This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Dragon Docking Date Announced – SpaceX on "60 Minutes"

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
March 16, 2012
Filed under , , , , ,

SpaceX announces a date for first private space dock with space station, Ars technica
“SpaceX’s Company President Gwynne Shotwell used the Satellite 2012 Conference to announce that it has a thin launch window on April 30 that would get it to a scheduled May 3 berthing slot at the International Space Station. The mission, known as COTS 2/3, carries a political payload far larger than the food and clean underwear inside the spacecraft.”
Space travel moves to private sector, CBS 60 Minutes
“60 Minutes talks to the man who believes he will be the first entrepreneur to put a man in orbit. Watch Scott Pelley’s report on Sunday, March 18 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

35 responses to “Dragon Docking Date Announced – SpaceX on "60 Minutes"”

  1. Doug Mohney says:
    0
    0

    NASA’s confirmed the date. 

  2. Grandpa_Dave says:
    0
    0

    Excellent… Full speed ahead, damn the political torpedos.

  3. Monroe2020 says:
    0
    0

    In the words of Alan Shepard:  “Let’s light this candle!”

  4. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    NASA PAO and others said that the last Shuttle delivered enough supplies to last 1 year.That was 12,000lbs.ATV will haul 14,000lbs.So more than enough for a year.This may be correct as I remember a figure of 10lbs per crew member a day.Which comes out to about 12,000lbs.I did find one confirmation in an article.So how about the supplies that HTV,Dragon,Cygnus bring?Is there enough storage room?Or will they run light like Shuttle did?High volume,low weight cargo?Russia brings their own.They do not count.Whats going on here?

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      I have seen two numbers out of NASA 47 pounds per day and 63 pounds per day.

      A gallon of water is 8 pounds with a container, 3 pounds of breathable air? and scooby snacks, another pound or two? Plus they do not wash any clothes but wear new every day.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Plus they do not wash any clothes but wear new every day.
         
        Now, there’s a research project for the ISS that’s years overdue — practical laundry in space.  It’s just one example of the many things that the ISS can be used for that it doesn’t need an army of people to figure out.
         
        Steve

  5. Pete Harding says:
    0
    0

    I wish the main stream media would stop using the word “docking” – the Dragon cargo variant will berth, not dock. The two are entirely different processes. 😉

    Yes, this is nitpicking, and I know the general public don’t know or even care about the difference, but when the crewed Dragon conducts the “first Dragon docking to the ISS”, the milestone may get lost completely due to confusion.

    For reference:

    Docking = when a spacecraft guides itself into a docking port under its own power, with a low relative velocity impact between the docking port and capture ring.

    Berthing = when a spacecraft guides itself to just below a space station, whereupon relative velocity is nulled and the spacecraft is grappled by a robot arm and meneuvered close to a berthing port, which then extends hooks to capture the spacecraft and pull the two berthing rings together.

    • Doug Mohney says:
      0
      0

       Bolden said the Russians were up in arms about the use of “docking” vs “Berthing,” as they kept on saying (correctly) that the Dragon would not be allowed to “dock.”

      • Monroe2020 says:
        0
        0

        The Russians are vehemently opposed to any American commercial spacecraft docking/berthing with the ISS.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          Monroe,

          I’ve always figured that the Russians make such a song and dance about the difference because berthing is something that they thought of and developed, and their egos are no smaller than anybody else’s.

          Steve

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      FWIW, I agree that this is a distinction that most of the target audience wouldn’t understand.  ‘Dock’ should be considered a generic term, at least for the lay public and those who know better should console themselves with the fact that they know better.

  6. bobhudson54 says:
    0
    0

    According to recent commentaries from NASA TV,the Dragon mission is reported to be a rendezvous mission. It’s actually going to be berthed to the station. NASA TV can’t get their facts straight.

    • Doug Mohney says:
      0
      0

       Rendezvous first. If it passes the various gating tests, then it berths.

    • Jim Oberg says:
      0
      0

      The ‘rendezvous’ fact is correct, get your terminology straightened out, please. Same profile as Japan’s HTV.

  7. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

     If Japan would pay Russia directly instead of barter,they could buy seats to ISS for everyone for a year.So is one seat(60million) use of their module, worth 600million or so for one HTV a year?What kind of math is that?They must be using these flights for development.They say they will add a return capsule for cargo and then crew.So we are subsidizing Japan development over our own Dragon?Our vehicles will need to be nearly empty.Dragon will return cargo for now,so they have to stay.Japan has already taken a large part of Dragons’ outside capacity.Cygnus could be dropped and the deal with Orbital used to launch satellites,since they already have a fairing or given to crew. 

  8. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    Waiting on the FRR. Perhaps things will go better?

    It’s really, really hard to grow a company like this. You want to believe in the relatively inexperienced suddenly getting it and becoming experienced enough, verses relying on the extremely experienced who are less dramatic but far more reliable. Perhaps the second kind does not “sell” as well to certain non-aerospace investors as the first. But you get fewer “surprise moments”, and right now that’s extremely important. More than ego.

    We’ll see if things have been “dialed back” mid month. Not holding my breath. 

  9. hamptonguy says:
    0
    0

    Beginning of the end of NASA building rockets and commercial companies taking over?  Hope so.  NASA needs to get back to doing real R&D and stop this rocket nonsense.

  10. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    What are the effects of not knowing the cost of NASA projects if the cost of NASA doing it is not given?This was not an option given or discussed by the Augustine commission.Has the Feds kept this information from the Public and Taxpayers?NASA has said that the schedule is driven by cost.If NASA built the launcher and spacecraft for the cost of material would the cost be reduced to 10% of having private companies do the work?How much faster would a crewed mission to Mars be?How much faster could a heavy lifter be made?Congress has said to use contractors from Ares as much as possible.Does that mean that NASA could instead make a Saturn V type launcher?The cost of materials,processing,launching and control may be 10% of ILS.The same with launching crews to LEO.Also robot missions to Mars.Certainly some devices NASA can not make,such as solid rockets motors, electric motors or actuators to steer the engines.
    Is privatizing more important than saving the taxpayers money or speeding up the schedules?Taxpayers should be told the cost if private companies or NASA does the work

  11. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Just a few reasons i am waiting for Spacex first flight.
    DON’T WASTE THE FALCONS SECOND STAGES LIKE WE WASTED THE SHUTTLE ET TANKS!!!!
    Maybe Spacex shouldn’t worry to much about recovering the second stage with that heavy heat shield? use that fuel marjin to add dracos to make that upper booster moble in orbit and dockable first!

    TINKER Been mulling your 7 core falcon heavy lifter idea.I took note that the idea you put up could very easily be added to SLS instead of waiting 8 years for NASA to build that second stage.If I understand you right your design is very similar to having two falcon heavy boosters bolted on a central core (which could be SLS first stage), only the cross tanking is set up so that each “ 3 cluster of boosters has 3 staging events instead of 2 like a falcon heavy does. Right???So this is THE solution to get SLS flying sooner and cheaper if THEY really wanted SLS to go faster and cheaper and safer(NO SOLILDS YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!)YES I recall you and NOOFCSQ talking about that and think that’s what all the liquid instead of Soild Rocket booster talk was about Right?In your design was there any cross tanking with the air lite 7th center booster? No of course duhhhh tank full when lite.Couldn’t your design have ALL the cores the same size and have them in an H pattern all under a struss structure to make your payload faring be a cube like volume??If your 6 liquid falcon cores were on SLS would they air lite too or fire all engines at launch. If they did air lite the SLS center core the added weight of that big core would make all your staging events at slower speeds making them easier to recover than your 7 falcon core version Right?SOOOO NASA contracts out liquid boosters in the next 28 months with 6 liquids maybe Spacex wins the contract. They design that 3 stage (Falcon Heavy) for SLS and can easily make their own heavy lifter just as you discribe should SLS get canceled which it most likely will.Am I missing anything?Hummmm 7 core falcon heavy sure sounds easy !Kicks SLS for TAX PAYER VALUE all over the place.
    JOE TAX PAYER
    JOE Q PUBLIC
    On orbit used falcon upper stages for sale!!!During the shuttle program ALL the External fuel tanks were allowed to be burned up and wasted when they could have become valuable on orbit Real Estate or fuel depots . Now Spacex is about to burn up its second stages and its trunk with solar energy system. We do not need to make the same mistake twice!What should be done to save this resourse?I think that Spacex should fly a mission to put a fuel beam in orbit that can save this hardware and have the ability to transfer fuel from one boaster to another. Either NASA should pay for such a mission or a private investment group or company or Spacex themselves. Reusing these boosters and trunks along with used older dragons capsules could be a way to start building that Inner Solar System Railroad. ON THE CHEAP.What could Spacex do to make this doable. Where is tinkers saw-saw ? couldn’t Space very easily add Dracos to their upper stage and their trunks to make them dockable? Could a little bit of height be added to the second stage to leave that stage in orbit with a little bit of fuel to so it can find a trunk and get itsself to the docking depot?Imagine the possibilitiesFleet of used robot Dragons sent to the moon to start miningDragon rider mission to ISS carries a lunar car in the trunk to later be sent to the moon for Apollos 50th.ISS crew work to pre assemble used dragon trunks and stages and dragons to send a fleet/flock of dragons to four of jupiters moons to land and on and leave a satellite in orbit all for a price cheaper than the famos NASA galileo mission.Falcon 9 7core to dock at space beam near ISS to make turn the beam into a fuel depot using all of its central core as fuel depots main tank.Deep sea missile launch sends fuel to space beam to bring saved cots hardware back to life saving the tax payer tons of money starting the exploration commercial age.Mr. C said we need robot tracks on the moon that can be turned into infrastructure for manned missions. Earlier tinker outlined a dragon landing on the moon with its trunk still under it. Couldn’t a dragon full of fuel land on a special dragon trunk with wheels to refuel the trunk/rover? The dragon trunk/rover could even have a drill hummm maybe my dragon flock should be a dragon trunk flock.Mr. C in another thread you said that manned missions should grow straight from robot missions. I never really thought about that but knew it all along. Its just common sense but thanks for pointing it out.CANCEL SLS CANCEL ORION CANCEL JWST!!!!!!USE ISS COTS MISSIONS/ to start to build that infrastructure/railroad to send us beyond.use that money to partner with commercial and do something smart like planning to use every resource launched into space in a WISE way.It doesn’t take a rocket scientist!!!!

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

       Sunk cost, while having no accounting merit, has enormous political merit/inertia. For good and bad reasons.

      What is more powerful here is success. It has unpredictable repercussions in the charged atmosphere of HSF.

  12. John Vilja says:
    0
    0

    Wow! No wonder 60 Minutes is now irrevelent. Doing a puff piece on a very contentious subject isn’t something they would have done in their glory days. Using stock footage of the first and last people who have walked on the moon without an interview with anyone who represents that position is just plain sad. There’s no way Mike Wallace would have left it at that. The show used to be about speaking both sides about an issue. No wonder the web has completely replaced them.

    Basic questions that would have been asked with even a 2nd grader doing the story would be are: do you have any satellites in orbit now? how do you feel about your success after 10 years in the launch business? You’re 3 years late on your commitment to resupply space station, why is that? Why should the nation place all their bets on your systems given you have no background in space and you’ve never placed anything of commerce in space?

    Thankfully there is on-line media. Mainstream media just isn’t up for the task anymore.

  13. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

     Here is my plan to find what the cost would be for NASA to build launchers and spacecraft and not hire private companies to do it.To get a very rough estimate I looked up a representative piece of material.There is a lot of sheet metal in a launcher.I chose a very tough 7075T6.A .19″x3’x4′ sheet is $300 with discount.That is also .19 cu. ft.I found that a Titan 2 less engines is 14,595lbs.Divide by the weight of a cu.’ of Al.169 lbs.=86.36cu.’ divide by .19x$300=$136,357 for the Aluminum.I have only run this a few times and will report if I find an error.The cost of the steel for the engines can also be checked.Filler rods or wire not included.The cost of wiring,valves,actuators,old style or digital controls need to be added.NASA could build the electrics and electronics themselves.They have the engineers. So far a NASA built launcher looks dirt cheap.Not worth reusing.
     This construction is super easy.A group of sheet metal airplane home builders could do this.Elon was attracted to a person by his homebuilt liquid rocket engine.So rocket engines are easy to build also.Goddard did it in ’30s.

  14. Jim Oberg says:
    0
    0

    Too bad Scott Pelley’s fact checkers overlooked that both India and Japan have recovered spacecraft from orbital flight — when he said only Russia, the US, China, and now SpaceX, had done so, in the opening. And ESA has flown some mighty hot sub-orbital entry tests.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Agreed, Jim. CBS’s story had many holes, not just sins of commission, but of omission, particularly questions not asked and issues not raised. While I was pleased with the video coverage, the actual information content of the story was disappointingly small. The media lack expertise in this area. Offhand, I can think of few well-known reporters with the experience and perspective to have made this a respectable story. Those that have it rarely, if ever, get air time. 
      Q: How can we expect public support for HSF if the people who are supposed to inform the population are so uninformed themselves?

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        oldscientist,

        I think you make a valid point, but at the same time, it may be that CBS did take into account the uninformed state of the general public, and that was why the total content was smaller than you or I would have liked.  I think they were trying to make a presentation appropriate to the average watchers, not the fans, which makes sense to me.

        Some people have suggested that the more controversial issues should have been included, like delays and tax dollars spent, but to me, that sort of sensationalism is pointless, at best fodder for simple minds.  I would have liked to see the piece end with a hook — a yet unanswered question that any watcher would have been curious to have answered, which might encourage more people to follow up in the future and get interested in SpaceX, and then space in general.  Overall, I’d say it wasn’t too bad at all for a prime time television piece.

        Steve

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          I didn’t need any more information about the controversial aspects; I have my own data and opinions about those. And even if the producers had a low opinion of the public, that was no excuse for asking uninformed or simple-minded questions.
          IMHO, there are a couple of good stories CBS could have reported, but didn’t. One might have been on the lobbying battle going on between traditional aerospace contractors, the new breed of ‘commercial’ vendors, and backers of systems like SLS. 
          Another might be an investigation of the difference in reported costs between the new companies and the old; there is a nice NASA report, now about a year old, which focuses on SpaceX low costs in particular. That could have formed the basis for some very leading questions, especially if asked at Boeing or LockMart.
          So, while I’m glad that SpaceX got its profile raised, I’m less happy that CBS left the public little better equipped to think intelligently about HSF. 60 Minutes used to do this kind of thing much better.

    • Doug Mohney says:
      0
      0

       As I noted somewhere else, would have it really killed them to get–

      1) Cernan and/or Armstrong on camera, rather than using file footage from CSPAN

      2) An independent writer/authority (i.e., not someone from Lexington Institute) to comment on what has been accomplished, and put it into perspective.

  15. JJ says:
    0
    0

    … I didn’t know you could buy ads on 60 minutes.

  16. Nox Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    The 60 minutes coverage was great PR for SpaceX. I am very excited and happy for SpaceX because I think the only space visionary who can actually do stuff now days is Elon Musk. I hope Neil Armstrong takes up Elon’s offer to come visit the SpaceX factory. GO SpaceX! Less talk more action, SpaceX has done the action part. We need less talk and bickering. Let’s DO stuff as a species.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      I VERY MUCH AGREEE!!!!!!!!
      The 60 minutes pice was also good for commercail Space and cheaper space. Seems 60 minutes may get it that a new way of doing business is now!

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

        I hope Neil Armstrong takes up Elon’s offer to come visit the SpaceX factory.
      If he is interested in his legacy he will be.

      However, if he’s a bitter old man succoring himself with the old dried balm of power politics – he has no need to.

      I think you can guess which.

      • Doug Mohney says:
        0
        0

        It would have been more interesting if “60 Minutes” had explored who bankrolled the Griffin-Armstrong-Cernan tour through USA Today’s editorial page and onto Capitol Hill.

  17. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    MR. C
    Spacex dragon ISS flight WILL be a success!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I’LL bet on that!!!!

  18. Kirby Nebeker says:
    0
    0

    You know, if we all believed we “couldn’t” do something, we would never try. I salute and support SPACEX and Elon Musk for what he believes in and what he and his company are proving to not only America, but to the world. Space travel can be done cheaper, faster, and better than a Govt, agency.