Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SpaceX Launching Dragon Capsule to ISS Today

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the good-luck dept.

ISS 79

Today at 10:10am ET (15:10 UTC) SpaceX will be launching an unmanned Dragon capsule, perched atop a Falcon9 rocket, to the International Space Station. The capsule is filled with about 1,200 pounds of supplies for the ISS crew, and it is scheduled to arrive early Saturday morning. The return trip, on March 25, will bring over 2,000 pounds of cargo back to Earth when Dragon re-enters the atmosphere and falls into the Pacific Ocean. Both NASA and SpaceX are covering the launch live. For text and pictures, you can watch on SpaceX Launch Central or NASA's launch blog. For streaming video, check out NASA TV. Spaceflight Now has both, and their live updates provide a bit more detail. SpaceX's press kit for the mission (PDF) explains how the launch will proceed: "At 1 minute, 10 seconds after liftoff, Falcon 9 reaches supersonic speed. The vehicle will pass through the area of maximum aerodynamic pressure—max Q—15 seconds later. This is the point when mechanical stress on the rocket peaks due to a combination of the rocket’s velocity and resistance created by the Earth’s atmosphere. Around 170 seconds into the flight, two of the first-stage engines will shut down to reduce the rocket’s acceleration. (Its mass, of course, has been continually dropping as its propellants are being used up.) The remaining engines will cut off around 3 minutes into the flight—an event known as main-engine cutoff, or MECO. At this point, Falcon 9 is 80 kilometers (50 miles) high, traveling at 10 times the speed of sound. Five seconds after MECO, the first and second stages will separate. Seven seconds later, the second stage’s single Merlin vacuum engine ignites to begin a 6-minute burn that brings Falcon 9 and Dragon into low-Earth orbit."

cancel ×

79 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

milestone (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43044647)

This feels bigger and more important than a few communications satellites. Godspeed, Dragon!

Re:milestone (2)

xclr8r (658786) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045785)

Just saw this tweeted. SpaceX founder and CEO just tweeted: "Issue with Dragon thruster pods. System inhibiting three of four from initializing. About to command inhibit override." I wonder how this differs from NASA protocols.

Re:milestone (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43046447)

SpaceX founder and CEO just tweeted: "Issue with Dragon thruster pods. System inhibiting three of four from initializing. About to command inhibit override."

According to reliable inside sources, the Dragon capsule responded: "I'm sorry, Elon. I'm afraid I can't do that."

Good luck Dragon!! (3, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#43044719)

Looking forward to SpaceX making these flights "routine" (or at least as routine as spaceflight gets), and then scale up -- they've been having issues raising their production and launch rate up until now.

And blaming Forbes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43044931)

Yeh, they've been having problems, breaking promises, failing to launch etc.....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/05/23/what-nasa-risks-by-betting-on-elon-musks-spacex/

What I don't like about Elon Musk's companies, is when they have problems (like with Tesla), instead of fixing them, they go and attack the reporter. So that Forbes article was astroturf bombed, so much so, that the reported had to write a follow up piece.

Yet his comment are true, Musk has ramped the price up, failed to keep his promises, delivered late, causes NASA problems by failing to deliver. He has a track record, but its not a good one.

Re:And blaming Forbes (2)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045053)

Yet his comment are true, Musk has ramped the price up, failed to keep his promises, delivered late, causes NASA problems by failing to deliver. He has a track record, but its not a good one.

When has SpaceX 'caused NASA problems by failing to deliver'?

Falcon/Dragon is still the cheapest US option for ISS resupply and has a better recent reliability record than Russian launchers.

Re:And blaming Forbes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43048449)

When has SpaceX 'caused NASA problems by failing to deliver'?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/01/spacex-launch-cargo-delivery-mission/1955913/
http://www.businessinsider.com/possible-spacex-falcon-9-engine-explosion-2012-10

The space X rocket is a time bomb waiting to go off.

Musk has a history of suppressing reposting about his shoddy products through litigation.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/spacex-sues-expert-who-questioned-safety-falcon-9-rocket
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/02/tesla-vs-top-gear/

In short Musk is charlatan that needs to be trough in prison for the scams he's running the US government to make money.

Re:And blaming Forbes (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049123)

So it will be a day late. I guess all the astronauts are going to die because their pizza doesn't arrive on Saturday.

Re:And blaming Forbes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43051071)

The space X rocket is a time bomb waiting to go off.

It's a working orbital launch system with proven fault tolerance and recovery capabilities.

Musk has a history of suppressing reposting about his shoddy products through litigation.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/spacex-sues-expert-who-questioned-safety-falcon-9-rocket

Are you serious? Joseph Fragola was sending memos containing outright lies claiming that the first stage had blown up after separation, despite the existence of clear video from the second stage showing otherwise, and trying to get SpaceX to contract Valador's consulting services to counter "unfair perceptions" of the exact sort that he himself was spreading. He's lucky to have avoided jail.

Re:And blaming Forbes (1)

NixieBunny (859050) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045275)

That article is a couple years old. Falcon 9 appears to work well so far, including today's smooth-as-glass launch.

Sure, Musk doesn't understand how to deal with adversity (shoot the messenger?!?), but his companies are doing amazing things.

Re:And blaming Forbes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43048533)

Falcon 9 appears to work well so far, including today's smooth-as-glass launch.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/01/spacex-launch-cargo-delivery-mission/1955913/
http://www.businessinsider.com/possible-spacex-falcon-9-engine-explosion-2012-10

That's two failures in two launches.

Re:And blaming Forbes (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about a year and a half ago | (#43048793)

Hate to feed the trolls, but here you go:

http://www.businessinsider.com/possible-spacex-falcon-9-engine-explosion-2012-10

FTA:

As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon’s entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/01/spacex-launch-cargo-delivery-mission/1955913/

This mission is still in progress. What they have there are called "issues" or "problems", not "failure". At least, not yet.

That's two failures in two launches.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re:And blaming Forbes (1)

tibman (623933) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049697)

Dude, an engine blew and it didn't take down the whole rocket. How does that not make your geek-bits excited?

Re:And blaming Forbes (1)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045323)

Roger Krone, have you taken to posting anonymously and referring to 2 year old articles have you. Smacks of desperation as yet another launch goes off without exploding.

Show me a launch company anywhere in history who didn't have failures in the development phase, who didn't increase prices and got there on time. His price might have increased since the proposal stages, but he is still cheaper than the swollen, over-sized pork-barrel receivers.

Re:And blaming Forbes (4, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045453)

What I don't like about Elon Musk's companies, is when they have problems (like with Tesla), instead of fixing them, they go and attack the reporter. So that Forbes article was astroturf bombed, so much so, that the reported had to write a follow up piece.

And what is he supposed to do when a reporter lies and fabricates evidence? Was GM wrong to go after NBC for rigging truck fuel tanks to explode on Dateline?

Hell, I think Top Gear got off too light for faking Tesla test results.

I can appreciate a healthy skepticism. I can appreciate that someone might have a preference for something, say gas vs. electric. But if you are putting out a show that looks like a legitimate test, fake the results and then act like it doesn't matter because you're just entertainment, you're a fucking asshole and should be treated like one. It demonstrates a disgusting contempt for the truth.

Re:Good luck Dragon!! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045289)

Is that a production issue or a lack of sales issue?
My understanding was sales were limited until they could prove the product.

Re:Good luck Dragon!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43046195)

they've been having issues raising their production and launch rate up until now.

How about they been having issues justifying being overpaid for shitty performances.

1,200Lb are you kidding me?
We paid $1.6 billion dollars for this charlatan to ejaculate 12 drops of spunk up to the ISS (that's $133million per handjob).

Even the Russians can do 5,000Lb for about $50million per jerk.

Can't wait! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43044727)

Privileged to be working at the LCC today. First time here ever and there is a rocket launch. Can't wait!

As reliable as a Tesla (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43044731)

Well, given it's track record, there's a pretty good chance of an entertaining explosion. No doubt Elon Musk will claim its the fault of NASA, they didn't fill it up enough to make the journey.

Seriously, SpaceX has a lot of failures, if this one explodes, what will the ISS do?

cargo (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | about a year and a half ago | (#43044777)

Anybody knows why they'll carry so much cargo back? [yes, please google that for me]

Re:cargo (1)

skade88 (1750548) | about a year and a half ago | (#43044813)

Old experiments that need to go back. Trash they did not throw out the window.... etc...

Re:cargo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43045185)

Exactly. Cigarette butts should not be thrown out the window. Space is not your ashtray.

Re:cargo (1)

macson_g (1551397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045877)

The windows on the space station are difficult to open due to the pressure of AEther.

Re:cargo (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43052219)

Why don't they toss their garbage bags down towards earth? Wouldn't it enter the atmosphere within a few weeks and burn up?

Re:cargo (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year and a half ago | (#43052507)

Why don't they toss their garbage bags down towards earth? Wouldn't it enter the atmosphere within a few weeks and burn up?

Orbital mechanics doesn't work that way. Throwing them "down" would cause them to go into a more elliptical orbit that could eventually take the garbage bags above the station with a downward vector. They could wind up hitting the station itself, and maybe damaging it.

You have to throw the garbage bags behind you so that they no longer have the velocity to be in the same orbit as you.

Re:cargo (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43052599)

You have to throw the garbage bags behind you so that they no longer have the velocity to be in the same orbit as you.

That (actually, down/back at a 45Â angle) was my second thought.

Re:cargo (1)

T_Tauri (883646) | about a year and a half ago | (#43044863)

Supplies, equipment and medical samples are coming back. Can't find any more specific details...

From http://www.spacex.com/webcast/ [spacex.com] just now...

Re:cargo (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#43044885)

Downmass is an important capability nobody else can do (much of)

Re:cargo (3, Interesting)

slew (2918) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045361)

Anybody knows why they'll carry so much cargo back? [yes, please google that for me]

I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of conservation of mass. What do you think they do with the mass they launch up there? convert it to energy using a Mr. Fusion? Or do you think they would just jettison 2000lbs into some random orbit? One of the biggest logistical challenges the ISS has, is that w/o the Space Shuttle, there has been limited "downmass" capability.

Although most of the downmass is the results of experiements and broken/obsolete equipment, all the garbage and of course the "digested" food they take up there need to come back down to the ground too. Just like camping in many remote national parks, if you pack it in, you must pack it out (poop included).

Re:cargo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43045951)

Nobody packs out poop, that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day.
It's much easier to pack a spade with you than it is to lug around a sack of shit.
After all, if the pope can shit in the woods, why can't the rest of us?

Re:cargo (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | about a year and a half ago | (#43046489)

Bit o trivia for you - if you do a multi-day rafting trip down the Grand Canyon, you *have* to pack out your poop. Reason being with so many people doing that trip in what is a fairly small patch of land around the river, you would quickly see the waste becoming a nuisance.

Re:cargo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43046883)

Mount Whitney, too. At higher elevations the microbial processes can't support the thousands of tourists on that trail. They tried a solar powered composting toilet at the 10,000' foot level and had to empty it by pack train or helicopter. Pack it in, pack it out.

Space is different (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43046797)

You can't take a spade, dig a small black hole and squat over it.

Re:cargo (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045993)

I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of conservation of mass. What do you think they do with the mass they launch up there?

I thought they would just keep most of the stuff there. It's not like they lack... space. And yes, I know it means more energy for attitude control, but it also means longer periods without activations, right?

Or do you think they would just jettison 2000lbs into some random orbit?

No, they could throw it back to Earth. Obviously not at once, but in small burnable-on-reentry packets.

One of the biggest logistical challenges the ISS has, is that w/o the Space Shuttle, there has been limited "downmass" capability.

Although most of the downmass is the results of experiements and broken/obsolete equipment, all the garbage and of course the "digested" food they take up there need to come back down to the ground too. Just like camping in many remote national parks, if you pack it in, you must pack it out (poop included).

Difference is my poop doesn't incinerate itself if I trow it over the cliff. The case of broken/obsolete (and large or toxic) equipment and of experiment results are the only that make sense to me. Or would you please elaborate on where I'm mistaken?

Re:cargo (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43046219)

Difference is there's no "cliff" from which to throw the poop, they have to accelerate the poop until it gets into an orbit where it interacts with the atmosphere.

Before making further comments about space, i'd recommend playing Kerbal Space Program some.

Re:cargo (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43052257)

Difference is there's no "cliff" from which to throw the poop, they have to accelerate the poop until it gets into an orbit where it interacts with the atmosphere.

If you give a bag of shite a nudge down towards earth, why doesn't the bag keep moving (Newton's First Law) towards the Earth and then burn up in the atmosphere?

Re:cargo (1)

Barryke (772876) | about a year and a half ago | (#43052927)

Have you ever seen gravity being explained with a bowlingball on a trampoline? There is your answer. If you shoot a marble into a smaller orbit, it'll have an ellipse orbit and so it might hit ISS again.

Re:cargo (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055731)

If you shoot a marble

How elliptical? If highly so, then shouldn't it intersect with the atmosphere (thus burning up) in it's first orbit?

Re:cargo (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about a year and a half ago | (#43046439)

Well, for biological un-recyclable stuff, could you not fire it retrograde at 79m/s. That should get it to into an orbit with perogee of 100km.

What could possibly go wrong!

Re:cargo (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year and a half ago | (#43052713)

The Russians take the garbage out to burn up on re-entry. Dragon will bring stuff they don't want to burn up.

Re:cargo (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43046043)

The full manifest of return cargo is posted here:

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/005/returnmanifest.html

This is actually happening! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43044861)

The world is an increasingly disappointing place. But stories like this are just awesome. Let's just step back here, the story is about a fully automated rocket developed and launched for cheap by a private company, which is going to perform an automated docking procedure with a gigantic orbiting station to resupply its international crew of astronauts from countries who once blew eachother to bits but have somehow managed to remain largely peaceful for 60-70 years.

And it's routine enough by now that I had to click to expand the story on /.

Wow. Freaking badass.

Re:This is actually happening! (2)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045119)

Don't forget, you observed the story on an electronic device capable of downloading this story, associated videos, and inane commentary from across the country or the world, and receive it wirelessly on your end, and you probably had the gall to complain about download speed.

Re:This is actually happening! (3, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045319)

I also bitched about how much flash kills my phone battery :)

Re:This is actually happening! (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year and a half ago | (#43052735)

If you actually read the history and ignore the news papers, then you may realize that the USA has never been at war with Russia. In all the real wars, Russia was an ally.

try to watch a launch if you can (1)

peter303 (12292) | about a year and a half ago | (#43044949)

Both the launch company and congressman may have cle-in tickets.
I did this a couple years ago. we were at the standard press area about 3 miles away. The rocket flare was much brighter than i had anticipated- almost too bright to watch. However it was quieter than I had thought.

Re:try to watch a launch if you can (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43045241)

I want to see their Big F***ing Rocket [nextbigfuture.com] launch (a.k.a. Merlin 2). Supposedly, it's similar to the F-1s used on the Apollo program. A Falcon XX is on the drawing board for up to 140 tons to orbit. By mass, a new space station like the ISS could be launched with 4 of those. The ISS is supposed to take 40 flights [wikipedia.org] to construct.

This is a great day for the private space program (1)

lexman098 (1983842) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045105)

Go paceX!

Re:This is a great day for the private space progr (1)

pomakis (323200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045175)

Yeah, what's with that? Did they run out of paint or something?

Re:This is a great day for the private space progr (4, Funny)

katleman (704118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045315)

I guess they don't give a S anymore

Re:This is a great day for the private space progr (1)

medcalf (68293) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045407)

There was nothing wrong with the paint. The rocket is white. So are the wisps of vapor partially obscuring the S clearly painted on the rocket.

Re:This is a great day for the private space progr (1)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045223)

At least the only head to roll will be the chap tasked with painting the name on the side.

Mission control looks so informal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43045189)

No suits and ties anymore... damn hippies

uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43045259)

what went wrong?

Re:uh oh (1)

blueturffan (867705) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045299)

I believe the solar panels on Dragon were supposed to deploy but did not. There was a lot of chatter I did not understand and then a generic "the vehicle is orbital but experienced an anomaly, than you for joining us" message.

Although I'm also curious to know exactly what went wrong, I think it's wise of SpaceX to cut the feed until they have a solid understanding of what happened and what they can do to get the mission back on track.

Re:uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43046545)

Given that it's Elon Musk's vehicle, it's likely he'll publish a lengthy blog post asserting that the Mission Control engineers took it on a lengthy joyride through Manhattan, and failed to fuel it fully, and that's why nothing works the way it should.

Re:uh oh (1)

Soluzar (1957050) | about a year and a half ago | (#43047207)

If that proved to be true, and there were logs to prove the vehicle was not properly fuelled, then it would be entirely the fault of said mission control engineers that the vehicle did not perform as anticipated.

Whappen ?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43045265)

What just happened ?

Live updates then ... nothing. Way to inform us, SpaceX.

Brief post launch commentary reporting a problem (4, Informative)

jcgam69 (994690) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045273)

In the comments that followed the launch, after orbital insertion, a problem was reported with the Dragon capsule. The downlink from the spacecraft was broken. No further details were provided.

Re:Brief post launch commentary reporting a proble (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43045449)

Issue with Dragon thruster pods. System inhibiting three of four from initializing. About to command inhibit override.

Re:Brief post launch commentary reporting a proble (2)

jcgam69 (994690) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045487)

SpaceX founder and CEO just tweeted: "Issue with Dragon thruster pods. System inhibiting three of four from initializing. About to command inhibit override." Solar array deployment was delayed while engineers attempt to regain attitude control of Dragon.

Re:Brief post launch commentary reporting a proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43045507)

Elon Musk tweeted this 12 minutes ago:
elonmusk Issue with Dragon thruster pods. System inhibiting three of four from initializing. About to command inhibit override.

Re:Brief post launch commentary reporting a proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43046297)

So it sounds like there was a glitch in the capsule's computers that was preventing the thrusters from initializing. They sudo'd that right up, fixed enough thrusters to continue and deployed the solar panels. Mission's still on.

Broder Strikes Back (3, Funny)

guttentag (313541) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045285)

Rumor has it John Broder is about to release a story that claims Dragon won't make it all the way to the space station. The capsule SpaceX lent him died somewhere in Connecticut and had to be towed back to Cape Canaveral. Alleged leaked picture here [abcnews.com] . No word on whether Musk will issue a rebuttal.

Re:Broder Strikes Back (1)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045413)

Sadly it looks like you're not completely wrong. Word is that the solar panels haven't deployed. It seems that they're trying to figure out if the module has enough battery power to attempt an ISS docking anyway. I don't know if the spacecraft has an ability to charge from the ISS, or if they would conceivably attempt a spacewalk to deploy the panels, but I'm sure they wouldn't risk stranding a capsule with flat batteries on one of the ISS's docking rings.

latest log (1)

Brit_in_the_USA (936704) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045387)


from "Spaceflight Now"
FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1527 GMT (10:27 a.m. EST)
"It appears that although it achieved Earth orbit, Dragon is experiencing some kind problem right now," said John Insprucker, SpaceX's Falcon 9 product manager. We'lll have to learn about the nature of what happened. According to procedure, we expect a press conference to be held a few hours from now. At that time, further info may be available."

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1524 GMT (10:24 a.m. EST)
ANOMALY. SpaceX is reporting some type of anomaly on the Dragon spacecraft. Deployment of the solar arrays was supposed to occur at T+plus 11 minutes, 45 seconds, but on-board cameras did not show the panels unfurl as planned. SpaceX's webcast cut away from the solar array view and went to a slate.

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1520 GMT (10:20 a.m. EST)
T+plus 10 minutes, 10 seconds. Dragon has separated from the Falcon 9 upper stage.

Re:latest log (1)

Brit_in_the_USA (936704) | about a year and a half ago | (#43045455)


FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1543 GMT (10:43 a.m. EST)
SpaceX founder and CEO just tweeted: "Issue with Dragon thruster pods. System inhibiting three of four from initializing. About to command inhibit override." Solar array deployment was delayed while engineers attempt to regain attitude control of Dragon.

Re:latest log (1)

alien9 (890794) | about a year and a half ago | (#43046275)

Solar array deployment successful.

Re:latest log (1)

Brit_in_the_USA (936704) | about a year and a half ago | (#43047303)


FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1736 GMT (12:36 p.m. EST)
A NASA official says three Dragon thruster pods are required to approach the International Space Station.
FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1726 GMT (12:26 p.m. EST)
The Dragon spacecraft's Draco thrusters are mounted on four pods. Two of the pods contain five thrusters and the other two contain four thrusters. According to SpaceX, the pods are positioned to provide complete control of the spacecraft's direction of motion (X, Y and Z axis), as well as orientation (roll, pitch and yaw).

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1710 GMT (12:10 p.m. EST)
SpaceX has released the following statement:
"Falcon 9 lifted off as planned and experienced a nominal flight. After Dragon achieved orbit, the spacecraft experienced an issue with a propellant valve. One thruster pod is running. We are trying to bring up the remaining three. We did go ahead and get the solar arrays deployed. Once we get at least 2 pods running, we will begin a series of burns to get to station."

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1702 GMT (12:02 p.m. EST)
Engineers are working to bring up the two other Dragon thruster pods (Nos. 2 and 4).

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1650 GMT (11:50 a.m. EST)
Dragon has extended its power-generating solar panels.

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1640 GMT (11:40 a.m. EST)
"Thruster pod 3 tank pressure trending positive. Preparing to deploy solar arrays," Musk just tweeted. At least two thruster pods are needed to deploy the power-generating solar arrays, which stretch 54 feet tip-to-tip.

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1622 GMT (11:22 a.m. EST)
SpaceX says one thruster pod is working, and two are "preferred" to deploy solar arrays. Four thruster pods are on the Dragon spacecraft. "We are working to bring up the other two in order to plan the next series of burns to get to station," a SpaceX spokesperson says.

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1612 GMT (11:12 a.m. EST)
NASA spokesperson Pat Ryan says flight controllers in Houston and at SpaceX's headquarters in California are studying whether they may need to change the sequence of rendezvous burns to approach the space station. "It is a possibility that part of the response to the issue may be a rearrangement of the planned burn sequences for the Dragon spacecraft," Ryan said in a televised update from mission control in Houston.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk is tweeting updates on the situation. His latest update: "About to pass over Australia ground station and command inhibit override."

Musk is referring to an attempt to recover at least one of the three disabled thruster pods.

Dragon uses 18 Draco rocket jets to control its orientation and change its orbit to approach the space station.

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1606 GMT (11:03 a.m. EST)
"Holding on solar array deployment until at least two thruster pods are active," Musk just tweeted.

Re:latest log (1)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049347)

All four thruster pods are now online and fully operational. They are transferring to a higher orbit as of 20 minutes ago according to Elon on Twitter.

Elon Musk â@elonmusk

Thruster pods one through four are now operating nominally. Preparing to raise orbit. All systems green.

*UPDATE* (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43045477)

From spaceflightnow:

SpaceX founder and CEO just tweeted: "Issue with Dragon thruster pods. System inhibiting three of four from initializing. About to command inhibit override."
Solar array deployment was delayed while engineers attempt to regain attitude control of Dragon.

Newest info (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43045549)

Apparently 3 of the 4 thruster pods didn't turn on, they are going to give a remote kick to make it get going. Failing that they'll send up Jeremy Clarkson to push it to the ISS

Solar Panels Arrays Deployed (2)

blueturffan (867705) | about a year and a half ago | (#43046259)

Musk just tweeted that the solar arrays have been deployed. I assume that means that they have at least two thruster pods working and are able to maintain attitude control of the Dragon.

It will be interesting to learn the cause of the anomaly.

Re:Solar Panels Arrays Deployed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43046929)

Forgot to pull one of the "Remove Before Flight" pins!

Re:Solar Panels Arrays Deployed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43047583)

Probably li-ion batteries

Dragon encountered a thruster issue... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43048927)

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_03_01_2013_p0-554709.xml&p=1

Re:Dragon encountered a thruster issue... (1)

mknewman (557587) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049473)

Elon Musk has reported that thrusters 1 and 4 are now online. https://twitter.com/elonmusk [twitter.com] Good news for SpaceX. I hope they make this a success.

Re:Dragon encountered a thruster issue... (1)

mknewman (557587) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049493)

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/ [spacex.com] All thrusters now operational.

wtf is a pound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43052831)

are you guy seriously still not using metric?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?