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 Launch Update

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
March 1, 2013
Filed under , , ,

SpaceX Falcon 9 Launches But Anomaly Detected Which Delayed Solar Array Deployment, SpaceRef Business
UPDATED at 3:50 p.m. EST and includes launch video and audio file of post-launch media briefing: “This morning at 10:10 a.m. EST, a SpaceX Falcon 9 with Dragon spacecraft launched from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on its second of 12 NASA contracted resupply missions to the International Space Station (ISS).”
Less than 24 hours after launching, the SpaceX Dragon was supposed to arrive at the ISS where the station crew would grapple and berth the spacecraft to the ISS for an expected three week visit.
However, after the Dragon spacecraft had separated from the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, and just before the Dragon solar arrays were to deploy, an anomaly occurred with the thrusters where only one of four was enabled. The spacecraft appeared to be in the correct orbit.”

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

72 responses to “Dragon Launch Update”

  1. Christopher Miles says:
    0
    0

    Go Elon!

    Hopefully the fix will work. I was concerned that if there was a significant power/thruster failure, the NY Times would run a photo/cartoon of Dragon on the back of a Space Tow Truck.

     An odd twist/irony:

    Space X may be the ONLY beneficiary of the sequester, as the news/cycle is pretty darn crowded today, and there is no room to report on anomalous launches/docking efforts.

    All hopes to Space X for a successful fix and rendezvous.

  2. Christopher Larkins says:
    0
    0

    Best of luck.

  3. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Cuurently SpaceX is reporting that all four thruster sets are functional and they are planning the first orbit raising maneuver. The problem is attributed to a malfunction in the helium pressurization valve for the nitrogen tetroxide supply to the thrusters, but the nature of the problem is unclear. Apparently low oxydizer pressure prevented activation of the thrusters. The corrective action required,if any, was not described. At one point Musk tweeted that the pressure was tending upward, which leads me to think that maybe the valve opened sufficiently so that there was a little helium flow and it just took some time for the tank to pressurize.

  4. Tom Sellick says:
    0
    0

    Problem with the pods?  Yikes, thinks bad thoughts:
    Open the pod bay doors, HAL. HAL: I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”

  5. chriswilson68 says:
    0
    0

    Musk has now said that all thrusters are operational.  There was apparently a blockage in the helium line to pressurize the oxidizer tank.  They did a “pressure hammer” procedure and it cleared the blockage.

    I’m sure once this Dragon gets back to Earth they’ll pull it apart and see if they can tell what caused the blockage.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Or the valve was stuck and cycling the valve (for the “preessure hammer”) got it open enough to let gas get by.

  6. SgtBeavis says:
    0
    0

    It’s starting to look like SpaceX has this one under control. Just one more thing they will learn from.

  7. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    Let’s remember that this is only Dragon’s fourth flight and only its third in its complete cargo configuration.  If there weren’t problems, failures and untoward events, it would be a miracle.  It is to SpaceX’s credit that the ship was well-designed enough and their procedures were robust enough for them to apparently resolve the problem and get the mission back on track.

  8. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

     They are saying a 24 reset,so maybe berthing Sunday. Elon says no solar panels on crewed Dragon to ISS. I guess if a problem they will just land. I did not see any crew access tower or one started. I would think it would be a good idea to have one for the abort test in Dec. They have not had the review with NASA. They may be waiting on that. I wonder if they can build it by Dec.
     The 1st stage was stable after separation. I can see how it could float to the surface flat like Soyuz and N. Korea rocket did with little damage. They must blow holes in it to sink it. Don’t want salvagers to pick it up like S. Korea did. 

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

       Saturn:

      I think having a strong-back tower for the crew that could swing down quickly behind a blast wall would be what they need. They could also keep it folded down or parked hundreds of feet away for cargo/payload flights.

      Yeah, all electric… the Tesla Model ‘D’ (for Dragon)!

      I expect they would just come home if they had problems… if they could. Not much choice in the matter. We’ve got to hope that when this becomes routine we’ll be able to afford having a rescue flight lined up for each launch in case they get stranded in orbit. We couldn’t afford not to, really! It’d simply be the price of doing business.

      tinker

      • Saturn1300 says:
        0
        0

          There was a drawing by SpaceX not  long ago. It is simple. Sort of like construction scaffolding. It has a spiral track or slide for escape. Were they go it does not show. I would think they would have a retractable arm,like NASA and elevator. Who knows if it will sit,tilt or roll. My point was it should be there to have an all up test. A drawing shows Dragon landing on the beach. That is pinpoint. They will normally come down on land,so it would be a better test than landing in the water. They will not be paid for abort review(sequester). I hope they give NASA a free milestone.

        • chriswilson68 says:
          0
          0

          “My point was it should be there to have an all up test….  I hope they give NASA a free milestone. “

          NASA and SpaceX jointly agreed on what the milestones were to be before the contract was signed.  I’m certain that if the contract included a crew access tower in the pad abort test milestone, NASA will not pay if the tower is not in place.

          I think it is far more likely that NASA and SpaceX agreed to a pad abort test without a crew access tower.  Why?  Because a crew access tower is likely quite expensive and only peripherally related to a pad abort test for the LAS.  That’s because the crew access tower is likely to be moved away before launch, and the most critical time for a pad abort test is to assume an emergency at the point of liftoff.

          You can either wait until you have everything built exactly as it will be for flight and only then start testing, or you can start early testing on some components before others are in place.  I think NASA and SpaceX wisely chose to do the pad abort test without waiting for the crew access tower.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            I absolutely agree.  It doesn’t matter how simple or how complex your design is, the sooner you start testing the better.  It saves time and money, and allows you to zero in on the details much more effectively than with “all done” testing alone.

  9. Rocketscientist42 says:
    0
    0

    Be honest with yourselves… If NASA had this same issue on one of their launches you’d all be saying “There they go again… Can’t even get their thrusters to light!” I just find the dual standard amusing.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      I seem to remember many shuttle flights being delayed because of some malfunction or other (usually trivial, often a faulty sensor.) And the ISS routinely has systems fail. Yet we don’t gloat or mock. We know that space is a harsh mistress.

      You, otoh, can’t wait to gloat.

      • Rocketscientist42 says:
        0
        0

        Read my post again and remind me where I gloated? I’ve been in this business for a long, long time and I know what SpaceX is up against. It’s the “Infallibility of the Musk” that makes up the double standard.

        And double check your intellectual honesty for a minute. I’ve been on these forums long enough to see that any time NASA has even the slightest misstep the jackals pounce without a second thought. There is a plethora of gloating and mocking. And it’s usually from the SpaceX fanboys… You can tell because their comments are usually followed up by a variation of the phrase “give the money to Elon and we’ll see what magic he can do with it.”

        • Robin Seibel says:
          0
          0

          You should endeavor to not lump everyone into the same category.  Generalizations such as yours inevitably fail as yours has.  I’d say that there are a great number of people that understand the difficulties of space flight and that complex systems will have failures now and again.  It’s only those that take a superficial view that act as you claim.  Note that your view is equally superficial.

          • Rocketscientist42 says:
            0
            0

            With all due respect, it wasn’t a generalization. It was an observation of past NASA-critical posts and the current glowing posts on this topic. My comment was specifically addressed to those who had commented. Doubtless there are many more readers who agree with my view yet have grown tired of repeating it.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Give the money to Elon and we’ll see what magic he can do with it.

          That’s a great idea!!!!!

          SPACEX FANBOY

      • Rocketscientist42 says:
        0
        0

        Furthermore, note that when the anomaly first occurred, they made a brief announcement that something wasn’t working properly and they cut the webcast. What do you think the reaction would have been had NASA done that? I have a hard time imagining people coming on here and saying, “Mike Griffin will make it all work out.” He’d be skewered. And before I get the lecture that this is a private company… I’m pretty sure I am holding the receipt for the payload. I think I have a right to a little more insight.

        • chriswilson68 says:
          0
          0

          “I’m pretty sure I am holding the receipt for the payload. I think I have a right to a little more insight.”

          Musk tweeted half a dozen times in the few hours after launch, then held a news conference even though they weren’t done fixing the problem yet.  The early tweets were very blunt about three of the thruster pods being off-line and they weren’t sure if they could get them back.

          That’s more than a little insight.

          • Rocketscientist42 says:
            0
            0

            You would have accepted a few tweets as acceptable from NASA?

          • chriswilson68 says:
            0
            0

            Yes.

          • Robin Seibel says:
            0
            0

            Yes. I don’t think a dissertation was required.  The tweets succinctly stated what the problem was.  That aside, you got more than you actually deserved.  A feeling of entitlement does not equal deserving.

          • Rocketscientist42 says:
            0
            0

            The American public paid for this mission.  I think they deserved more than  a 140 character limit allows.  And our entitlement doesn’t come from a feeling… it comes from the NASA budget which paid the bill.  

            And this is what irritates me about many regulars that post here.  NASA loses either way.  Give you too much information, you gripe.  Give you too little, you gripe.  But Elon?  Pass after pass after pass.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            RS42,

            I’m sure personal perceptions differ widely, but it seems to me, from memory, that pro/con NASA posts seems to have run through regular cycles.  Although we tend to criticize when NASA does something less than brilliant, we also tend to jump just as quickly to their defense when they’re being given the shaft, such as when Congress is screwing them around.  I will agree that there are some posters who are regular bad-only commenters, but they tend to dump on everybody, not just NASA, so I think their comments are of zero significance.  Most of us, I think, try to be honestly objective.

    • chriswilson68 says:
      0
      0

      “Be honest with yourselves… If NASA had this same issue on one of
      their launches you’d all be saying “There they go again… Can’t even
      get their thrusters to light!” I just find the dual standard amusing.”

      How about you be honest with yourself — you’re complaining about what you imagine in a hypothetical situation other people might say.

      NASA Watch archives are open to everyone.  If you think some people here have a double standard, why don’t you go find specific instances where the same people treated similar situations for NASA and SpaceX differently?

      • Rocketscientist42 says:
        0
        0

        Thank you for the suggestion, but I’ll pass because that would accomplish nothing. I simply wanted to spark some inner self examination. If you choose not to do so, be sure it’s because you are already comfortable with your intellectual honesty. Though in my experience those who get particularly defensive when asked to do so are usually the ones who need it the most.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          It sounds to me like you just said, other people need to take another look at what they’re thinking, but you don’t.  Is that not a double standard?

      • objose says:
        0
        0

        “Well, SpaceX really pulled a rabbit out of the hat this time. :)”

        OK all the arguing about message, I have a question about process:

        Dragon
        had a problem, and Dragon fixed it. Called a small glitch, moved on.  I
        am not talking about message or comments. Here is what I have seen
        usually happens with NASA.  Program shuts down, analysis, review boards,
        testing, analysis.  These are 2 different processes
        OK all the arguing about message, I have a question about process:

        Space X had a problem, and Space X fixed it. Called a small glitch, moved on.  I am not talking about message or comments. Here is what I have seen usually happens with NASA.  Program shuts down, analysis, review boards, testing, analysis.  These are 2 different processes.  “NASA is too expensive.”

        WE (Taxpayers) are paying for both.

        First question: should NASA follow the Space X model, or should Space X be following the NASA model?

        Question 2:  (and this is the hard one). Is this a “bad sensor reading on a 02 tank” problem, or is it a “Booster seal fails to hold at low temperature” issue. 

        There are some of you who can actually provide information on both questions. What is clear to me who knows little is that clearly process expected by the public currently at Space X and NASA are different for delivery of “taxpayer” payload. 

        Thoughts?

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          objose,

          Good questions, but I don’t think we’re talking apples and apples, because SpaceX is dealing with SpaceX-built hardware and processes, whereas NASA is dealing with hardware and processes built by one or more other entities, so their real-time procedures can’t be the same.  NASA has to go to their back-room contractor people, or even off-site contractor people to get data and answers, whereas SpaceX has everything in hand and under their own control.  This is one of the important advantages of this type of contract which we don’t often hear about, but it’s a big advantage to all concerned, as the quick recovery in this mission shows.

          Steve

          • objose says:
            0
            0

             but it will only be an advantage, IF  this is a “bad reading on o2 tank” that should be ignored and not an issue of “badly designed o ring working in cold weather.”

            A dragon mission will fail. Not because they are bad or ignorant or uncaring. This is rocket science. Question will be: “how long will Dragon be grounded when there is one?”  and  “will it be as long as NASA would?”

            So you are right, these are not apples to apples.  Not sure what tree brings us, overall most value.  Elon isn’t sending us his information as it remains proprietary. NASA has to.  Obviously it is more expensive for NASA to do it, but this is one of those “total value questions for me.”  I mean NASA “occasionally <g> gets something into space, DOE was set up to reduce our dependance on foreign energy. SO for federal $$ from my taxes, I will ask for cuts at NASA right after they close down DOE.  (besides I love the cool NASA music videos. IRS doesn’t do that <g>.

    • Rocketscientist42 says:
      0
      0

      Applying a little intellectual honesty here myself, I will gladly say BRAVO to the folks at SpaceX for yet again pulling off another successful run.  I hope they keep them coming.  NASA should have been out of the LEO business a long time ago.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Agreed, if you mean the “launch to LEO business.”  There is much in LEO, and will be much more, that goes beyond simple launching and spacecraft specifying which NASA, I think, will have to be involved in, both for development and for maintaining organization.  The free-for-all wild-west type of frontier only happens in the movies, and the case where private industry takes the lead isn’t going to happen without government up-front money, same as it’s always been.

  10. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Some interesting stuff on the post-launch telecom (I did have to reprocess the poor audio to understand what was said).

    No solar arrays on Crew Dragon! It’ll essentially be a space-faring version of his electric cars!

    This fits in with reusable launch vehicles and spacecraft. Crew Dragon is a good mission  to test out full launch vehicle/spacecraft reusability (and by far the most profitable).

    Here’s why: (you regulars will have heard this before) Crew mass is light relative to mission importance. One ton of precious cargo (us) would be ten of us, including gear and personal belongings. Crew Dragon might, but probably wouldn’t, carry that many. So, along with having no large trunk (maybe a short one between the top of the second stage and Dragon’s heat shield), no solar panels (but heavier batteries), it should leave SpaceX with extra margin, especially with the extra power the Falcon v1.1 will provide. Most of the mass of SpaceX’s proposed recovery system for Falcon is fuel because they leverage existing systems as much as possible.

    In a way, this golden goose is easier because of the light mass, high value cargo. What kind of profit could someone make in seat sales if the actual cost per launch were a few million? Also, what’s the first thing we need to make ‘routine’ if we’re going to become a multi-planetary species?

    I think it’s where Elon Musk is going to show us he can ‘close the loop’ on reusability.

    tinker

    P.S. Anomaly? What anomaly?

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

       Isn’t SpaceX planning on using these thrusters for aborts on the crewed Dragon? Another reason it may take longer to qualify their vehicle than what they’ve stated.

      • Steve Pemberton says:
        0
        0

        The thrusters they had a problem getting started today are Dracos, the thrusters that will be used for LAS will be the much more powerful Super Dracos. 

        The problem that occurred today was quickly isolated and worked around in a matter of hours, so I doubt that there will be much if any impact even to the CRS schedule, much less Commercial Crew.

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        John:

        All launch escape systems need to be ignited, even the solid fuel ones we’re all familiar with. Dragon’s liquid fuel and oxidizer ignites on contact with each other, making them even simpler than the ignition of those solid fuel launch escape systems. All you need to do is spin up pumps fast! (Steve, Dragon’s Draco thrusters just use pressurization and valves to operate, SuperDraco launch escape thrusters will definitely use pumps!).

        That said, you’re correct that, for launch escape, you gotta get it right first time, every time! Therefore, it has to simple and robust. Each method has it’s pros and cons but one ‘con’ that must be avoided is complexity! I think hypergolic (self-igniting) fuel is simple and robust enough for the task. I have confidence that SpaceX can make the SuperDraco thrusters work every time.

        As far as today’s glitch goes, I’m also sure that SpaceX will find the data they need, test it to prove cause, evaluate mitigation and devise a fix. Better early in the program than later. Remember, everything SpaceX learns in these cargo runs goes into making Crew Dragon safer and more reliable.

        tinker

        • James says:
          0
          0

           There will be no pumps for SuperDacos

        • chriswilson68 says:
          0
          0

          “Dragon’s Draco thrusters just use pressurization and valves to operate, SuperDraco launch escape thrusters will definitely use pumps!”

          Tinker,

          Do you have a reference that says Super Draco will use pumps?  I find that very surprising, and I can’t find anyplace that says pumps will be used.

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

             Chris:

            Unless they are planning to let the G forces slack off after a few seconds, I don’t see how they can maintain thrust through pressurization alone. You and james may be right and the pulses we see in the SuperDraco video are simply valve pulsing, not pumps. Speculation on my part.

            tinker

          • chriswilson68 says:
            0
            0

            Tinker,

            Wikipedia says the burn time of the Super Dracos is five seconds.  If they can’t get away from the booster in a few seconds, they’re dead.

            Having pumps increases the risk a lot in an abort scenario because you need to get the pumps running.  If Super Draco is pressure-fed, then all that’s required is for a valve to open and the engine will fire.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wik

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Tinker,

            I agree with Chris’ thoughts — assuming that there are no ullage issues under the rapid G-changes during an abort.  Otherwise pre-spun pumps, or something more, would be required,

        • John Thomas says:
          0
          0

           While hypergolic fuels are simple, pumps and plumbing do lessen the reliability at least slightly from solid motors. I believe the lunar module engines were pressure fed. I feel confident that style of abort system is the best choice, just doubtful it can be done as quickly as quoted to support orbital flight operations by 2015 to 2017. We’ll see if they stick to their flight tests which were supposed to begin this year although Washington budget problems could delay their dates.

      • chriswilson68 says:
        0
        0

        “Isn’t SpaceX planning on using these thrusters for aborts on the crewed Dragon?”

        Yes and no.  They’re planning to use Super Draco thrusters, which are scaled-up versions of these thrusters.

        A critical difference is that on the current cargo Dragon they wait to pressurize the tanks for the thrusters until they’re in orbit.  It was this pressurization action that had a problem.  With the crew version, the tanks will be pressurized before launch — they’ll have to because the Super Draco thrusters need to be able to respond instantly in the event of an emergency.  So, with crew Dragon this problem would have occurred on the ground, before launch, so they would have just delayed launch until it was fixed.

  11. Penny_Robinson says:
    0
    0

    there sure is a lot of conflicting information about these events……very comforting!

  12. James Lundblad says:
    0
    0

    Seems like Dragon is in front of ISS?

  13. retired_geek says:
    0
    0

    Does anyone know why the two “operational” Dragon flights to the ISS have carried only a small fraction of their advertised payload.  From a budget perspective, given the unused capacity to LEO, would it not make more sense to combine two or more flights into one?

    When can we expect to see a ramp-up of the amount cargo carried on each mission?

    • HyperJ says:
      0
      0

      Nobody outside SpaceX and NASA knows what the exact limit is of Dragon cargo mass at the moment – But the next CRS flight will be launch with the updated (v1.1) version of F9, which has almost 2x the payload to LEO. So if there is a cargo mass limit at the moment, that will not be a factor in the future flights.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Check out the first few shuttle flights.  Other than test equipment, see much in the way of payloads?

      • retired_geek says:
        0
        0

         As usual Ken, you are right, to a degree.  STS1 through STS4 were designated as “Research and Development” flights – with crew size limited to two.  While STS3 and STS4 were also “Research and Development” flights, payload increased dramatically, and flight duration was increased to about a week. 

        The STS project was declared “operational” with STS5 and payloads and crew size quickly ramped up. 

        Today was the second “operational” flight of the SpaceX Falcon 9 / Dragon vehicle and the fifth launch overall. 

        I guess what tweaked my curiosity is that while the SpaceX system has been declared “operational” and is flying under contract to NASA it is not being utilized to anything close to its published capacity.  

    • mattmcc80 says:
      0
      0

      Mass and volume are not the same thing.  Scientific experiments and food aren’t lead, so there are going to be flights that don’t max out what a F9 can carry to orbit.  Additionally, ISS is pretty flush with cargo services right now (An ATV is going up in a few weeks), but that situation changes when HTV and ATV stop flying (both have only two more flights planned).  So I imagine that in this period of time where they don’t need to maximize what goes up on every flight, they’re reasonably starting off Dragon flights with non-critical stuff.

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

         I believe their contract with NASA is for a minimum mass to ISS. I’m not aware of any mention of volume but I could be wrong. If they don’t perform to their contract, NASA could probably penalize SpaceX but I doubt that would happen.

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      HJ:

      Actually, This version of Falcon/Dragon is about at it’s cargo limit. Even still, if SpaceX had just decided to develop it to carry crew as is, it would still do the job nicely (read my other posts in this thread). If they didn’t carry the trunk and used batteries for power, they could launch to a higher orbit, do a single phase rendezvous with the ISS (if NASA would let them) and be there in a couple of hours. The whole point of human access to orbit is to get somewhere. No need to dally.

      I don’t think SpaceX was ‘pulling our legs’ with their cargo capacity claims. The Merlin 1d was in the works before the first Falcon 9 flew and all their estimates were based on Falcon rockets using those engines. That they were able to improve on those numbers since then is a testament to how much they’ve learned.

      tinker

    • Mark_Flagler says:
      0
      0

      This question was asked at the press conference immediately following launch. There were two parts to the answer.

      First, NASA decides what cargo to fly; up to its mass and volume limits SpaceX has no say in the cargo manifest.
      Second, to date, and probably in the future, the limit will be imposed by volume rather than mass. There is a lot of packaging wrapped about the cargo to protect and secure it during flight, and it occupies volume out of proportion to its mass. For this reason, Dragon will probably never max-out on payload mass. On the other hand, if you do the math (as Gwynne Shotwell did at the presser) you find that SpaceX will easily ship the total mass specified in its contract with NASA.

    • Robin Seibel says:
      0
      0

      Mass of cargo and volume occupied by cargo in Dragon are both constraints. It should be obvious that unless the shapes of the cargo pieces are such that they perfectly fill the volume and the mass of the cargo is such that it equals the maximum load, all missions will either have cargo that doesn’t fill the volume, whose mass is less than the maximum load, or both.

  14. Peter R says:
    0
    0

    Elon Musk is the best physicist/engineer in this country. He took on all doubters, examined the processes of the aerospace and car industries, used his first principles physics knowledge and has defined a set of excellent processes.
    Plus he is candid and forthright with success and failure and yesterday allowed the whole world in on the problem solving process. I felt excited yesterday and it is a great day for America.

    • ASFalcon13 says:
      0
      0

      To Bill Brasky…err, I mean, Elon Musk!

      …sorry, but I get to work with physicists and scientists at a certain NASA FFRDC located in the northern Los Angeles basin on a daily basis.  Their grasp of engineering and physics is mind-blowing, and would make Elon look like a third grader…and those are just the folks I work with.

      I’m not saying Elon isn’t a remarkable person, but let’s not kid ourselves here.  SpaceX is an entire organization; Elon isn’t down there building every part and making every decision himself.  He got where he is through shrewd business acumen tempered with an understanding of engineering.

      Say he’s one of the more remarkable businessmen in this country, and you might have a point.  One of the best physicists/engineers though?  Sorry, but that’s a stretch.

      • chriswilson68 says:
        0
        0

        “Their grasp of engineering and physics is mind-blowing, and would make
        Elon look like a third grader…and those are just the folks I work
        with.”

        Unless you personally know Elon Musk and have worked with him closely on real engineering problems, I’d have to say that’s incredibly arrogant to claim that your own friends would make him look like a third grader.

        I’ve never met Elon Musk.  I don’t know how great his personal skills in physics and engineering are, but at least I know that I don’t know, and I don’t go around making wild claims.

        • ASFalcon13 says:
          0
          0

          First off, realize there’s a slight bit of hyperbole here…yes, I’ll agree that Elon doesn’t literally look like a third grader. And you’re right, maybe you don’t go around making wild claims…but Peter R did, and that’s the argument to which I speak.

          And you’re right, I don’t know Elon personally…but his body of work is public, and is something I or anybody else can evaluate.  Elon didn’t invent the electric car, he just found ways to make it a bit more efficient.  Elon didn’t invent the rocket or capsule, and his rocket and capsule really aren’t even really pushing any technological boundaries – both Saturn/Apollo and the Shuttle were far more capable – he’s just found a way to reduce costs.  Elon’s doing impressive stuff, no doubt, but he’s not really pushing the boundaries of technology or human understanding all that far.

          The problem is that I know folks who are doing precisely that.

          I know people who can determine the surface and atmospheric compositions of planets orbiting stars hundreds of light years away.

          I know people who built a brand new landing technology that couldn’t even be fully tested before its first actual use to land the Curiosity rover on Mars.  I also know people who were able to calculate and hit a split-second pointing and shutter timing window to get a clear photo of the rover descending on its parachute from a spacecraft screaming along at orbital velocity.

          I know people who were able to measure the distance between two spacecraft orbiting the Moon a hundred kilometers apart to within a distance smaller than the width of a human hair, and then use that data to make the most detailed gravity map ever made of any planet or moon in the Solar System.  And then, not being satisfied with that accomplishment, they took that map and used it to fly even closer to the Moon to break their own record a few months later.

          I know people who, after receiving some grainy photos of comet Tempel 1 from the navigation camera of repurposed comet sample return spacecraft, held a press conference discussing several journal papers worth of resulting comet evolution discoveries just a few mere hours later.

          I’m not saying that Elon’s not smart, but there are lots of people I’ve met so far in astronomy and planetary science are nothing short of absolutely brilliant.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Actually, I’d say Musk has one engineering “talent” that does make a big difference and therefore is worth mentioning — he insists on keeping everything no more complex than it absolutely needs to be.  The cumulative effect of this is high reliability and rapid problem assessment and fixes.

    • chriswilson68 says:
      0
      0

      “Elon Musk is the best physicist/engineer in this country.”

      He certainly made some very good high-level engineering decisions, and he accomplished some stunning things.  That doesn’t mean he’s personally the greatest physicist or engineer in the country.

      • Peter R says:
        0
        0

        Who else has reinvorated both the car and rocket industry – plus he has a BS in Physics University of Pennsylvania 1995.
        While everybody talks – or – tries to get cost + % contracts from the government he is separating fact from fiction and in the long run will be the reason China doesn’t beat us to the moon.

        • ASFalcon13 says:
          0
          0

          “Physicist”…I do not think it means what you think it means. Elon’s not an academic by any stretch of the imagination.

          If you want to start rattling off degrees…I’ve got a Masters degree from MIT, and I’m not even about to start claiming that I’m the best engineer in the country.

          As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, Tesla and SpaceX are organizations comprised of many engineers.  Their successes stem from Elon’s ideas, brought to fruition by bringing in the right people to get the job done.  Again, that makes Elon a great businessman, not a great engineer.

          Even then, I wouldn’t even necessarily say that Tesla is completely responsible for the advancement of electric cars, as you seem to claim – that argument completely ignores important technological contributions from hybrids like the Toyota Prius and the Chevy Volt, for example.

          As for SpaceX, Elon decided he wanted a space program, so he applied vertical integration techniques to reduce program costs in his quest to build a cheaper rocket…impressive, but not really all that revolutionary.  Not as mind-blowing as, say, coming up with the idea that drops in light curves on the order of fractions of a percent would reveal the sizes, orbits, and compositions of planets in distant star systems.  I mean, who the heck thought that up, or thought the we’d be able to pick the data out of the noise cleanly enough that it’d actually work?

  15. tutiger87 says:
    0
    0

    Congrats to SpaceX…but the whole high fiving and hugging and jumping for joy thing is lame. Act as if you’ve been there before…like Barry Sanders scoring and just flipping the ball to the referee..

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      Yusef:

      If I were on some rural sports team that got a chance to play in the big leagues and won, then won again, and yet again, I’d still be high fivein’ too! This ‘glitch’ has only made them prouder of what they’ve done because they were able to make a full recovery in true SpaceX fashion, fast!

      tinker

      • tutiger87 says:
        0
        0

        We made recoveries on orbit just as fast, on a vehicle infinitely more complex….They deserve credit for doing it without all the overhead, but it ends there for me.

  16. objose says:
    0
    0

     “As far as today’s glitch goes, I’m also sure that SpaceX will find the
    data they need, test it to prove cause, evaluate mitigation and devise a
    fix.”

    This is going to sound critical of you but are we really sure?  As in any other situation, I find that people have said “I am sure that X will do y” only to find out that nope, it did not happen.  The Hindenburg and Titanic come to mind <g>.

    Question: given that this is our cargo, who makes sure for us that “As far as today’s glitch goes, I’m also sure that SpaceX will find the
    data they need, test it to prove cause, evaluate mitigation and devise a
    fix.”

    More importantly, is it necessary, and if it is not necessary, why is NASA still doing it?