SpaceX: Dragon to the ISS [COTS-D]

[sirdeedly]

The idea of using an unpressurized cargo hold seems like a great way to save launch weight, but it makes the whole thing look so flimsy from the outside.

[jmm1233]

looks horriable and Cramped , like a iphone4s

[mikelin32]

Someone else, believe this is bad design, I mean, I have a bad feeling about this "Dragon", may be it have rely advanced tech, but come on, the guys inside looks like don't have space, is like cheapest cinema and the other thing is where's the cargo area? May be is good for transport of personal but if they need take some parts for fix the ISS? In my personal opinion,they have must work more in the design and yes, looks like 60's, I hope they do better work if they want to replace the shuttles

[comanderw]

@mikelin32 i thing i know were your comeing from but nasa is done as the us pendent said i believe that landing on the moon was the start of something so iam cutting nasa bugett completely (and know one in the us goverment cares) :P (the russhens are not trying) so you've got spaceX or china take your pick

[CatIcarus]

@heaney5551 whoops was a typo meant "can't" :p

[eacao]

Sorry for typos on an ipod

[eacao]

I said 10k but I meant to sat 1k which I'd 1/15 the price of the shuttle

[eacao]

Alright for everyone who is making the argument that this is the tech from the 60s and that the space shuttle is the future, I want to point out that this was not to be a huge step forward in technology demonstration. The space shuttle is a dinosaur because it still costs 15k per pound to orbit. This NEW technology has reduced the price to 10k, less than ever before. The space shuttle is old and dated. This is the real future.

[eacao]

Alright for everyone who is making the argument that this is e tec

[eacao]

Alright for everyone who is making the argument that this is the tech from the 60s I want to point out

[marrrtin]

Great technology.. for 1969

[monokhem]

The space Shuttle was the most efficient vehical ever made for bringing things form space to the earth. When we are mining asteroids it's going to be something like the shuttle that brings back the goods. The failing was that we didn't come up with a deep space vehical while we were still flying the Shuttle. It would have been an investment that paid off in a way that would change the global economy forever. We might get that done in the 2020's.

[WishingForSerenity]

Wait.... no retro-rocket?

Do they want to slow the capsule down for re-entry with manouvering thrusters only?

[Neoli2300]

@WishingForSerenity so long as it works

[davnegsep]

What the hell is that shithead???omg we are going back in spaceship tech .The shuttle was uber beside that new crap. We going back to the 60s with that shithead.

[Neoli2300]

@davnegsep you are so fucking stupid its not even funny.

[CatIcarus]

@davnegsep you can go to the moon in a shuttle :)

[Heaney5551]

@CatIcarus

No you can't.

[tatotato7777]

yeahhhhhh!!

[dainiuxxx]

Did anyone notice Obama kicking helicopters back door to salute the astronauts?

@ 3:52

[frbe0101]

The space shuttle was a failure everyone accept that and move on. It was a underfund, overly ambitious and horribly compromised design. We should have just stuck with the Saturn V.

[EpiDemic117]

@frbe0101 the space shuttle wasn't a failure. But the main problem was how fucking EXPENSIVE it was to operate! That's why the government is looking for cheaper alternatives.

[frbe0101]

@EpiDemic117

That what made it a failure! It was suppose to be the cheaper option but the lack of funding and all the compromise in design results in what was ultimately more expensive then other rockets!

[EpiDemic117]

@frbe0101 IT STILL didn't fail though! they used it for THREE decades!

[frbe0101]

@EpiDemic117

Yeah because they had nothing else to use! Tell me did they go back to the moon, to mars, no because the had a piece of shit that cost them ~$10,000 a pound to LEO and could not get them any higher! The Saturn V cost less $4,000 a pound to LEO and could get get us to the moon and beyond, if we had just stayed with that for the last 4 decades we would have moon bases and been to mars by now!

[EpiDemic117]

@frbe0101 Are you fucking joking me? That saturn V costed WAAAAAAAAAAAY more than the shuttle! it was even far more per LB! why else do you think they scrapped it? IT was simply to damn much! in the 60's and 70's was when we actually had the funds for nasa. And the shuttle is by NO MEANS a piece of shit. Unless you can claim you have the capability to design something as complex as that then PLEASE show me!

[frbe0101]

Saturn V could launch 120-125 tons of cargo into LEO at $1.2 Billion per launch, the Space Shuttle can only launch 20-25 tons at $450 Million, you do the math! They dropped the Saturn V to pay for the development of the space shuttle, which was suppose to drop the price down to 1000 $/lbs, instead the shuttle does ~10,000 $/lbs, ergo FAILURE, piece of shit, and no amount of complexity changes that fact.

[EpiDemic117]

@frbe0101 It's still fairly cheaper if you don't want to spend 1.2 billion per launch. Though i honestly think we should of kept the Saturn V for it's awesome heavy lift capability which lifted Skylab (way bigger interior than the ISS) The thing you don't understand though is the fact behind the shuttle being a multirolled vehicle. It can carry passengers and components into space.

[frbe0101]

@EpiDemic117

The Saturn V could carry passengers and cargo, really the small extra features the shuttle can do does not warrant its existence over having kept with the Saturn V. Yes the Venture Star would have been nice if it was made and if it had worked, I think single stage to orbit it still just too technologically difficult, not without exotic fuels like aluminum particles in LH2 paste or scramjets and precooled LH2 jet engines.

[EpiDemic117]

@frbe0101 the Venture stars engines were to be powered by a Hydrogen / LOX mixutre. But the key difference between the Shuttle and the Saturn V was taht the shuttle on average could haul 7 passengers, Food, Equipment, and land like a regular aircraft. But what we really need right now is what you mentioned. A heavy lift vehicle. It would be awesome to see the New Ares V rocket lift cargo into LEO while the venture star would of carried passengers FAR more safely than the shuttle.

[Neoli2300]

@EpiDemic117 and what about the Skylon spaceplane? or the National Aerospace plane (NASP). Thats the future.

[EpiDemic117]

@frbe0101 But looking back at the shuttle, you'd still have to admire the piece of engineering that went into it. It's one of the most complicated machines ever built by man.

watch?v=kBX6JyesRzI&playnext=1­&list=PL27685177989433CA&index­=20

[frbe0101]

@EpiDemic117

No a nuclear ballistic missile submarine is more complicated.

[EpiDemic117]

@frbe0101 i didn't say taht it is the most complicated. I clearly stated that it is ONE of the most complicated.

[EpiDemic117]

@frbe0101 the shuttle will not end in vein. Current components used on the shuttle will be reused. The SRB's have shown to give alot of bang for the buck.

[frbe0101]

@EpiDemic117

Hopefully yes, the parts of the shuttle likes it fuel tank, engines and strap on boosters will make a non-reusable super-heavy lift booster capable of 75 tons to LEO, added a second stage and 5.5 segmented solid fuel boosters and we might bring that up to 125 tons to LEO... back to the Saturn V just like I said!

[Neoli2300]

@EpiDemic117 shuttles been ticking along for 40 years despite 2 of them being destroyed. I think its lived a good long life.

[EpiDemic117]

@frbe0101 The venture star was supposed to be the shuttles replacement. But that shithead bush cut funding for it. It was supposed to be FAR ahead of it's time.

[EpiDemic117]

@frbe0101 it was more than like 400 million dollars PER launch!!

[StuartMB68]

Not bad for computer animation ...

[40markava]

I just heard about there launch today congrats. America is still great!

[TheJokersAdvocate96]

instead of an earth lanuched craft for deep space manned exploration, instead assemble a much larger vessel in orbit, like the iss, but mobile

[fgalue]

Until don't see a first Dragon Capsule bring a crew back and forth of the Space, I won't believe in this as a fact

[mj1234321]

Back to spam in a can, parachutes, water splashdowns...seems like a step backwards after flying a reusable spaceplane for the last 30 years!

[moneyman10k]

@mj1234321 how is it a step backwards when a company has never done this on their own before

if you want space planes, complain to nasa for not building a new one in 30 years, not spacex for doing what many called impossible

[SupaShang]

The music on this vid reminds me of the old Frontier Elite game on the Amiga back in the 90's.

[raadyousif]

great job

[L3Traveler]

I can't help but feel this is a step backwards for our space program

[jim6584]

@L3Traveler In what way exactly is this a step backwards? NASA spent $500 on the launch tower alone for the Ares I project. SpaceX got some old railroad track and railroad cars and make one very cheaply. SpaceX has spent $400 million on R&D and developed both the Falcon I & 9 and the dragon space craft.

Just because you spend more money doesn't mean your program is safer btw.

NASA is great but they are not good at controlling costs. The old "Cost + plus" model must go away.

[L3Traveler]

@jim6584 I appreciate that it is cheaper but we are going from a shuttle program to something that looks like the apollo.

[jim6584]

@L3Traveler I don't care if it "looks" like the Wright Brothers.

The shuttle was a mistake from the beginning or it never was reusable they way they thought it would be. It was the NASA HSF budget for the last 20 years.

Mars and deep space will require a very cost effective heavy lift rocket to get massive amounts of hardware and fuel to LEO. Let the crew get to LEO on cheap commercial ride.

NASA should be at the cutting edge and that isn't getting light cargo and crew to LEO or GEO.

[macschomo]

Welcome back to the 60s

[jim6584]

@macschomo The Constellation program is a the ultimate trip back to the 60's. It should of been named Apollo Ver 2.0.

If Space X can get crew & cargo into LEO for a fraction of the cost of a NASA rocket system it is a win for everyone. Why not pay American's instead of the Russian's to do this?

Constellation was ONLY getting us back to the Moon. Let's develop a system that can take humans well beyond the moon.

[jf3rd2007]

Nice animation. I understand that Space X wants Government funding to finance the development costs. Their track record thus far isn't anything to right home about. Falcon 10 is approx. four years late to the original schedule estimate. Not to mention that they have never built a human rated rocket system.

[arsenal553]

@MrSueVeneer spacex is a US based company, they make all their own rocket parts, therefore, they are made in the US by americans.

[rocketshipstud6]

ceres in the main asteroid belt should be our main target...mine the entire asteroid belt!...(read book! titled ...mining the sky)

[rocketshipstud6]

compare apollo applications skylab with the tinkertoy iss...with spacex leadership and vision we shall get huge nova class booster rockets...and nerva+rover nuclear engines to land manned mission on mars!

[rocketshipstud6]

if we ever build cities on asteroids moon and mars we have to have 50 percent crew of women to make babies on space wheels artificial gravity! tinker toy space stations can't spin and are failures! (mir + iss) saturn-5 could have launched space wheel components!

[rocketshipstud6]

next big test for space-x falcon-9 is on 8may2010...this system can be sending 7 astronauts to the iss space station by 2011 next year (beats the 50$ million ticket ride on russian soyuz interkosmos-usa)

[tominator99988]

not to refer to "The Right Stuff" but didnt the pilots state that they wanted a window so that they could fly the spacecraft as a pilot instead of riding it like a lab rat? The capsul is shrouded in darkness during the launch until the abort tower is released.

[beatlefriend]

Here's wishing everyone at Spacex all the best on your new Falcon 9 rocket which is now at the pad at cape kennedy. Good luck to you and everyone in the private space industry. You are now America's space program.

[gucker07]

Looks like the white house will force nasa to go commercial with the new budget. Exciting! nasa fucked up for the last time with the ares 1 desaster it seems. time to let spacex do the job. they're builiding actual working hardware while nasa hasn't developed a new launcher in three decades. they still managed to squander billions with numerous failed development programs (nasp, x33, sli, osp etc.)

[EndeavourLaunch]

Well, a certain group of NASA engineers are fixing the fuck up. Its called the SD HLV or Direct or as the creators call it 'Jupiter', based off the Saturn V and NASA's likely to take it as their rocket, with a first flight in 2012. The Ares I was a disaster, this Ares V-like rocket shouldn't be. Everything based off shuttle, SSME's, 4 seg SRBs, extended ET, ect.

[gucker07]

yes, i've heard about that. it's a good idea i think, let's see if it is included in the budget. but a lot of people at nasa need to be replaced for this program to be successful.

[avi8r1]

Letting private companies handle the routine orbital stuff would free up money for NASA to do what it does best; deep space exploration both manned and unmanned.

[A86]

@avi8r1 - Agreed.

[statebowler2003]

i did like the ares program but i do wish they could have stuck with the classic and modded it, I heard NASA is working with Space X and could possibly make this the new space craft for the moon and beyond to mars, they right now are years ahead of NASA

[Hiraghm]

Yea! We can do what we were doing in the 1960s! Ain't we special.

But at least we got a female in the crew. We're so progressive.

[BearsysRevenge]

This is a private company doing what was once thought only possible by the government. This IS a progressive project!

[EndeavourLaunch]

If it worked, why change it?

[EndeavourLaunch]

Well now the next flight for SpaceX is the Falcon 9 out of Cape Canaveral.. exciting!

[warrenkm]

I don't mean to say that's what SpaceX is doing. I just mean to say that it is a more complicated problem than failing to demonstrate failure on three unmanned launches - only one (or two now?) of which has actually had a successful orbit insertion.

[warrenkm]

Interesting that COTS no longer means commercial off the shelf to these guys. I'm also a bit curious how they are going to tackle the much different reliability and qualification issues that go along with manned flight. It isn't simply a question of whether or not one can build a rocket that reaches orbit once. Despite what hollywood says, you can't grab a scrap heap of aluminum, a truck of kerosine, and a few dell computers and build a reliable launch vehicle.

[docmordrid]

Just a note about SpaceX and the RS-84 re-usable kerosene/LOX engine: confirmed. SpaceX licensed it last year.

[witness2history]

I think they have something lunar quietly in the works.

I also think NASA should drop Ares I and help finance Falcon and Dragon. Musk says they need $300 millions to develop abort system and then Dragon can be human rated.

[docmordrid]

PS on my first reply:

there is a rumor going around the space sites that SpaceX may have licensed Boeing/Rocketdyne's re-usable RS-84 engine, which is 2/3 as powerful as the one on Saturn V - over 1 million lf/ft of thrust.

Since the Falcon 9 Heavy H (the one with a hydrogen second stage) is likely to lift over 45 metric tons to orbit some beast based on the RS-84 would be a real monster.

[docmordrid]

While not theoretically a lunar capable capsule I find two things SpaceX has done more than a little interesting;

1) the Dragon has a heat shield made of their own formulation of PICA called PICA-X. PICA non-x is capable of re-entry at almost twice the velocity necessary for Earth orbit and faster even than lunar re-entry: almost 29,000 mph.

2) this spring they started work on a liquid hydrogen 2nd stage for Falcon 9 and the Falcon 9 Heavy.

These guys are very, very serious.

[rocketshipstud2]

looks like a better plan than paying the russians 50 million bucks $ a ticket for each astronaut! pay it to direct-x! /milwaukee

[beatlefriend]

Spacex last two flights were complete successes. The first 4 flights were test launches where there was a high learning curve. The last test flight was a success and the first operational launch on flight 5 was a success. The technology that was used in the last 2 successful flights will be used on falcon 9. Is is quite possible they could have success with falcon 9 right out of the block. Dragon will not be far behind.

[7uspatriot9]

SpaceX is definitely gambling with Falcon 1 and 9 launch vehicles. Not to mention Dragon will need to demonstrate its capabilities by end of yr 2010 to NASA if SpaceX wishes to servive in this business. Only 1 successful Falcon 1 flight after 3 failures and NASA picks them over proven tech by ULA. I think NASA is testing the water with SpaceX and knows that there are very bad odds that SpaceX will deliver. I visited the facility & it was primitive and they lacked industry Exp. Just PhDs playing!

[gucker07]

haha, yeah, sure you did visit the facilities. god, just how retarded are you to think anyone would believe your bs? lol

spacex has achieved more than nasa and the established aerospace contractors combined since its founding. nasa is a mess and as things stand now they'll be forced to go with a 100% commercial approach. these shitheads fucked up for the last time.

[darkchashy]

I object to the idea that the launch system should be reusable. From what I understand about it, a rocket engine is a lot like a Nascar engine. Once the race is over, it's just as cheap to build a new one. Once that is out of the way, you free up more space in your cargo hold, disregarding parachutes and building the rocket to float. Then the spent rocket itself can become an artificial reef on the bottom of the ocean.

[gucker07]

Falcon/Dragon will also be much cheaper to operate than Ares/Orion and will be ready much sooner (five years!). Elon Musk is the Howard Hughes of the 21st century (he is slightly less crazy though;)).

[gucker07]

Very nice! NASA should axe the Ares 1 and give the money to SpaceX. This company is actually performing (successful launch of Falcon 1, Falcon 9 being prepared for launch) while NASA is discovering more fatal design flaws with its Ares system every month or so. And it's still a paper rocket after hundreds of millions already spent.

[TULx2008]

There is a high definition version available online, browse the NASA Watch blog, posted February 11th.

[Shadowsnshades]

Thanks so much for posting this.