back to article SpaceX does what it HASN'T done before: Dragon in close ISS flyby

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, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Gordon 10

    Go SpaceX

    Feel like my parents must have watching the Lunar landings.

    1. Crisp

      Re: Go SpaceX

      I thought exactly the same thing.

      It's not quite the moon landings. But you've got to admit, it's pretty damn awesome.

    2. tirk
      Happy

      Re: Go SpaceX

      I watched the lunar landings. This feels like it could have more long term significance TBH. (Though I was similarly optimistic back in '69 as I recall)

      1. Stevie

        Re: Go SpaceX

        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.

        1. Elmer Phud

          Re: Go SpaceX -- waste?

          Space gives us mobile phones, SatNav etc etc.

          Experiments in space can give us much more.

          You not use a mobe?

          1. Ammaross Danan
            Headmaster

            Re: Go SpaceX -- waste?

            Space gives us SatNav. Cell towers give us mobile phones (unless yours is of the brick type from the likes of Iridium and other sat phone ilk).

            1. Jon B

              Re: Go SpaceX -- waste?

              And those cell towers then rely on GPS and GPS time data for handovers..

  2. Paul_Murphy

    So .. friday they prove docking, by the end of next week the capsule will be back on terra-firma, so by, say, Wednesday after next I can go to space?

    at last.....

    1. jai

      More like by Wednesday after next half of us will be running for our lives trying to stay alive and away from the ravening hoards of space-zombie-infected mutants that the rest of you have become.

  3. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
    Pint

    SpaceX may be a health hazard

    All this drinking to their success may start to stress livers (and brain cells) in many places

    Brilliant stuff. Takes me right back to my childhood memories of the Apollo program.

  4. Ben Holmes
    Happy

    This is all completely awesome. That is all.

  5. Chris Hawkins
    Linux

    Strobe Lights....?

    Is this another of Mr Musk's little secrets?

    Is Dragon perchance equipped also with a means of playing/transmitting this haunting little 1977 tune in a vacuum....?

    http://youtu.be/H4Kgzn3tDQU

    What else is about to happen.......?

  6. Annihilator
    Headmaster

    Great but oversold?

    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.

    1. Pete 2 Silver badge

      Re: Great but oversold?

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "hopefully without a patent-war"

        I await the arrival of the iRocket... and then it'll be lawyers at 20 paces...

        (how big is a pace in space, by the way?)

        1. jai

          Re: "hopefully without a patent-war"

          (how big is a pace in space, by the way?)

          It may be just one small pace for man, but a giant pace for mankind.....

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

          Wow... what a miserable thought : (

          1. Stoneshop
            Flame

            Re: Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

            As long as they burn up on re-entry, or have their life-support systems (do patent tro^H^H^Hlawyers have a life anyway?) mutually invalidated by patent violations, I fail to see the problem.

          2. Alan Dougherty
            Thumb Up

            Re: Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

            Actually, if Space-X can make enogh stacks and capsules, a Mercury orbit might be the best place to put them...

          3. Neil Barnes Silver badge
            Alien

            Re: Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

            Not if they're breathing vacuum...

          4. Fatman

            Re: Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

            Not really, if they were 'out there' with no space craft, or environment suit.

            I can visualize LEO being populated with dozens of `suits` stranded in space; for the greater good of mankind.

          5. SadBloke
            Happy

            Re: Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

            This could be a major breakthrough in propulsion technology, a mass driver using patent lawers as reaction mass.

            1. lawndart

              Re: Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

              Good idea. You should patent it.

          6. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

            Re: Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

            Miserable thought? That depends on whether they have helmets.

          7. GitMeMyShootinIrons

            Re: Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

            In space, no-one can hear you beat the cr@p out of them.

          8. Captain DaFt

            Re: Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

            Maybe this'll cheer you up:

            Once they're up there, we can cut the com link, then leave'em there!

          9. John H Woods Silver badge

            Re: Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

            Not at all. As long as they don't have ships, tethers or suits I'm happy.

          10. Chris Wright 2
            Alert

            Re: Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

            Not so miserable if some technicians "forgot" to top off the oxygen tanks before flight!

          11. Jess--

            Re: Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

            depends on whether they have spacesuits on or not, the idea would be quite appealing if it was sans suit

          12. John70

            Re: Patent lawyers... IN SPAAACE!

            We could leave them there to burn up in re-entry

        3. Pedigree-Pete
          Happy

          Re: "hopefully without a patent-war"

          A "pace" in space is roughly spitting distance! (See posts on earlier Dragon articles!)

          1. SYNTAX__ERROR
            Boffin

            Re: How far is a pace in space?

            The same as a pace on any planet under any gravity, as only one foot leaves the ground at a time.

      2. Crisp

        Re: Great but oversold?

        "The biggest achievement of SpaceX is in doing what they've done at a low cost."

        Wait until they get their spaceships into mass production.

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Happy

          Re: Great but oversold?

          "Wait until they get their spaceships into mass production."

          Actually more a case of wait till their launcher is *reusable*.

          Because the capsule (but not the trunk with the solar arrays sadly) already is.

      3. qwertyuiop

        Re: Great but oversold?

        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.

      4. Steven Roper
        Devil

        Re: Great but oversold?

        "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.

    2. Ian Yates

      Re: Great but oversold?

      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.

      1. Annihilator
        Boffin

        Re: Great but oversold?

        @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.

    3. locojoe
      Holmes

      Re: Great but oversold?

      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.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Great but oversold?

        When the commercial supply module leaves a card saying "we tried to deliver but you were out" before buggering off before you can answer the door.

    4. Elmer Phud

      Re: Great but . .

      It's only a deilvery truck.

      Not long before it's painted brown and has 'UPS' on the side.

    5. starsilk

      Re: Great but oversold?

      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.

  7. Measurer
    Big Brother

    Back a bit.......Back a bit.....oops!

    Call me a cynic, but with the potential loss of revenue to the manufacturers of the existing, disposable resupply capsules, I hope Mr Musk is logging every pip and whistle from external remote control units. One prang and they're out of the game.

  8. Malc

    "made a close pass within 1.5 miles of the station"

    Surely that's 2.4km?

    1. George of the Jungle
      Happy

      Re: "made a close pass within 1.5 miles of the station"

      It's an American spacecraft, so we'll use appropriate units, thank you very much.

      1. Captain TickTock
        Boffin

        Re: "made a close pass within 1.5 miles of the station"

        You didn't watch the launch, then. They were using the appropriate units throughout - metric.

        This is the 21st century after all.

        1. Jaybus

          Re: "made a close pass within 1.5 miles of the station"

          "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.

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge
            Devil

            "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.

      2. Anomynous Coward

        Re: "made a close pass within 1.5 miles of the station"

        " 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.

        1. starsilk

          Re: "made a close pass within 1.5 miles of the station"

          "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).

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "made a close pass within 1.5 miles of the station"

            '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.

      3. Maty

        Re: "made a close pass within 1.5 miles of the station"

        An American spacecraft - but the *International* space station. And that's where they were watching from.

      4. GitMeMyShootinIrons

        Re: "made a close pass within 1.5 miles of the station"

        22 American Football fields.

        You know, American Football? Like Rugby, only slower and wrapped in body armour.

        1. Jaybus

          Re: "made a close pass within 1.5 miles of the station"

          "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.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: Surely

      I believe if it were being measured in metric units it would be 2.5km/1.55 miles.

    3. Chris 244
      Coat

      Re: Proper Units

      What is this "miles" or "km" you speak of? Clearly what we have here is a pass distance of 262 double-decker bus lengths.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/page/reg-standards-converter.html#length

  9. MrXavia
    Go

    Good work! they can work on automated docking at a later date!\

    Lets hope their success pushes the ESA into getting a reusable capsule and maybe even some people into funding Skylon!

    1. Vulch

      They've recently announced a partnership with Bigelow which will need docking rather than berthing.

  10. Dr. Mouse
    Thumb Up

    Well done SpaceX!

    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.

    1. Anomynous Coward

      "we send our astronauts into space using a huge firework"

      I am going to be so excited when we have any other way of doing it.

      1. jai

        space elevators damnit! how hard can it be????

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "space elevators damnit! how hard can it be????"

          A 72,000 mile long rope that needs to be strong enough to take it's own weight and support the force and weight exerted by a vehicle trying to accelerate up it to orbital velocity.

        2. Crisp

          Space Elevators

          They are quite hard to build from what I hear.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Space Elevators

            Not really - built one last week from LEGO. Had to take it down as the neighbours complained about it being "way too tall" and them not wanting the area turned into "some sort of freakish space-port thingummy-jig".

            I'll build another one when they are on holiday :-)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well done SpaceX!

      Well there are ion drives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

      Or Inpulse engines, as I like to think of them

      Suitable for space use but not ready for lift-off quite yet

  11. Winkypop Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    As a kid, I watched the Apollo missions on TV

    For me, it spawned a life-time of awe for all things astronautical.

    Go SpaceX

  12. AndrueC Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    I hope this works. Commercial operations in space could breath some real life back into space exploration. There's money to be made up there and money is a great incentiviser.

  13. D@v3
    Go

    thumbs up, pats on the back, and drinks all round.

    as a (reasonably) young person, I am hugely impressed with all this private space travel nonsense. I wish them all the best of luck, and long may it continue.

  14. Tankboy
    Pint

    Well done.

    Nice to see a private company literally putting their own money where their mouth is.

    1. Deebster

      @literally

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Well done.

      It's not *their* money. NASA is paying for everything except on a fixed-price instead of cost-plus basis.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Happy

        Re: Well done.

        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.

  15. hugo tyson
    Go

    Holding your breath

    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....

  16. Ian Yates
    Pint

    Have the Vulcans seen us yet?

    n/t

  17. Tasogare

    Is there going to be live video of the docking attempt tomorrow?

    I'm thinking of something like the stream they did of the last Shuttle mission. I'd like to see this.

  18. Steve 114
    Thumb Up

    Tough spec.

    Good to see Lewis Page not disapproving of something. Don't get me wrong, I generally agree, but this helps recalibrate the disapproval-rating scale. Does he write for mainline papers? They too could do with a corrective dose of reality.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: Tough spec.

      You forget.

      It's American.

      And not made by BAe.

  19. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge
    Trollface

    OMFG!!

    It's a Lewis Page article that doesn't use the word "boffin"!11!!!1!!11!1111!11!!11!!11!!11!!11!1!!1!11!111!

  20. Stevie

    Bah!

    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.

  21. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    Economics of reusability

    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.

    1. Rustident Spaceniak
      Boffin

      Re: Economics of reusability

      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...

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Economics of reusability

        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.

        1. James Hughes 1

          Re: Economics of reusability

          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.

    2. David 164

      Re: Economics of reusability

      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.

    3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Boffin

      Re: Economics of reusability

      "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.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's cold outside.

    How long before they develop a big red ship and decide to start mining Jupiter then?

    I'm pretty good at unclogging chicken soup dispenser nozzles.

  23. Local Group
    Trollface

    "Open the pod bay doors, Hal"

    "I' sorry, Elon. I'm afraid I can't do that."

  24. b166er

    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.

  25. figure 11

    Master jettison control enabled

    Watch out they will be jettisoning beta grove soon!

  26. toof4st

    Blue Danube?

    Will they get to hear the Blue Danube when the initiate the docking sequence?

  27. Purlieu

    Lawyers

    lawyers, bankers --> "B" Ark leaving tomorrow

  28. IanPotter
    Boffin

    Re: Economics of reusability

    "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...

  29. Nick Ryan Silver badge

    Elite docking music

    ...unless the video is set to this, who cares?

    :)

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like