and subjected to enormous stresses, heat and vibration)."
It often amuses me that, although we have come so far in terms of technology, we are launching things & people into space using basically the same technology as Chinese 10th-century fireworks: A lightweight tube filled with fuel and set alight. I know it's a lot more complex than that, but we send our astronauts into space using a huge firework.
It's not *their* money. NASA is paying for everything except on a fixed-price instead of cost-plus basis.
That ignores the c$500m that Spacex (mostly from Elon Musk) put up to build 5 rockets (4 of which failed) *before* achieving orbit + the F9's they have also bank rolled.
The money that NASA has put up so far has got them *two* capsules (Orbital Science has yet to fly) plus a new launcher (the Orbital Taurus II, but I think they've changed the name as the Taurus LV was not one of their more successful designs and virtually a new build) *plus* Dreachaser (from the biggest space company nobody has ever heard of) and the Boeing CST100 moving forward.
All for about 1/2 what NASA spunked away on the X33 b***sup.
I watched the Apollo landings as a child and whilst it was enthralling I didn't have the context to understand its importance, so I didn't get the same emotions as later on watching the very first shuttle mission - when that was a New Era dawning - not only for the safety of the people aboard, but the future of manned space travel and so of all of humanity. When it landed safely the very first time I suspect millions finally breathed again....
I agree this has the same feeling about it. Commercialisation should open up lots of possibilities, again the future of mankind in space is at stake. Plus the heart-in-mouth feeling that if the ISS were destroyed, or nearly so, very possibly no human would go to space ever again.
OK, I know the Chinese will, actually, and independently of the West+exUSSR, if they can, but nontheless, that's the feeling....
An historic moment indeed, but what an archetypical American test: order the vessel to flash lights which the tester cannot see and therefore must use telemetry to confirm have been illuminated on command.
I remember a test between a UK and US instrument landing system for aircraft (well, I'm getting on a bit). The British had a working model but all the Americans had was a computer simulation - of the British system not working at a certain European airport.
The British team flew out, installed the equipment at the airport in question and proceeded to land the aircraft ion instruments alone in all kinds of weather during the following week.
The US got the contract in the end anyway. There's a moral in there somewhere.
I thought the Space Shuttle demonstrated that the nice idea of reusable rockets being cheaper didn't really work with space vehicles. I can imagine it being made to do so but would like to see more information as to how this would work. Especially the idea of sending the thing up with more fuel than it needs to get to where its going.
It's an admirable in achievement in terms of time and materials used.
Well charlie, the shuttle was trying to do a lot more. Dragon would essentially re-use just the capsule, which is hardly equivalent to the shuttle cockpit. All the rest - the heavy bits of machinery - still gets dumped. But for the moment, this is the realistic way to do it, like it or not. The advantage is, at least in theory, where the shuttle needed to be essentially remanufactured after each flight, this time they may actually keep most of the thing in working condition.
Of course, Mr Musk has much greater plans, wanting to reuse everything, but I'm not holding my breath for that. Time will tell...
Dragon would essentially re-use just the capsule, which is hardly equivalent to the shuttle cockpit. All the rest - the heavy bits of machinery - still gets dumped. But for the moment, this is the realistic way to do it, like it or not. The advantage is, at least in theory, where the shuttle needed to be essentially remanufactured after each flight, this time they may actually keep most of the thing in working condition.
That's pretty much my thinking and a useful clarification of the situation. I think it's why ESA doesn't bother about trying to reuse the ATV. I suspect real reuse won't really be possible until we have an easy way of getting in and out of orbit and can employ modified ship containers.
IIRC, SpaceX currently are building a test rig for their recovery system - basically big legs on a F9 first stage judging froo the pictures. They intend to do tests this year. http://www.flickr.com/photos/9614328@N02/7246837010/
It may not be as far away as people think.
The whole Space X vehicle will be reusable, eventually.
Musk is take the computer programmer route, adding features version by version, instead of trying to build a complete reusable rocket from scratch first attempt.
In 2013 they will begin test flying the a reusable Falcon rocket but in atmosphere testing.
Hopefully by that time out own Reaction engines will be building a prototype of the sabre engine an a test vehicle.
"I thought the Space Shuttle demonstrated that the nice idea of reusable rockets being cheaper didn't really work with space vehicles"
You'll need a few qualifications on that statement. They would include :-
That's built to a fixed constant cost cap which took *no* account of inflation (in the 1970's).
Part of whose goal was job preservation at a series of NASA and contractor sites in various political, constituencies.
That would *force* the winner to develop a newer higher performance engine an an engine cycle they had no experience with.
With a thermal protection system driven *solely* by weight consideration and thermal capacity, not cost or replaceability.
To lift a payload 3x what NASA wanted for their internal use.
With a cross range to fly a mission it *never* attempted and which would have probably triggered WWIII if it had.
Under NASA's micro management culture with the *complete* authority to demand tear down and redesign if *any* thing did note meet with their complete approval.
You might like to consider what sort of vehicle you could come up with that set of constraints.
I was just ruminating today on the idea that patents are essentially a way of preventing mankind from having access to mans collective intelligence and that patent lawyers are, in effect responsible for holding back the evolution of man. How dumb.
So it's amazing on the one hand that private enterprise is now going to space, but on the other, just think how much sooner we could have acheived that had we not been encumbered by patents.
So please, no patent lawyers anywhere, including space.
I doubt many will agree with me considering the current situation regarding intellectual 'property'.
Ours is but a small slice of life which is over all too soon, so it seems crazy to me to be held back by any encumbrances.
Let's hope that private space enterprises can co-operate, otherwise it may take them a lot longer than it did NASA to accomplish as much as NASA did. Which is a sobering thought.
"I suspect real reuse won't really be possible until we have an easy way of getting in and out of orbit and can employ modified ship containers."
Mass Drivers! If you can chuck an aircraft off a carrier fast enough to get airborne with one imagine what you could do with a really big one, chuck a shipping container into a low orbit and use some sort of orbital tug to take it where you want it.
I'd talk to my patent attorney about this but he's outside right now after an airlock mishap...