E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA / SpaceX via Twitter
A video view from the International Space Station shows SpaceX's Dragon cargo capsule in the grip of the station's robotic arm, with Earth below.
Astronauts used the International Space Station's robotic arm to grab SpaceX's Dragon capsule on Sunday after the unmanned spacecraft made a dramatic recovery in orbit. The grapple operation reached its successful climax an hour ahead of schedule, proving that the unmanned capsule had fully recovered from a post-launch glitch that affected its propulsion system.
NASA and California-based SpaceX decided to go ahead with Sunday's rendezvous after the Dragon made a series of orbital maneuvers that demonstrated the craft's thrusters were operating normally. When the Dragon closed in to a distance of 33 feet (10 meters), the Canadian-built robotic arm reached out and latched onto an attachment on the cargo ship.
The robotic-arm grapple was originally scheduled to take place at 6:31 a.m. ET, but it occurred instead at 5:31 a.m., as the station was flying 253 miles (407 kilometers) over Ukraine.
NASA's Mission Control and the space station's astronauts exchanged congratulations. "That was a brilliant capture," NASA astronaut Kate Rubins told space station commander Kevin Ford from Mission Control.
Ford passed along his thanks to NASA's controllers in Houston as well as to SpaceX's mission control at the company's headquarters in Hawthorne, Calif. "It's not where you start, but where you finish that counts, and you guys really finished this one on the mark," Ford said. "You're aboard, and we've got lots of science on there to bring aboard and get done. So congratulations to all of you."
As the crew watched, the robotic arm's remote operators in Houston issued commands to pull the Dragon in for a hookup with the station's Harmony module. "The Dragon is ours!" Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield wrote in a Twitter update. "Maneuvering it now on Canadarm2 to docking port, will open hatches. Look forward to new smells."
The capsule was berthed at 8:56 a.m. ET, and within a few hours, the station's astronauts hooked up the electrical connections, opened up the hatch from the Harmony module and took their first look inside the Dragon.
"Happy Berth Day," SpaceX exulted on Twitter.
How a glitch was fixed
The cargo craft was launched on Friday from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, atop SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket. The ascent to outer space was trouble-free, but minutes after the Dragon reached orbit, SpaceX's controllers noticed that only one of the craft's four thruster pods was working. The thrusters control the Dragon's position in space, and at least three of the pods had to be operational to get NASA's clearance for the berthing.
It took several hours to resolve the glitch and get full thruster functionality. That caused SpaceX to miss its opportunity for a Saturday rendezvous. SpaceX's billionaire founder, Elon Musk, said it looked as if there was a stuck valve or a blockage in the thruster's oxidizer lines. Recycling the valves and sending a blast of pressurized helium through the line cleared the system, he said.
The maneuvers that followed gave NASA and SpaceX the confidence to go ahead with the hookup on Sunday. "The station’s Mission Management Team unanimously agreed that Dragon’s propulsion system is operating normally along with its other systems and ready to support the rendezvous," NASA said in a statement Saturday.
NASA said SpaceX voiced "high confidence there will be no repeat of the thruster problem during rendezvous, including its capability to perform an abort, should that be required." Fortunately, not a single hitch arose during the Dragon's approach.
Chris Hadfield via Twitter
Sub-Saharan Africa provides a backdrop for SpaceX's Dragon capsule in a photo taken from the International Space Station during the cargo ship's approach.
NASA TV
A video view from the International Space Station shows the SpaceX Dragon cargo capsule coming in for Sunday's berthing.
NASA TV
A view from one of the International Space Station's cameras shows the Dragon cargo capsule berthed to the Harmony module.
What's in the Dragon?
The Dragon is carrying more than 2,300 pounds (1,050 kilograms) of cargo, including experiments to study the growth of plants and mouse stem cells in zero-G. There are also spare parts for the station's air-recycling system, grapple bars for the space station's exterior, and a research freezer for preserving biological samples. The crew is getting clothing, personal items and food, including fresh fruit from an orchard owned by the father of one of SpaceX's employees.
The Dragon also is bringing the first copy of "Up in the Air," a single recorded by the band Thirty Seconds to Mars. That song will figure in a public-relations push later this month.
Once the space station's astronauts have finished unloading the cargo, they'll fill the Dragon back up with more than 3,000 pounds (1,370 kilograms) of stuff destined for return to Earth. The cargo craft is due to be set loose on March 25 for its splashdown in the Pacific.
This is the second of 12 resupply flights to be conducted under NASA's $1.6 billion contract with SpaceX. The first flight took place last October. SpaceX and another company, Orbital Sciences Corp., were granted the contracts to help fill the gap left by the space shuttle fleet's retirement in 2011. Orbital's cargo delivery service is expected to start later this year.
SpaceX is one of three companies receiving support from NASA under a separate program to develop crew-capable spacecraft for the space agency's use beginning in 2017 or so. SpaceX is working to upgrade its robotic Dragon capsule with extra safety equipment for crewed flight. The other two companies — the Boeing Co. and Sierra Nevada Corp. — are developing completely new spaceships. In the meantime, NASA is paying the Russians about $60 million per seat for rides to and from the space station.
More about SpaceX:
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
This story was originally published on Sat Mar 2, 2013 5:40 PM EST
Leave a Comment:
Dark light speed design by morgan cadle
Basics not complete minor details left out
Decide I would like to become part of American history
A cooling system similar to the atmosphere of space
Then create a tornado that spirals down which we make
electromagnetics-2 spirals on either side
We create these by shooting the dark light spectrum through
the black diamond’s which all have to have equal angles –this meets causing
fusion of colors as well
We shoot positive electrons and negative and the same from
the other side
In the middle an affect much like the Jacobs ladder affect
occurs where the electrons collide in a cool atmosphere
Then we can adjust the speed of the tornedo’s using
electromagnetics to increase or decrease
The collisions of the protons create a power source-this is
directed through a ball made of mirrors
on the inside which deflects the power out
Hover craft
We can also as I told the pressure cleaner if we use the
spinning principle of the brush electromagnetics to push down on the ground and
push against gravity the spinning motion much like a jet engine will allow the
craft to float if we use steam or water pressure it is less polluting
We can use this principle close to the ground and be pushed
along using rebounding electrons much like a sail
Crops
3 circle crop rotation based on Mayan principles to get past
drought we can build basins and reservoirs if we make the tropical we can fish
farm by the more water we evaporate we can guide the vapor up a ski lift and
then use electromagnetics like tin and zinc to heat and cool wires causing
precipitation + snow
All year round skiing
I would like to join with trump to develop hotels and
entertainment in west palm beach and bring life back to the space program
I have ideas for ships but I would like to work with spacex
and nasa –space x should buy Kennedy so that both commercial and government
projects work together even up at coco beach and patricks afb
Coal creates a crystal that can be used for solar power
Cancer
grows in dark areas
so light treatment should work through water like a pool will shine and reflect
light in the body so shaded areas are exposed
If cancer grows in the dark then white light will kill its
development – also by disrupting a tumors magnetic field the mass will be
weakened for white light to penetrate
K2 should cause blood clotting for hemophiliacs
Just a couple of thoughts
Just a thought
morganllcadle, time to go back on your lithium. You appear to in your manic phase of your cycle.
go space x go. good job.
Great Job SpaceX, the american way getting over it and getting on with it.... just saying...
I never thought SpaceX would do anything but restore their systems and recover their mission. Go SpaceX.
An all American company designing and building equipment to go into space at ~10% the amount it costs NASA to do the same job. Run by the same guy who runs Tesla the first all American company producing a ground breaking all American designed and built car the Model S. Its just a shame so many Americans for reasons that seem unfathomable seem to want Elon Musk's American ventures to fail. Taking some of the most ingenious American development of the 21st century off shore along with thousands of American Jobs.
I say congratulations SpaceX on your incredible acheivments so far and good luck for the your future as well as the future of your cousin company Tesla.
Congratulations are well earned for a top rate company.
And yet there are people who will tell you (especially post-Shuttle) that there's 'no space program' anymore, when in truth, coo things are just beginning...
(whatever 'space program' really means, anyway)
Congrats to SpaceX and NASA. Job well done.
That is very cool that it is a private run unmanned SpaceX and the company can fix the problem that may send people to space station.
As long as they don't become SpaceY...
What's wrong with that? Kevin is a good actor....
This just goes to show the high caliber of the people and engineers working at SpaceX. Who designs a propulsion system with the forethought of being able to purge a system blockage? This is some well thought out preparation and says a great deal about the capability, now and in the future, of SpaceX.
Tesla and now SpaceX, I'm glad to see a visionary like Elon Musk succeed in both these ventures. I look forward to hearing more about the Dragon capsules. Hopefully, they will be certified to launch human cargo before long.
How about SpaceZ? (haw, haw, hee , hee, better reserve it while you still can!) - RC
Go SpaceX. Fly too high for Barry to close you down too.
What did Barry close down?
George W. Bush shut the space shuttle program down, Einstein.
Better question what did Barry start up every green tech. company he funded went belly up so I guess he 4 for 4.
The Space Shuttle program had 15 year life span with a mandatory retirement in 2010, Bush in 2004 extended it due to delays in finishing the space station final Shuttle launch was that of Atlantis on July 8, 2011. So who was president in 2011 I'm sure it was not Bush.
No the American taxpayer shut NASA space shuttle down. They(American taxpayer) would rather spend 40 billion a month on oversea war instead of 6 billion a month on NASA flying shuttle to space station.
To hell with America, Russian space agency is place for me. Make me mad and no more American astronaut's on space station.
The republican congress defunded it in 2005. With enough fuel tanks in the production line to fly until the last was used. Bush cancelled the program.
Urbanromanmoron.
Starbuck, all 'Barry' shut down was Constellation (as he should have), nothing more.
Tracy, all Bush shut down was the Shuttle (on official recommendation, and wile also proposing things we did not also do), nothing more...
NASA is alive and (reasonably) well, thank you.
Urban Roman,
When Obama cancelled the Constellation moon program (not the Shuttle, as others have pointed out that was Bush's decision), the Obama proposal was to instead fund commercial space companies at an much higher rate than what they get today.
For better or for worse though, the Senate had their way in 2010 and the SLS development project began, very much at the expense of commercial cargo and crew development funding.
Those are the facts, if you care to know.
The last flight occurred while Obama was president. The schedule for shutting down the program was finalized while Bush was in office. This schedule included closing down the supply chain for parts. NASA could not have launched another shuttle even if Pres. Obama and Congress authorized one.
I wonder if twelve flights for 1.6 billion is a good deal compared to the space shuttle. I hope so . It would be Awesome. Go private sector!
The article states we will be subsidizing them now and in the future, not exactly private sector alone.
SpaceX is one of three companies receiving support from NASA under a separate program to develop crew-capable spacecraft for the space agency's use beginning in 2017 or so.
This is on top of the contract and it puts us without manned launch vehicles for at least 4 years.NASA is paying the Russians about $60 million per seat for rides to and from the space station. The figure is slightly larger when you add the other companies and their cost into it, much more.
It seems like I saw somewhere that each shuttle flight cost around $500 million. Maybe not, though.
Does that 12-flight price include the launch vehicle and all? If so, that seems like a pretty good cost per mission rate.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration pegged the average shuttle launch cost at $450 million.
NASA spent nearly $200 billion total on the space shuttle program. 1981 to present a yearly cost of ?.
The shuttle cost over $1 billion per launch (makes you wonder what Nasa is doing with the money saved from retiring them), so yes, the SpaceX contract is saving a great deal of money.
jpoochoo: The Dragon is owned and operated by SpaceX.
lee: Where did you get that number? That number you come up with includes a break down of the entire Nasa budget. I got my information from above. Post that is.
lee: I researched how they came up with those figures and it seems they include research and development of the shuttle also from the years 1971 to final expenditure. WOW! That is why they put the figure between 1 to 1.5 billion dollars per launch. Must be some retirement plans, pensions, and insurance payouts also included in there.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/04/shuttle-mission-1.html
cost average per flight over the course of the shuttle program was 1.5 billion
starbuck: see above. Did you read the whole magazine article? Space.com also has a breakdown chart also coming up with that figure. However, operational costs absorbed by a very large entity will put a small one in the red or finish it in one setback. Like a vehicle loss, loss of crew or key personnel unable to overcome problem quickly enough. Factors not addressed with short term or profit driven goals. P.S. The math of dividing shuttle flights by years in service plus development costs and other expenditures is flawed. The B2 .A single bomber costs +$200 million. F35 400 billion and counting, the F22 not in service 77billion. Here you can find pretty pictures of them; http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~af641/
B2 not 200 million per plane, but 2 billion. The B1B is 200 million per.
This article was about the shuttle, not stealth aircraft and came from NASA themselves.
That article is not from Nasa. The one I referenced above from Goddard was. The aircraft have a bearing on costs absorbed and included in Nasa budget to develop the technology. Also we own launch vehicle not rent.
This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU. [Important Disclaimer]
nasawatch@spaceref. That is your reference.
Here's a pretty detailed breakdown of the shuttle program's cost, seen from a couple of different perspectives.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43631772/ns/technology_and_science-space
Roughly speaking, $1 billion per shuttle flight is a good round figure for each flight. That compares with an average cost of $133 million for each SpaceX cargo flight, but it's important to remember that the shuttle had a much bigger cargo-carrying capacity as well as the ability to carry seven astronauts. The Russian Soyuz carries three people, and the per-seat rate is in the range of $40 million to $60 million. (The $40 million was the rate for private space passengers who basically flew "standby.") That translates to $120 million to $180 million per flight. The companies that are building crew-capable spaceships for NASA's use say they can match Russia's cost schedule. Their spacecraft are designed to carry up to seven people. If you take the expansive approach, and calculate the price at $60 million per person, you could arrive at a figure of $420 million per flight and still be able to argue that you're matching the Russian price. That's less than half of the estimated shuttle per-flight cost. But again, the payload capacity is not as great.
Obviously you confuse 'subsidizing them' with 'paying for services rendered.'
Yes, they do recieve money as part of the Commercial Crew program as do Boeing and Sierra Nevada, but:
1. That's finite. When the vehicles are operational, they're on their own to provide service to LEO for NASA and any other users (like Bigelow's customers) with a manned orbital access requirement.
2. Even as part of Commercial Crew, it's not a handout. They have to meet certain specified developmental milestones. If they don't do so, they don't get paid.
Period.
What is the cost of the militaries space defense initiative? The X-37B spacecraft spent 15 months on a clandestine mission in space. Photograph: US air force/AP
Nasa budget also reflects cost of research and development of military hardware. Is that now also in private sector hands and do they sell technology like the Apollo capusule design used for dragon?
If it
is a black project you will never know and nether will most of congress. We the
US spend more on black projects that both England and France on their military.
France and England are much smaller countries. Also, nobody knows what the English and French spend on their own black projects, which they don't declare either. Work out defense expenditure as a percentage of GDP, and they are about the same. Agreed - the US spends far more declared money on defense than anyone else. But as a percentage of GDP, it is not the highest. Not by a long shot.
Brisaber, we the US spend the most in terms of budget (by far) and 2nd most in terms of % of GDP. So the second part of this quote seems a bit exaggerated.
Great stuff. Hope that science returns to the US in the future.
Let's also hope that science education returns to the U.S. in the future.
60 million per seat!!!! and thats cheaper than our own shuttle program? WOW!!!!
60 million for coach and no carry-on. To bad Obama killed the budget for Orion it is the last viable element of Project Constellation.
That's called cost cutting. Republicans demanded it. Cost cutting is a two edged sword, some things cut are not liked by all. Too bad.
Orion didn't die - it's still being developed as the MPCV. Constellation was killed, and rightly so. It was never properly defined, was never funded properly by congress, and never made a priority by Bush. It was way over budget and way behind schedule.
None of the current vehicles or the ancient Soyuz design compare to the "Truck" that the Shuttle was.
None have the Hatch door to allow for large science experiments to be flown "As built" on the ground, so the breakdown and reset of experiments becomes a part of the formula for possible failures either design of the reassembly or the function of the experiment once the unit has been reassembled.
Also the scope of the Shuttles agenda requirements grew as the fleet aged over the years that they flew with no structural changes possible over the course of their lifetimes.
Absolutely things can be built more cheaply today, in the early 70's Computers were housed in large rooms and access to them was expensive as well.
Today our iPads have more computing capability than the MainFrames we were running back then. So pat yourself on the back for using the very technology the Shuttle program fostered and proved the value of.
First Generation of anything is exponentially expensive. You have never done it before AND lives are constantly at risk.
Now we discount and criticize the Shuttle program for its success. Yes it did become routine and it even taught us the lesson that we cannot depend on the routine while expanding the envelope that we expect the tech to work in. (Failure of the O Rings on the SRB's)
All of that experience is expensive and now the Private Companies benefit from the Government expense and that is fine, that is why the beginning of huge movements forward have always come from Government where the burden of a profit margin does not distract from the goal of New Science.
If your interested in space capusles here is a site. http://www.fastcompany.com/pics/space-capsules-yesterday-today-and-tomorrow?slide=8#11
While it's fantastic that the SpaceX Dragon program has had a successful resupply mission to the ISS comparing its costs and capabilities to the Shuttle is just silly. The Shuttle was a much more capable lift vehicle - up to 25,000kg. payload weight (depending on mission destination); able to transport and return up to 8 people; and able to lift, deploy, and overhaul large, bulky structures (like big satellites, portions of the ISS, and the Hubble Space telescope). That's up to 8 times Dragon's payload, so the 12 launches contracted with SpaceX is potentially equivalent to only one and a half Shuttle launches, payload-wise. Even if you use the somewhat inflated $1 billion per launch cost of the Shuttle, the $1.6 billion being paid to SpaceX is not out of line. The projected crew capacity of 7 for the Dragon's people carrying version is competitive but we're not there yet! And one suspects that if it eventually succeeds the per launch cost will be a lot more than the current cargo launches. And yes the Dragon is able to deploy satellites but nowhere near the size and dimensions of those put into orbit by the Shuttle. While you can argue about whether the Shuttle program was a worthwhile use of government money and the right route for advancing the exploration of space it really was an amazing achievement. Go science and government funding of it!!
Se,
Very well put and a much easier read than my post. LOL
Obviously, I agree with both your statistics and overall view.
Does Space X have only one vehicle and only one Falcon launch rocket?
No, the company has a production line of Falcon 9 rockets and Dragon capsules. The Falcon 9 is also being used for commercial and government-supported satellite launches.
Eventually, SpaceX wants to get to the point of refurbishing Falcon stages and Dragon capsules for reuse, but the company isn't doing that yet.
The first 'Falcon Heavy' is scheduled to launch this year also.
Good job. People forget the problems we had earlier in our space efforts and fail to realize how hard space is. This is why you build in the flexibility and redundancy to deal with unanticipated problems (and the clever people on the ground to work through it).
No the American taxpayer shut NASA space shuttle down. They(American taxpayer) would rather spend 40 billion a month on oversea war instead of 6 billion a month on NASA flying shuttle to space station.
To hell with America, Russian space agency is place for me. Make me mad and no more American astronaut's on space station.
Russia has had issues of its own, especially with respect to launcher reliability...
All the more reason to support Commercial Crew. If there's no alternative to Soyuz and its launcher for ISS access, and a serious problem with either one, then what...?
Great job, and congratulations, however it will never rival a Shuttle docking at the Space Station.
I see their garbage is being sent back to earth. Is there some way trash could be "parked" in space and recycled later? Seems like some sort of recycling of materials could be done at some point.
Without the fuel and vehicle to "Keep it up there" everything eventually comes back down to earth.
I really do not want to spend money on Fuel to keep trash up there, nor do I want it coming "Home" unannounced or controlled. <Grin>
Unless it was parked in a Lagrange point.
We desperately need to get to the point where we can start recycling (specially configured) space trash from the ISS as future throw mass for solar powered linear accelerator (ion drive) propulsion systems in space. This is really the key to conducting regular shuttles to lunar orbit and back, as well as economically maintaining the ISS in Earth orbit, too. While space tourism might just turn out to be the initial use of these space technologies, I am sincerely hoping that we can soon beginning (Earth remote, near real time) surface mining on Luna for He3, not only for the benefit of future thermonuclear propulsion systems in space, but also for the future production of thermonuclear energy here on Earth. - Rick Carter
Sorry, typo. - "I am sincerely hoping that we can soon BEGIN (Earth remote, near real time) surface mining on Luna for He3, not only for the benefit of future thermonuclear propulsion systems in space, but also for the future production of thermonuclear energy here on Earth." - Rick Carter
"We desperately need to get to the point where we can start recycling (specially configured) space trash from the ISS as future throw mass for solar powered linear accelerator (ion drive) propulsion systems in space..."
Most materials are not good ion engine reaction mass. You want something that (surprise) ionizes easily.
"I am sincerely hoping that we can soon beginning (Earth remote, near real time) surface mining on Luna for He3, not only for the benefit of future thermonuclear propulsion systems in space, but also for the future production of thermonuclear energy here on Earth."
And what net power producing fusion reactors are you going to use the stuff in?
While there some non-fusion uses for He3, until someone makes real reactors, there is no energy-producing market for the stuff, and no one will spend the money to go after it if they can't expect a return. Until then, it's like trying to refine gasoline in, say, 1880. Yes, one day there might be a major demand for it, but until then...
"Issue with Dragon thruster pods," Musk wrote. "System inhibiting three of four [pods] from initializing. About to command inhibit override."
Just to be particular, I know that command inhibit override; means to change the status of a normally inhibited command from being not allowed to being allowed, or overridden. But the single word "About" stops a bit too short, first you change the inhibit status bit to (un-inhibit), second you or the system was to execute some command. Was this command operation to test fire for "initializing" the pod, or was it to purge with helium.
If, as described, it was propellant valve and there are three of them, them some common mode failure was experienced (3/4).
Is not always easy to test a valve holding back propellant, and some exotic nuclear reactor valves only may work once.
Hence a question, if two propellant valves were in series, then they could be "test cycled", without propellant escaping. Then this might be tested even on the ground before launch, as well as after launched. "Propellant sitting pressurized against a closed valve may have some effect."
Note: If I had the details, I might not ask these simple questions.