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 Cargo Capsule Reaches International Space Station

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the home-sweet-home dept.

Space 89

Despite having some trouble with maneuvering thrusters a few days ago, SpaceX's Dragon cargo capsule has successfully reached the International Space Station. from the article: "Astronauts aboard the outpost used the station's robotic arm to pluck the capsule from orbit at 5:31 a.m. EST as the ships sailed 250 miles over northern Ukraine. Flight controllers at NASA's Mission Control in Houston then stepped in to drive the capsule to its berthing port on the station's Harmony connecting node."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


I hope they brought a HOSTS file with them (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43063711)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.

Disproof of all apk's statements:

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

That's the kind of martial arts I practice.

Re:I hope they brought a HOSTS file with them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43063797)

I admire this guy's persistence.

Can anyone say what is this all about?

Re:I hope they brought a HOSTS file with them (-1, Offtopic)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43063807)

Don't feed the trolls. Do us all a favor. Drag that slider to the left so that you don't even see -1 posts.

Answer this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43063839)

And exactly HOW is it a "troll"???

Re:I hope they brought a HOSTS file with them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43063849)

How comical! How comical! They're all 100% incorrect. Gamemaker reigns supreme. If they were True Puter Experts, like me, they'd be using Gamemaker!

Turn to dust and die now!

Re:I hope they brought a HOSTS file with them (-1, Offtopic)

Goaway (82658) | about a year ago | (#43063881)

It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes.

Re:I hope they brought a HOSTS file with them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43063893)

Tabloid newspapers have speculated for years that APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. Too bad we didn't believe them sooner!

You may think free speech ensures your right to talk openly about APK's negative influence on our society, but his powerful /etc/hosts file along with Monsanto have, in the past, used crippling libel lawsuits to silence brave citizens who did exactly that.

Extra volumes of the Dead Sea Scrolls exist-- and they're filled with predictions about Project MKUltra. Guess what? They turned out to be true! However, Monsanto has purchased them all, and they're being hidden in deep vaults under Three Mile Island.

It's a slippery slope. If people don't admit this fact, we will all be in big trouble.

USA Today recently ran a well-researched story titled, “Project MKUltra: the George W Bush deception.”

Consider the facts, and ask yourself: are you willing to let them get away with this? The answer should be a resounding no.

Here's a hint (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43064383)

Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [slashdot.org], where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1.

Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls.

Nice work ... (1)

Kittenman (971447) | about a year ago | (#43063789)

TFA was saying that with the demise of the Shuttle, only Dragon now has the reusability aspect. Anyone know if Orbital Sciences' freighter is reusable, or a throwaway?

Re:Nice work ... (3, Insightful)

ender06 (913978) | about a year ago | (#43063835)

Orbital Sciences' Cygnus freighter is one time use, so throwaway. Don't understand all the throwaway freighters, it's like throwing away your semi-truck after every shipment.

Re:Nice work ... (2, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43063863)

it's like throwing away your semi-truck after every shipment.

Yeah... no.

Re:Nice work ... (3, Funny)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43064535)

I don't see why you disagree. In many cases, the "load" is the trailer. And so, yes, truckers do leave the trailer behind on trips, throwing away the cargo container with shipments. I've seen people in rural Alaska make houses from the containers that things come it. It's cheaper than paying to ship them back once delivered.

Re:Nice work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066397)

SAS the Scandinavian Airline did an environmental study on it's food services and found that it was actually better for the environment to use a plant based throw away plates over washable plates since washing them wasted water and polluted it with soup. Also the cost of moving the plates on back and forth to be washed plus flying them on return trips didn't help. So reusablity is not always a best practice.

Re:Nice work ... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43068145)

I've seen people in rural Alaska make houses from the containers that things come it. It's cheaper than paying to ship them back once delivered.

In most of the coastal USA you can get a container of varying description delivered for $2-5k, sometimes including long and tall refrigerated units. They might be even cheaper in Alaska, which has few exports that cannot be shipped by pipeline or jet stream. They're literally a problem at some ports.

Re:Nice work ... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43070469)

Much of rural Alaska gets one barge a year that doesn't stay long enough to pick up the empties. Either you store them for a year and pay to ship them out (maybe fill them trash), or build with them. No idea what they cost, but they are not uncommonly turned into buildings, or parts thereof.

Re:Nice work ... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43070669)

Well, they're probably pretty cheap any time the population isn't growing, but I only have specific knowledge of what it costs to get them delivered in nocal. They probably still cost money in the midwest, which still exports some stuff in them. They are probably damned near free in LA.

Re:Nice work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43063887)

...it's like throwing away your semi-truck after every shipment.

Kindof. Throwing away half of a truck ( semi means half ) would assume that the freighter is half is the launch system.

Maybe you meant part-truck?

Re:Nice work ... (1)

ender06 (913978) | about a year ago | (#43063927)

I've always referred to them as semi-trucks, I guess in this case I would mean the large 53ft trailer. Could argue the truck part (or lorry for the British), is the rocket.

Re:Nice work ... (4, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#43063905)

Don't understand all the throwaway freighters, it's like throwing away your semi-truck after every shipment.

Truckers would readily throw away their trucks on every voyage if it were insanely expensive and difficult to bring them back in any kind of functional condition.

And that's exactly why we use single-use rockets.

Re:Nice work ... (4, Interesting)

ender06 (913978) | about a year ago | (#43063917)

If it's so insanely expensive and difficult, then why is SpaceX working on just that, a reusable rocket? The pie-in-the-sky has always been a readily reusable rocket. That was the idea behind the shuttle. Didn't work out so well, but that was the idea.

Re:Nice work ... (4, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#43064039)

If it's so insanely expensive and difficult, then why is SpaceX working on just that, a reusable rocket?

Because it's a worthwhile goal, which IMNSHO SpaceX is working on in the proper method: incrementally from simple, known-working parts.

That was the idea behind the shuttle. Didn't work out so well, but that was the idea.

Many at NASA in the 1970s should be flogged for over-promising and under-budgeting a single-stage-to-orbit "truck".

Re:Nice work ... (4, Informative)

Macrat (638047) | about a year ago | (#43064371)

Many at NASA in the 1970s should be flogged for over-promising and under-budgeting a single-stage-to-orbit "truck".

Keep in mind that Congress and the Air Force were back seat designers on the Space Shuttle. It wasn't all NASA's fault.

Re:Nice work ... (1)

tsotha (720379) | about a year ago | (#43065957)

The Air Force was a "back seat designer" because NASA forced them to use the shuttle in an attempt to hijack part of the AF budget.

Re:Nice work ... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43064043)

The problem is, re-usability is tough when you are dealing with the extreme requirements of space travel. Noone has proven it to be viable in cost yet, the shuttle shown it was possible though at a expensive cost. SpaceX is not reusable *yet* but their rocket is designed to be. Time will only tell if they succeed. Even Musk acknowledges that it may not be fully reusable (the difficulty of getting the 2nd stage rocket back) as Rocketry is HARD. But you gotta applaud them in their efforts and success will help to reduce cost further while failure will keep costs at the same level (which is currently already low). So it only makes sense for them to push for re-usability. Unlike the shuttle, their rocket doesn't have a high initial cost. The shuttle couldn't fallback on one time usage launches because of the extreme cost of building a single one but SpaceX can though re-usability is still a major goal for them. If they can't get re-usability to work with their current design, I'm sure they will definitely choose the cheaper option while working towards the future.

Re:Nice work ... (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43064819)

Get your facts straight. The SpaceX rocket is not reusable, nor is it designed to be. It is a throw-away. However, the Dragon Capsule, which sits atop the Falcon 9 rocket, is designed to be reusable. Nevertheless, the contract with NASA calls for a new caspule each time.

Having said that, SpaceX *is* working on a rocket where the first stage is reusable. However, that is a few design generations away. They are currently working out the kinks on a test-bed rocket system called Grasshopper. Grasshopper can currently lift off, hover a couple of dozen metres in the air, and then return to the launch pad. However, it is nowhere near capable of boosting anything into space.

Re:Nice work ... (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year ago | (#43074377)

The SpaceX rocket is not reusable, nor is it designed to be.

You get your facts straight. Yes it was designed to be reusable, from the beginning.

The original plan was to put parachutes on the first stage and use a boat to recover it after ocean splashdown. SpaceX did in fact recover a first stage in service of that plan. There's pictures on the SpaceX site of the recovery operation. As it turns out, the impact of even a parachute landing does enough mechanical damage, coupled with the corrosive effects of seawater doing chemical damage, that the original reusability plan failed. By the time you fix everything that happens to a rocket after it slams into the water and then soaks for a few hours, it's not worth the effort to reuse it.

But just because the first attempt to reuse it failed doesn't mean it wasn't designed to be reused—it was.

Re:Nice work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43070745)

Disclaimer: I'm probably wrong, but I've always wondered the following. If anyone can clear this up for me, that'd be awesome:

What's always confused me with re-entering the atmosphere is why have anything re-enter fast enough to burn up. From what little I know, the heat shielding and much of the exterior of the shuttle needed to be replaced after each use, because it burned up in the atmosphere. But they're re-entering the atmosphere at ridiculously high speed, and tearing through the atmosphere. Why the need to return to Earth so damned fast?

Why can't they take that same shuttle idea, but orbit the earth for 4 or 5 days, gradually slowing down, and gradually reentering the atmosphere over the course of days instead of hours? They can fire the shuttle through the atmosphere and make it barely reuseable at X angle... why not reenter the atmosphere at 0.1X angle instead? It'd take 10 times as long to get through that atmosphere, but in that time you can both slow down, as well as plow through less vertical atmosphere over the same period of time. Shouldn't that logically do significantly less damage to the shuttle?

Again, I assume I'm just unaware of why this can't be done, but it's always confused me. They've been in space for a long-ass time already, I can't see why they can't prep things to hold another few days worth of food.

Re:Nice work ... (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year ago | (#43071877)

In short, fuel. Slowing down first before reentering the atmosphere requires an enormous amount of fuel. Not as much as getting up there in the first place, but still so much that it's infeasible to take that much along with you into orbit. The mass of heat shielding to use for atmospheric braking is substantially less than the mass of fuel required for equivalent retro-rocket braking.

Re:Nice work ... (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#43074517)

gradually slowing down, and gradually reentering the atmosphere over the course of days instead of hours

That means the craft would be traveling through the atmosphere at 17,000 miles an hour for many, many hours. Even at high altitude, that speed causes ginormous friction.

Anyway, gravity is trying to accelerate the fall, so you'd need lots of fuel to retard the pull of gravity.

Re:Nice work ... (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year ago | (#43071825)

If it's so insanely expensive and difficult, then why is SpaceX working on just that, a reusable rocket?

It'll be insanely difficult and expensive right up until SpaceX succeeds with soft-landing a first stage, at which point it will be routine and normal and why isn't everybody doing it?

But of course, we will first have to suffer through the clowns telling us how the first soft-landing was a failure because they had to make two tries to restart the engines after separation, so it landed with dry tanks instead of the 5% safety margin it was supposed to land with so it was a CATASTROPHIC FAILURE. Nevermind the rocket sitting upright on the recovery pad, clinking as it cools...

Oh, and after SpaceX hauls it away, we'll be told it's not actually reusable because they didn't turn around and launch it again TOMORROW.

Re:Nice work ... (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43063987)

it's like throwing away your semi-truck after every shipment.

I don't suppose that your semi-truck needs several months of extensive servicing, refurbishing, checking, and fixing the heat shield after every shipment.

Re:Nice work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067397)

I don't suppose that your semi-truck needs several months of extensive servicing, refurbishing, checking, and fixing the heat shield after every shipment.

What idiots would by a truck like that? Other than the U.S. Government?

Re:Nice work ... (1)

Alex Vulpes (2836855) | about a year ago | (#43064251)

Reusability, while a good idea, isn't too important for CRS—because reusable or not, NASA wants a new capsule for each mission.

CRS may well be Orbital's only ambition in the cargo delivery sphere (normally they launch satellites), while we know for a fact that SpaceX has... other plans.

Re:Nice work ... (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43063867)

Actually TFA said "Dragon is the only station freighter that makes return trips", but that doesn't necessarily mean reusability.

The SpaceX site [spacex.com] claims it is reusable, but I don't know if it actually has been reused to date.
The last picture on the above linked page shows the condition of the returned vehicle. Its significantly crispy that it might be less expensive
to simply build a new one. Especially for manned missions coming later.

There is a comparison of cargo vehicle on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_space_station_cargo_vehicles [wikipedia.org]
None mention re-useability explicitly.

Re:Nice work ... (5, Informative)

ender06 (913978) | about a year ago | (#43063943)

Dragon capsules are reusable, however, NASA has specifically contracted new capsules for every resupply mission. There's nothing stopping SpaceX from reusing the capsules for other missions, however. I know the demo 1 capsule, that performed a few orbits before returning, and demo 2 capsule, the first to berth with ISS, are both hanging outside mission control at the SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, CA.

Re:Nice work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43064903)

I was able to tour demo 1 when it was on display at the kennedy space center, the same day as the last shuttle launch. For something that was de-orbited, it was in excellent condition up close.

Re:Nice work ... (3, Informative)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year ago | (#43063993)

NASA only ordered new hardware for COTS missions.

SpaceX has said that Dragon hardware from COTS missions will be refurbished for DragonLab missions. I'd be interested in seeing if refurbishing actually results in significant cost savings or not (I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I guess it depends on how much value is tied up in parts, versus labor).

Re:Nice work ... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43067969)

Either it will, and they'll keep doing it, or it won't, and they'll use the lessons learned from failing to save money in the next version. Either way, something good will happen.

Re:Nice work ... (4, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43064937)

That "crispy" look is just soot/ash from the heat shield. You can see several places below the channel for the drogue chute's cord (the diagonal groove) where it has been rubbed off, showing a pristine white underneath. Besides, that picture only shows the bad side of the capsule. Take a look [nasa.gov] at the capsule from a few different [space.com] angles [msn.com]. You see, contrary to popular belief, capsules like this do not traverse through the atmosphere straight on. They "fly" in a tilted orientation. That's why the soot marks are on an angle, and one side of the capsule looks charred, while the other looks barely singed.

Re:Nice work ... (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#43063909)

The Dragon spacecraft/capsule is partially reusable. So far, the Falcon boosters are single-use. Space-X hopes to start recovering the first stage boosters, but that isn't working yet.

Meanwhile, they have 9 Merlin engines per Falcon first stage, one per second stage, and they're building about 400 per year. So they get manufacturing economies of scale. That's more valuable than reusability with heavy refurbishing, which tends to be a labor-intensive custom job. Refurbishing was the big cost problem with the US Space Shuttle - the amount of labor required for each turnaround was very high.

Re:Nice work ... (5, Insightful)

ZankerH (1401751) | about a year ago | (#43063965)

It's really a misnomer to call the space shuttle reusable. "Rebuildability" is more like it. The things had to spend months after each flight being torn apart and having every part inspected over and over and a big chunk of them replaced.
The key to economic space flight is full and rapid reusability. Payload launchers need to become as reusable as passenger aeroplanes for space flight to become routine.

Re:Nice work ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43064645)

The key to economic space flight is full and rapid reusability.

No the key is cutting corners on safety and that's what Space X is doing.

Re:Nice work ... (3, Insightful)

ender06 (913978) | about a year ago | (#43064753)

Really, do you have evidence for that, or are you just saying that because you don't like them for whatever reason?

Re:Nice work ... (1, Insightful)

strack (1051390) | about a year ago | (#43064963)

you think that the small amount spacex is spending compared to the shuttle means its rockets are unsafe. what it actually means is its a good design, which costs a lot less to make safe compared to the shuttle, which is a bad design, that cost a incredibly large amount of money to make sorta, kinda, not really, safe.

Re:Nice work ... (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#43065397)

Gaetano Morano, is that you?

Re:Nice work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43073943)

Nuts. I just ran out of mod points, or I would have moded you up. I suspect that is exactly who it is.

Windbourne (moderated).

Re:Nice work ... (4, Interesting)

mpthompson (457482) | about a year ago | (#43064165)

The Dragon's are designed to be reused. However, if I recall correctly, NASA requested that SpaceX use a brand new capsule for each of the 12 scheduled delivery missions. This likely means that SpaceX is building up a stock of used Dragon capsules that can be repurposed to other missions at a reduced price.

If someone could confirm this, I would like to know if this is because NASA is stuck in the old ways of doing things with capsules, or if there is a legitimate safety/efficiency reason used Dragons could not be recycled for future supply missions.

Re:Nice work ... (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#43065405)

It's probably due to considerations for the safety of ISS. If a Dragon were to crack and explosively depressurize, the ISS would be lost.

Re:Nice work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43068233)

It could also be a favour to SpaceX - they get to build and streamline a significant number of capsules, which gives them valuable experience in manufacturing. Secondly, they get lots of 'free' capsules that they can use for their own purposes later on.

Re:Nice work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43070931)

I'm sure there's some reason they're requesting new capsules for every mission... but that seems on the face of it like a horrendous waste of money.

That's like buying a stack of high quality cutlery, glasses, plates, and other tableware, then after every meal just gathering up the tablecloth with everything on it, throwing it all away, and buying new plates, cutlery, etc for each meal.

Sadly (although you'd have to be pretty goddamn convincing to convince me otherwise), I get the feeling the root of it is purely so that some higher-ups friend or family member is making a ton of money because of it. "Sure, this is reusable... but then my brother Johnny over there only gets money for having made ONE door of the capsule. He'd make 12 times as much money if he got to sell 12 of them instead, so it's settled... order 12 brand new reuseable capsules, instead of just the single one that we actually need."

Re:Nice work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43074641)

Not only the ISS, but the cargo up/down. That is actually a LOT of money involved with building equipment or getting results.

Re:Nice work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066059)

It's likely that NASA would rather have others test the reusability first.

Re:Nice work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43070963)

NASA hasn't explicitly ruled out reused capsules, they just required cost/schedule estimates, pricing, analysis to be based on new capsules. This is a prudent exercise when laying out an initial contract as it reduces the risk of dramatic overruns later-- we don't have to worry about uncertainties in the difficulty in refurbishment or uncertainties due to the differences in certifying a refurbished vs new capsule.

Re:Nice work ... (1)

cwsumner (1303261) | about a year ago | (#43098825)

I wonder if NASA is actually trying to force them to build up a stock of capsules. If they started out by re-using them, there would probably be no stock available for emergencies.

Re:Nice work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43064627)

TFA was saying that with the demise of the Shuttle, only Dragon now has the reusability aspect. Anyone know if Orbital Sciences' freighter is reusable, or a throwaway?

It's a "throwaway" for now. I put quotes around it because it can probably be reused. The last Dragon capsule only has some scorch marks on it and could be reused. This one probably can be reused too. However they are being upgraded substantially with each shot so this one differed greatly from the last. And the next Dragon will be substantially different too. Before the year is out the Dragon capsules will be landing softly wherever is most convenient. Perhaps on NASA grounds or perhaps on private property.

Re:Nice work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43064795)

On your lawn, old man!

My experience with the ISS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43063799)

A few years ago, while browsing around the lnternational Space Station, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and married -- and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerkoff fantasies of devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

Harbor pilot in space? (1)

RelaxedTension (914174) | about a year ago | (#43063859)

Who'd have thought you'd still have harbor pilots in space. Same difference though, I guess.

Re:Harbor pilot in space? (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43063915)

Yeah, If I was sitting in the ISS, I'd want my guys in control too.
Still, you have to wonder who would be better at flying this thing, the guys who built and designed it, or guys from NASA?

Re:Harbor pilot in space? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43068193)

Still, you have to wonder who would be better at flying this thing, the guys who built and designed it, or guys from NASA?

That depends. Who's spent more time playing Lunar Lander?

Serious answer, though, the person with eyes on the item and who is right there with less chance of communication problem is the person who should be trained for the job and then do it.

better than facebook (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43063957)

ning.spruz.com is much better than facebook. Its amazing how far they have come!

Re:better than facebook (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43063963)

Yes I have to agree with you. With the Forums they have they will go along way.

Re:better than facebook (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43063969)

Yes I have been to ning.spruz.com many times they are the king. Did you see there flash games? You can add your own.

Re:better than facebook (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43063981)

They are awesome. When Ning.Spruz.Com gets to a billion members they will be even better. It won't be long!


Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43063989)

Good work SpaceX, I was worried. Nothing more to say.

They still failed at the mission (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43065023)

It was saved by the Canadian built arm. The capsule did not finished its mission on its own.

Just because the mission was saved does not mean that it was a failure.

CA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43064563)

I bet this could be a lot cheaper if SpaceX wasn't based in California.

Re:CA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43064663)

Outside of California you'd have Ivy league types figuring out ways to pay the engineers nothing while paying themselves close to 1000x the average engineer. Like it is done everywhere but in crazy CA.

Who's covering the story for NYT - Broder? (4, Funny)

Smerta (1855348) | about a year ago | (#43064803)

I sure hope the NYT's John Broder isn't going to cover this story.

When he's done with the article, Dragon will have caromed off a couple comets, run out of fuel, and started floating backwards towards a black hole or something.

Potential set back for private space flight succes (1)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year ago | (#43064915)

A huge move forward for private space flight. The fact they had a major problem and still achieved the goal was a huge move forward for private space missions. Private companies are becoming a viable alternative to NASA.

They DID NOT achived the goal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43065037)

The goal was SAVED by another company who unlike SpaceX already had a track record of SUCCESS.

Could you explain? (3, Insightful)

robbak (775424) | about a year ago | (#43065161)

SpaceX built and lauched the rocket into an initial orbit, had a problem with the capsule's booster's supply of propellant that they were able to fix, and delivered the capsule to the right point, orbiting alongside ISS within reach of it's Canadarm, a little later than originally scheduled.

In what way did SpaceX not succeed? And who, in your opinion, was the party who 'saved' this mission?

I agree that, while SpaceX is establishing a good record of recovering from issues, it would be better if they could develop a record of not having issues!

Re:Could you explain? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#43065415)

Don't worry, it's just the man a.k.a. Gaetano Morano spewing his FUD. Nothing to see, move along. Even the grammar mistakes match with that G.M. persona.

Re:Could you explain? (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about a year ago | (#43066247)

Considering that wrong things ALWAYS happen sooner or later, I would trust more in a company that knows how to solve contingencies than one who has never had to deal with it.

Re:Potential set back for private space flight suc (3, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#43065075)

The fact Russia didn't ass-rape us over the cost this time is always a viable alternative. They took advantage of the situation of us not having a Shuttle and we (NASA/American public) knew it! Screw those guys. I'll take SpaceX any day of the week over them.

Re:Potential set back for private space flight suc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100289)


Capsule crash into the ISS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43065305)

The next time the cargo capsule approaches the ISS, if the capsule's maneuvering is messed up somehow, might the capsule crash into the ISS? If the capsule crashed hard enough into the ISS, I don't know if the astronauts in the ISS could survive.

Re:Capsule crash into the ISS? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#43065425)

The next time you get into a car, if your brain is messed up somehow, might you crash into a school bus? If you crashed hard enough into the school bus, I don't know if the kids in the school bus could survive.

Yeah, makes just about as much sense as the parent.

Re:Capsule crash into the ISS? (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#43067439)

Dat's de Roosians [wikipedia.org] yer thinkin' about...

Progress M-34 undocked from Mir at 10:22:45 UTC on 24 June, in preparation for a docking test planned for the next day. On 25 June, the spacecraft re-approached Mir under manual control, in a test intended to establish whether Russia could reduce the cost of Progress missions by eliminating the Kurs automated docking system. At 09:18 UTC, whilst under the control of Vasily Tsibliyev, the Progress spacecraft collided with the space station's Spektr module, damaging both the module itself, and a solar panel.[4] Following the collision, Progress M-34 was manoeuvred away from the station, before being deorbited on 2 July.[6] Its deorbit burn was conducted at 05:34:58 UTC, with the spacecraft being destroyed during reentry over the Pacific Ocean at 06:31:50.[5]

Ho lee fook, that sounds like a Chernobyl type scenario all over again. Turn off automated safety systems for some sort of harebrained manual test and surprise surprise, they run into problems.

Re:Capsule crash into the ISS? (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year ago | (#43067449)

that's why NASA requires approaching spacecraft to have triple-redundant thrusters. The Dragon capsule has FOUR sets... quadruple redundancy.

Re:Capsule crash into the ISS? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about a year ago | (#43074625)

That is why when a ship is coming to berth/dock, the crew is put on alert and sequestered away from the maneuvers.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account