ISS Crew Enters The Dragon
The ISS crew opened the hatch with Dragon at 5:53 am EDT this morning and are now preparing Dragon to have its cargo unloaded. Watch their activities live
– Photos: ISS Crew Enters The Dragon
The ISS crew opened the hatch with Dragon at 5:53 am EDT this morning and are now preparing Dragon to have its cargo unloaded. Watch their activities live
– Photos: ISS Crew Enters The Dragon
I watch this and wonder if it’s how people felt watching Gemini leading up to Apollo; it feels new and revolutionary even if it is basically a bigger Gemini launched on kerolox. I watch it on my iPad and it feels like the future. No patience for killjoys.
Actually Joe, Gemini launched on Titan II’s which were not kerosene/LOX. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
(Actually I do know that – I was likening the Dragon to Gemini then threw in the kerosene and that was, err, sloppy. How embarrassing.)
Watching Gemmi was wonderful! Only no IPods. I would wait for life magazine to come in the mail and steal it, leaving my parents wondering what happened to their subscription, while I looked at the pictures over and over again and dreamed lolol.
I’m dreaming again Thanks to Spacex lol
Then, like now you could feel all the future possiblitities!
Feel it????????? Lol
DTARS,
I went the same route, sort of in reverse. I actually had never looked at a Time magazine (past the covers) until Gemini. I saw that first cover and it was so beautiful. I got royal hell for cutting those pages out of the magazine (“When you start paying for the magazine, you can do whatever you…..“). So for all future “space” issues, I just waited a couple of weeks and then asked if I could have those pages. I wish it had been better quality paper. After the fist few months I learned to keep them out of the sunlight, since the ones on my wall faded. I feel sorry for young people today because, for all of their wonderful gadgets, I don’t think they have anything as inspiring as what Gemini and Apollo were for us. I hadn’t paid any attention to Mercury; it was something distant and for older people; but after seeing those first Gemini pictures, and then soon after seeing Ed White floating in space on Gemini 4, I went straight to the library to catch up, and there was no looking back. I know lots of people who got interested in space by way of science fiction. For me it was actually the other way around. I guess I just keep doing things backwards, but I get there in the end.
Dragon is indeed the new Gemini. Hail to the Dragon!
Steve
Speaking as someone who was six years old and saw a Gemini on the pad before it launched, the answer is yes it does!
No patience for killjoys.
Absolutely.
Joe
Cool pictures from Gemini, burned into my brain were Life magazines pictures of Ageana SP and Gemini and two Gemini’s doing fly-bys. These are so memorable because it was the first time I EVER saw a spacecraft in space! 🙂 in color! and of course the first space walks 🙂
Joe, won’t it be every bit as cool as watching a shuttle land to see a dragon come dropping out of space for the first time, blazing on a cushion of smoke and fire or seeing musk put that first reused engine on that test stand. Lots of cool stuff to look forward too lol.
Flash back
Born in Sept. 1955
I recall driving with my father to check the Jobs, home builder, and him showing me the black and white, newspaper front page pictures of the first Russian dog in space and the first american chimp. 🙂
Sure would be cool if Elon Musk, when he is on the Charley Rose Show again, gets real bold with his Mars plan and ruffles lots of dusty feathers of some of these old space birds and congress critters lol, Make some noise the people and congress might hear.
A little boasting can get a lot of attention 🙂 lol
What if Elon had a detailed Mars Exploration/settlement plan with a cost estimate that cost way less than just building SLS and he started boosting that he would do this and that for this much and that much. Define the mission/rail line to mars. Maybe build, lay, the moon tracks at the same time? Similar stuff right?
How could THEY not listen?
Dogstar3
I don’t think formulating an inner solar system plan now is folly. Elon and Robert will have us in Leo soon enough. Time to think/plan what we can do. Stop waiting.
Folly is saying little or nothing while our space future, railroad money gets spent on that unsustainable SLS! Marcel’s apollo like stimulus money that never gets a rocket off the ground.
Oh if you add falcon one with falcon nine flights both with similar avionics and engines, you get pretty close to your 10 flight rule.
I remember that reporter, I don’t know his name?, that followed space shuttle his whole career, making fun of Spacex wanting to take their little one engine rocket and strap nine of them together. He just laughed and laughed, then said something like they don’t know anything about flying rockets like we do. 🙂
Mr C.
A funny thought I get when you compare the amount of Apollo money spent being similar to the money spent on our highway interest system.
Lol If all that SLS money is going to be wasted anyway, it should be used to electrify one lane on our interstate system now, which would encourage more electric cars less oil use, less need to send soldiers over seas,
And helping us to fight global warming,
Just another reason why we need a smart future space plan so that the people can feel their space money is a wise investment.
Joe Q
Its not just the SLS money – its significant defense spending as well.
Expect that the SLS money for “exploration” will vanish shortly after SLS does. They’ll blame Obama for it, while applying it to other budgets (primarily defense, and surprise new weapons systems that we’ll suddenly have a immediate need for).
Following SLS cancellation, there will be an attempt to fear monger up more of a need for more “cost plus” to grab budget to keep it alive.
DTARS,
Something in your last post triggered an oddball thought in my little brain: When will Elon Musk himself get to fly in space? We just know it’s just got to be part of his personal agenda. I keep thinking of Robert Heinlein’s D.D. Harriman, who made the first Moon flight happen (it was private, not government!) and then his investors wouldn’t let him fly himself (which had been his real life-long dream) because he was too important to the company (and their money).
Steve
Nothing like that new car smell.
Hmmm…. that is usually called off gassing by NASA!
Folks:
Don Pettit likened the Dragon as the ‘Golden Spike’ in the railroad to orbit (my paraphrase). Brilliant, Don! Maybe thats what Spacex should call this ship. I mean, hey, every dragon has a name, right?
tnker
I really disagree. One of the worst things SpaceX could do would be to give every Dragon capsule a name. Do you name your car? Or your pick-up? It’s in SpaceX’s interest to promote “normalcy” with what they’re doing. Giving it a name encourages emotional attachment. They should strictly be promoting the mindset of contract providing a service.
NASA should follow this policy with the Orion capsules and launches too. Sure, name the space-built ship that goes to Mars or the Moon. But a piece of hardware? A capsule that takes Astronauts or Cargo from A to B? How silly.
But then again, this is the Agency filled with marketing geniuses that for some reason thought “Curiosity” was a name worthy of their $2 billion nuclear powered Mars Rover.
It call comes down to public perception, and a name is the first thing people hear about. NASA, outsourcing its naming to children for some reason (to inspire them supposedly, but let me tell you as someone who grew up with the Shuttle and is a scientist now, its never worked), forgot about that a long time ago. Give SpaceX capsules a serial number like an airplane or the internal numbers for the Shuttles. But that’s it.
I have to agree.These ships will be replaced in the not to distend future and having names on each one may cause some problems when the time comes.
You’re worried Houston will whine if they don’t get one?
I could not disagree more with your comments, Jonathan, and just had to make, what for me, is an extremely rare reply on Keith’s web site.
As someone who has communicated the story of space to the average person for nearly 30 years, I believe NASA with the help of schoolchildren could not have selected a better name than “Curiosity” for its next Mars Rover. Giving names to ships is not only an historic tradition, but it helps the public connect to the voyage in more personal way.
I would cheer if SpaceX gave each of their Dragon capsules a specific nickname. Their job is not promote normalcy. Their job is to deliver cargo and crew, yet there’s nothing wrong with them showing the kind of spirit, enthusiasm and even whimsy (e.g. block of cheese) that seems to be part of their work culture. I hope the crewed versions will have snappy radio call signs and would be disappointed if they don’t.
I think it’s great that each of the ATV’s have individual names. And since I live here on the Space Coast, although I was used to calling the orbiters by their numbers, I wouldn’t trade having the names of Enterprise, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour (British spelling and all…) for anything. I’ll even add that I always believed it was a mistake for NASA to call the first orbital workshop Skylab — which if I recall, historians can correct me, was selected in part to show that NASA was moving into more routine Earth orbit operations in place of the mythological expeditions that were Apollo. And don’t get me started on the whole Space Station Alpha deal (would like to hear Keith’s memories of that some day).
And BTW, I know plenty of people who have names for their cars and trucks, both here in the South and up North where I from in Minnesota.
And with all due respect for your opinion, I can’t tell you how wrong you are when you seem to indicate that spaceflight and NASA education programs to inspire kids to pursue aerospace careers have “never worked.” I was one of those kids. My cousin’s oldest son was one of those. Two kids I knew in my church back home were. My best college buddies at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University — and I suspect many of my fellow graduates that year including astronaut Nicole Stott — were as well. Three local Merritt Island high school kids I had on my local Space Talk radio show a few weeks ago who are involved in the CUBESATS program, are the most recent examples.
With thanks for letting me share my thoughts.
Jim Banke
Cape Canaveral
Jim:
My first thought about naming Dragons was to name them after American science fiction authers like the Robert A. Heinlein, the Anne McCaffery (for her Dragon Riders of Pern series), The Issac Asimov…
You want inspiration here? This would cost so little but the return could be great.
tinker
Jonathan,
I see it differently. Do these names mean anything to you?
Freedom 7
Liberty Bell 7
Friendship 7
Aurora 7
Sigma 7
Faith 7
Molly Brown
Enterprise
Atlantis
Discovery
Challenger
Columbia
Endeavour
I suspect these names instilled a lot of meaning and memories into the hearts of a great many people.If we started listing navy ship names, we’d overfill all my hard disks, and as for non-military boats…And, of course, we mustn’t forget the good old Millenium Falcon.
If we want to create a better connection and attitude with the public, naming our space vehicles, stations, habs, anything in space that holds people and/or their property, just might be a good place to begin. I’m sure you’ve watched umpteen Shuttle launches. Can you image the NASA launch announcer saying, “and liftoff! of another NASA Shuttle to…” as opposed to “and liftoff! of the Space Shuttle Atlantis to….”
And it‘s not just HSF assets that benefit from having names. How boring would a science mission commentary be if the missions/vehicles didn’t have names? By the way, in case you’ve forgotten, the Curiosity name resulted from a contest for school children, one of the more effective student outreach ideas NASA has had. Would you be comfortable telling the little girl who won the contest that her suggestion was not “worthy”? That would certainly alienate her, and everyone she knows, from NASA and space for life. Even just explaining where a name came from is an effective outreach exercise by which people both learn and gain interest through a more informed connection.
And it’s not just the public to consider. To the people who work on the spacecraft, rovers, ISS modules, anything and everything that gets launched into space, these programs are something that they commit years to, often entire careers, and when the finished item goes out the door, a little piece of stays in the hearts of everyone who contributed to it. To these people a name can be very important, like the name of a close friend.
Well, enough said. I’ve given you some reasons to maybe reconsider your position (and don’t forget all those Federation Starships!).
Steve
“Can you image the NASA launch announcer saying, “and liftoff! of another NASA Shuttle to…” as opposed to “and liftoff! of the Space Shuttle Atlantis to….” “
“and liftoff! of shuttle flight one hundred and twenty nine to the International Space Station….” I wouldn’t have a problem with that. To me, using the vehicle name, not the mission number, is like saying “same again”. Whereas “129” is saying “We do this for a living now.”
After all, no one complained about “and liftoff! of Apollo 11…”
(That said, I don’t mind that the shuttles were named. They were “spaceships” in the classic sense and the (functional) core of the launch system. Capsules are payload during launch. My beef with NASA naming things (well, other than the awful awful awful names) is that it’s never Curiosity-1. Coz we know there’ll never be a -2 -3 -4.)
“Do these names mean anything to you?”
Freedom & Friendship 7. Eagle (which you missed). And the 6 shuttles.
The rest are… meh… even if I’m interested in their missions. (Apollo 17 is just “Apollo 17”. Sans wikipedia I couldn’t tell you the name of the lander/capsule even though I’ve probably read it a hundred times.)
(“Molly Brown” is a new one on me. I didn’t realise any of the Gemini capsules were named. [Oh, looked it up, they banned names after G3.])
[So I had to look up the Apollo 17 LM. Challenger. Yeah, well done Paul.]
Paul,
In case you didn’t see it in your look-up, Grissom chose the name based on “The Unsinkable Molly Brown,” a woman who survived the Titanic disaster. They did a whole Broadway play about her story with that name. This was, of course, because his Liberty Bell 7 sunk in the ocean after splash down. There’s a debate, still open in some minds, about whether its hatch blew early from a malfunction or because he grabbed something at the wrong time. Grissom swore to the end that he never pulled the hatch handle. NASA finally officially accepted his word.
I didn’t include Eagle in the list because then I would have been bound to list all of the LMs and CSMs. Besides, it has long bothered me that everybody over the age of 20 knows the phrase “The Eagle has landed,” but what percentage of them know what it means, and of those, how many can repeat the complete statement that it came from (without Google)? I mean, it’s only one of the most important events in the history of our species.
One distinction that I had intended to make in the previous post but didn’t get around to (I’m typing with one arm right now), was the difference between one-shot and reused spacecraft. I included the Mercury capsules and Molly Brown because they were the first. The Shuttles were refurbishable/reusable, so a name made more sense. If we could asks the teams who worked the Shuttles, I’ll bet that those names were a source of much pride to them. I have been thinking lately more and more in terms of reusable spacecraft (including Dragon soon) and I think naming the reusable spacecraft is the way to go, because pretty soon, astronauts and controllers are going to get sick of repeating spacecraft registration numbers so they’re going to end up using unofficial nicknames or abbreviations, and if volume picks up and progress is made, like we hope, then identifying the spacecraft is going to be the norm, not a mission identifier. It’s friendlier and more personal, and probably makes for better PR. But there has to be some unique identifier; consider how ATC talks to aircraft. It’s a flight number, not a vehicle name, but there has to be some brief, unique identifier, specially when there is any significant flight volume. I think it would be better to set a standard now, before it becomes an issue.
But my bottom line: I’m not going to worry about what we call or don’t call them, as long as we keep getting more and better spacecraft up where we belong. Besides, this will probably end up being a trivial issue compared to which official single language is chosen for Space Traffic Control. To be honest, the Soviets/Russians did almost everything of importance in space first. Are we prepared to speak Russian only in space? Consider that they learned English for ATC and they are the only people who have been in space non-stop. I don’t like the idea that it will be a matter of nationalism, but I think we all know that’s almost certainly how it will work out.
Steve
So, what kind of cheese this time?
Other coverage notes Musk talking of the Big Rocket (after Falcon Heavy) using “new fuels”, which is worrisome:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012…
One hopes he’s not falling for the madness-inducing siren song of LH2.
IIUC, for 2nd stage, the penalty is smaller and the performance boost is higher… I’m with you on “Siren Song” though… well put.
Yeah, I hope he’s only talking about the second stage. I’d be very disappointed to find out he wants to use hydrogen for a first stage, or an SSTO.
More than once he’s mentioned methane or methane fuel blends and a staged combustion engine.
I don’t think it’ll be LH2. Musk has heavily hinted towards using methane, and there’s some indications that their Merlin engines could run on methane with fairly minimal modifications.
I recall seeing the same thing. Of course, one advantage of Methane is that it can be generated on Mars. Anyone want to bet against Elon thinking ahead?
Could Draco thrusters or super Draco thrusters be converted to methane as well?????
I recall Zubrin getting upset when Griffon decided not to use methane on the next moon lander because they are harder to light?
Methane a gas already in our biosphere, not trapped underground. Call the dairy farmers setup some green methane capture programs, use solar energy to provide the power to Seperate your rocket fuel oxygen from water. Then Musk could say that most if not all Spacex rocket fuel is environmentally friendly. Sure sounds like Smart PR to me.
I recall Musk in an interview where the commentator made fun of the fact that Musk was in the solar energy business, green electric car business and gas guzzling rocket business.
How does methane compare to kerosene in performance?
Methane has a slightly higher Isp than Kerosene, in the order of 10 sec (many variables at work). However methane tankage and engines might be slightly heavier, so things even out insofar as overall performance is concerned, and a methane booster might cost a bit more.
Some feel that a key advantage of methane is its availability off-world (i.e., in the Martian atmosphere, gas giant moons, etc.); it’s also somewhat friendlier to the environment.
Pretty decent study comparing the two fuels was done in Europe in the early 2000s:
http://www.dlr.de/Portaldat….
One of the more interesting sentences in the conclusion: “…if significantly lower operational and maintenance expenses of a re-usable methane rocket engine are achievable, a methane powered fly-back booster could get competitive in comparison to a kerosene powered solution.”
Still, there are a lot of engineering issues to resolve for re-usable engines running on either fuel.
Long story short, we need more experience with methane.
BTW, the Dracos could not be adapted to use methane. They run on monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. In their application, hypergolic propellants make sense; methane, I’m afraid, does not. Also, a complete redesign of the engines would be necessary.
OS
I wouldn’t be surprised if they were looking at engines that would work well enough on two or more fuel options, but they would, of course, have to be long-term depot-storable “fuels.” If a diesel car runs dry it’s a bigger problem than if regular unleaded gas is your fuel. But the biggest difference is, all else failing, you can get out of your car and push, which is not an option 100 miles above Earth’s surface. Based on this simple logic and the way that Musk appears to think, I can’t see him going to hydrogen, which is only practical for one-way (from Earth) missions requiring a little extra oomph. But the big thing is that LH2 moves you further away from establishing reusability, when Musk (and almost everybody else) has set designing for reusability as a major goal.
Steve
I believe Elon was talking about using LH2 only in upper stages. First stages would continue to use Lox/Kerosene. Von Braun did the math on that and figured that, for both economic and physical reasons, LH2 was a poor choice for a first stage.
Note that Elon has also mentioned nuclear thermal propulsion for deep-space missions. Interestingly, the technology exists to bring those engines to maturity within a few years based on work done in the 60s and 70s. Of course using them within the atmosphere would be a non-starter.
OS,
That technology has been a few years away from ready for decades, as you imply, but misinformation has caused it to be passed by every time someone proposes it again. NERVA, all by itself, took the US probably 75% or better of the way to a usable system, then it was canceled for money reasons, despite everything that James Webb could do to get it further funded, and then killed off thoroughly for paranoid reasons. Even if Musk could come up with the money, how can he get around the public ignorance and paranoia, which would eventually get it tied up in court? Even those in the regulatory agencies, who supposedly know better, won’t let him use it anywhere near Earth, let alone in a first stage.
Riddle me this: Why is it that democracy works so well when the majority has the answer wrong?Steve
“technology exists to bring those engines to maturity within a few years based on work done in the 60s and 70s.”
It’s almost like a bunch of really useful technology was thrown away to chase the next shiny thing.
(Replying to the base note so as to acknowledge and thank all who replied.) Ah, yes, methane! That makes a great deal more sense. Perhaps propane would be even better as it is much easier to keep liquid.
But surely not methane for any possible Martian applications? Methane is a trace gas on Mars. It would be much easier to electrolyze the abundant CO2 into LOX and liquid carbon monoxide fuel for a return from the surface of Mars than to collect methane there.
Not collect, cook. CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + H2O, electrolyse the water and recycle the H2, use the CH4 and O2 in the rocket. Zubrin’s idea.
If I was one of the ISS astronauts, I would unload Dragon and then poke around for the ‘secret compartment’. Maybe SpaceX left a little extra in there this time for their ‘after success party’.
Wouldn’t it be funny if SpaceX opened their compartment after recovery and found just a note that said “THANKS for the cheese and beer!- Cheers!” 😉
LibsOn wrote post I totally agree with in other Spacex thread.
Thought I’d say again that settlement and exploration should NOT be two different things commercial Leo, NASA BEO
We need the strengths of both, working together to attack the challenges in Leo and BEO.
All the different groups need a plan where they all work together!!!!!
We at Inner Solar System railroad Inc. working together with Spacex and with important NASA R and D support, completely agree with your comment.
We must not let space exploration be hijacked by the old porky ways. But find a way to explore and settle simultaneously using this cots model so well demonstrated by by NASA and Spacex. Rather than all these sour grapes, we should all be celebrating. The new cheaper model and be trying to figure out how to do more in space not less. Spacex has proved that we can explore more in the future not less.
All we have to do is plan for it and persuade others, congress using this example.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientistt to realize if you want to solve difficult problems, you need to pool all your strengths not divide them.
DTARS:
I remember the Life Magazines from the barber shop when I was a kid. I endured bowl cuts until I was ten when my father found out that I didn’t like getting my hair cut, I was in it for the pictures! He was stunned. So, I didn’t have to get my hair cut anymore, but I still went to the barbers each week with my father, like church, for the pictures. 🙂
DTARS, I feel the same way, hopeful. Let’s spread it around some, eh?
Like church? Yet again, I’ll post this little snippet from Ray Bradbury at the Viking 1 landing on Mars at JPL in 1976:
Ray Bradbury @ the Viking 1 landing
tinker
The most amazing and perhaps jarring image in the entire video is just how different the NASA and SpaceX control centers are (starting at 0:15).
NASA’s looks like something out of the Mainframe era. It’s computer terminals are veritable walls isolating controllers from the world. It doesn’t look advanced. It looks old, clunky and obsolete. It’s dark and disorganized. Those terminals look to be hiding CRT screens. I’ve been in computer labs with more sophistication.SpaceX… slick, organized, bright and simple. Just rows of tables with identical flatscreen monitors and not a computer tower in sight. It is clearly modern networking on top of a control center scheme pioneered by NASA decades ago. It’s manifestly modern. It looks professional.Elon Musk knows images are everything. Of all the images of the Dragon launch so far, this is the one I will remember.
Today is for enjoying the amazing experience of seeing potential turn into reality. Congratulations to everyone at SpaceX and NASA who did such good work to make today possible! Congratulations, too, to all those who have worked in the aerospace industry or in research and development over the decades and slowly built up the technological base that made this possible. SpaceX put it all together, but it is our whole civilization that should be proud of what we have accomplished today, and where it points to for the future.
Mr. Booker
Your case about dragon having all it’s electric panels on it’s trunk is very weak.
Spacex has engineers in it’s employ. Do you not think that if they wanted to make an opportunity for them selves to use dragon as a robot mars lander that they would not figure a way to carry extra solar panel packs on dragon capsules skin. Or cut some extra hatches were the extra panels telescope out?
I have suggested using dragon as a mars landing vehicle that carries small rovers by making a cut away heat shield with a rover hatch on the bottom to lower something down once landed.
Once dragon has it’s super Draco landing system working here on earth. Spacex still has engineers in it’s employee that will need things to do like figure ways to use their systems to make us a multi planet Species. So I find it very reasonable for them to let dragon keep developing into other things using their existing technology.
Your suggestion that red dragon is just science fiction sounds funny and negative to me.
Shouldn’t good engineering be a case where you adapt to new environments from what you have, similar to the way biological creatures evolve and adapt. Isn’t that the practical cost effective way to do it as a-posse to starting from scratch every time????
Elon is on record as offering to redesign the trunk to be whatever is needed to fulfill a mission. Nor does there seem to be any reason why the trunk could not be replaced with a service module, a la Apollo. I suspect there are already tentative designs for a Dragon SM; for operations out to GEO or Lagrange Points, it makes a lot of sense, and in the long run, ISS isn’t Dragon’s only potential destination, just the first and lowest.
Thanks I have asked that question about using refuel second stages and trunks as service modules before. Seems Mr. Musk has lots of plans he will try to proceed with regardless 🙂