8 ms·

SpaceX Crew-1 [video]

219 points by DavidSJ 6y ago

holler 6y ago
in case you want to live discuss I also posted to sqwok https://sqwok.im/p/QGSQH214bPZbBQ https://sqwok.im/p/QGSQH214bPZbBQ
aazaa 6y ago
Amazing how normal this is all starting to seem. A private company sends a crew into space. The re-usable booster lands Buck Rogers-style on a robotic boat - without a hitch.
- tenpies 6y ago
  See I consider it a non-issue because I largely consider SpaceX to be a government company. All the grants, financing, and their largest contracts - all government. Without government, SpaceX would literally not exist. So in my mind they're as "private" as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, or Boeing; meaning sure, the government doesn't own the company shares, but they are de-facto extensions of the US government and would die if the government wanted them to cease to exist. The truly amazing things for me with SpaceX are: Elon Musk is somehow allowed to have a role despite ties to China and a behavioural history that would make anyone else ineligible, and the fact that they are intentionally staying privately-owned in order to keep financials out of the public realm.
  - erklik 6y ago
    I honestly think this is a great model for other greenfield technologies, that further humanity but wouldn't be profitable enough at the start for the capitalistic system to move into it. I truly believe this is how we will have to solve the anthropological climate change problem. It will have to be the government that grants, finances, and provides contracts for the private sector to build various carbon sequestering tech. Why I think the government should provide contracts to the private sector is because it seems like that allows for the private sector to maintain its efficiency and ensure the bureaucracy doesn't sink the whole thing.
  - xfitm3 6y ago
    It very well could be characterized as a government institution but the structure frees the company from the bureaucracy that has kept NASA stagnant. For example NASA is running low on mission ready space suits. This delayed the first all female spacewalk[1] because there weren't enough medium sized suits available although a SpaceX ISS supply mission failure did contribute to the delay[2]. It's extremely expensive to refurbish these suits and a new design has been in R&D for a long time. Russia has kicked the USA's ass in this regard[3]. NASA has done a lot of good for humanity but I can't help but feel it's overburdened with politics and featherbedding. I didn't know anything about NASA and space suits until I read this: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nasa-spacesuits-so-expensive-cost-russia-spacex-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nasa-spacesuits-so-expen... NASA report: https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-17-018.pdf https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-17-018.pdf [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/03/26/706779637/nasa-scraps-first-all-female-spacewalk-for-want-of-a-medium-sized-spacesuit https://www.npr.org/2019/03/26/706779637/nasa-scraps-first-a... [2] https://apnews.com/article/29bf226917954d6e9358b01e83d3a6f5 https://apnews.com/article/29bf226917954d6e9358b01e83d3a6f5 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlan_space_suit#Models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlan_space_suit#Models
    - simonh 6y ago
      Government institutions are managed and run by the government. That's what makes them government institutions. SpaceX is neither managed nor run by the government. But more broadly, suppose I accept your characterisation. What does that say about SpaceX that is interesting. Why is that particular approach to organisational taxonomy useful?
  - nickik 6y ago
    This is a very one sided interpretation. First of all, its factually wrong. SpaceX would exist without the government. It got started without government money. It is equally false that SpaceX would not exist without government money. SpaceX might have gone bankrupt without COTS contract, but at that time they had already proven the technology and in some form would have come back in some form. During all of SpaceX existence government flights were never the majority of flights and SpaceX didn't fly for the DoD for a very long time. They had a huge backlog of commercial buissness. > The truly amazing things for me with SpaceX are: Elon Musk is somehow allowed to have a role despite ties to China and a behavioural history that would make anyone else ineligible, and the fact that they are intentionally staying privately-owned in order to keep financials out of the public realm. This points me towards the real reason for your arguments. You dislike Musk and thus if SpaceX is doing well and is private he is both responsible and has a lot of control and he gets credit. What is truly shocking is that some people believe any of this would have happened without Musk, or that it would simply continue at the same rate without him. Great now we have SpaceX, so we can kick away Musk and continue to milk the golden goose. You claim that anybody else would not ineligible is just nonsense, nothing he has done would disqualify any other buissness owner from working for the government. The same goes for his relationship with China. The reality is that SpaceX and their ability to innovate is what saved NASA, all of NASA internal development have been major shit-shows for the last couple of decades and it was SpaceX that made space popular again. Even within NASA the type of contracting they are now doing with SpaceX was very controversial, but once COTS started happening slowly most of NASA was converted to this being a better way to do buissness that has now been adopted for a huge amount of new programs and has foster in the US the most innovative private space industry in the world by far. SpaceX has profited from government money, but the government has profited 10x as much from SpaceX ability to actually get shit done. Non of that would have happened if SpaceX was 'just' part of the government or if it made sense to think think of them like that. They are different organizations with different culture working on different things and sometimes work together.
    - electriclove 6y ago
      Agreed! Equating SpaceX to LM, Raytheon, Boeing just shows how much the parent doesn't understand that SpaceX is disrupting the industry. And it is definitely due to Musk whether you like him or not.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    > So in my mind they're as "private" as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, or Boeing; meaning sure, the government doesn't own the company shares, but they are de-facto extensions of the US government and would die if the government wanted them to cease to exist. Ridiculous, as numerous industries depend from investment in Space anyway to launch satellites - private companies would survive even if there was no government involvment.
  - joefourier 6y ago
    There is a vast difference between being a government agency and having the government as a customer. NASA has no say on SpaceX's engineering practices, the exact specifications beyond specified in the contract, or whether or not a senator's favourite supplier is used for certain parts. At the end of the day, SpaceX can choose to spend its profits however it pleases, whether that it on a stainless steel giant rocket or digging tunnels because the CEO is tired of sitting in traffic, without needing approval from any politician. You also would do well to read up on the details of SpaceX's financing. Private capital has contributed several billions to its funding - just earlier this year, they raised $1.9 billion. Several projects were entirely privately funded, including Falcon 1 and its engines, Falcon Heavy and until recently, Starship. Government funding is of a similar magnitude of course, but it is disingenuous to say it comprises the entirety of SpaceX's finances. As another poster said, just NASA's choice of using commercial operators (including Boeing) was hugely controversial, drawing skepticism even from Neil Armstrong and other astronauts. It's a massive departure from the previous approach where NASA would design the overall vehicle and subcontract portions of it to different subcontractors; instead, they're paying for a complete package that is owned by a private corporation that designed everything on their own down to the spacesuits.
    - greedo 6y ago
      While I agree largely with most of your points, NASA does have a lot of say in SpaceX's engineering practices. If you read up on the certification process and especially the reviews after the various failures (Crew Dragon tests), SpaceX had to get NASA sign off. Now as long as SpaceX can show that doing something with XYZ works fine, then they can do XYZ.
      - simonh 6y ago
        NASA has to sign it off so yes they do have input into engineering practices in that sense, but they do not have any say in the design itself or how SpaceX reach the engineering criteria. They set the goals, but not the methods of achieving them.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  One of the nicest normalization of the decade I think.
- nerdface 6y ago
  I read some of the NASA books recently and you’d think things are going without a hitch and yet hundreds of anomalies happen along the way that the casual observer simply didn’t see.
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    A good example is the one we did see today - they closed the dragon hatch and noticed a very small leak during a pressure test. So they opened the hatch back up and inspected it for “FOD” (I think foreign object debris). They found some piece of FOD, removed it, and closed the hatch again. Then the pressure test passed. I did not see the debrief where they said they’d talk more about what they found. But needless to say they are checking and fixing so many tiny and big things I’m sure.
    - jbay808 6y ago
      Earlier in the launch prep, they mentioned how much attention was being placed to the integrity of the seals of the zippers on their space suits, since they'd be required in the event of a cabin depressurization. And shortly after I could see that, yes, they had good reason for these detailed precautions.
      - Jaruzel 6y ago
        > attention was being placed to the integrity of the seals of the zippers on their space suit IIRC during the DEMO-1 launch, the two astronauts mentioned that their suit zippers were not fully fastened and there were minor suit pressure leaks.
    - skissane 6y ago
      There was another anomaly after launch – Thermal Control System (TCS) loop pressure spike. They decided it was not a serious issue and to continue in spite of it.
      - grecy 6y ago
- davidhyde 6y ago
  All the more important for SpaceX to keep the masses impressed and interested which they seem to be doing a good job of. The Apollo program died party because people lost interest. > "And Apollo was a victim of its own success. For laymen, one moon landing after another was a little boring." Ref. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch22-8.html https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch22-8.ht...
  - gregoriol 6y ago
    That's actually true: I used to watch the first landings, but not anymore. Recently watched Demo-1 and the last Heavy, but not sure if I'll watch any other until something really new happens
    - irjustin 6y ago
      Starship is coming!
- randyrand 6y ago
  all things norminal!
app4soft 6y ago
Intro Music from the Race Into Space may be the best SpaceX Crew-1 liftoff OST (and Final Music as OST for Falcon 9 stage landing).[0,1] P.S. Crew-1 Live discussion thread on r/SpaceXLounge.[2] [0] https://twitter.com/app4soft/status/1328132147014721537 https://twitter.com/app4soft/status/1328132147014721537 [1] https://sourceforge.net/projects/raceintospace/files/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/raceintospace/files/ [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/juuthn/crew1_mission/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/juuthn/crew1_...
randrews543 6y ago
Awesome achievement for SpaceX! So excited for what is in store for space travel the several decades
NikolaeVarius 6y ago
TLDW: First stage recaptured, nominal orbital insertion, 24 hours until autonomous docking.
mlindner 6y ago
Link to the next stream here for in-flight that is already live: https://youtu.be/eVB02SSeqgQ https://youtu.be/eVB02SSeqgQ
ilyagr 6y ago
Good place to follow the launch, will probably run until docking: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/ju7fxv/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/ju7fxv/
imglorp 6y ago
Soyuz recently developed a 3 hour flight profile to ISS, instead of a 27 hour one. Maybe they'll revise the Dragon profile sometime. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/10/soyuz-ms17-ultrafast-journey-to-iss/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/10/soyuz-ms17-ultrafast...
- robbiet480 6y ago
  My understanding is that if they had launched yesterday as originally planned it would’ve taken only 8 hours to get to ISS.
- thamer 6y ago
  Scott Manley posted a great video a few weeks ago explaining the differences between the ways SpaceX and Soyuz do their orbital insertion and rendez-vous with the ISS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUi0yWc5Dnw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUi0yWc5Dnw
  - gdy 6y ago
    It's a bit incorrect -- Soyuz is using Russian-made rendezvous system Kurs-NA since 2016. Ukrainian-made Kurs system is obsolete.
- solaris00 6y ago
  This was just answered in the coast phase broadcast: Including a break for sleep is also a large factor in this profile given the time of day of today's launch.
  - m0zg 6y ago
    I can't imagine sleeping under these circumstances. I'd probably be pumped so full of adrenaline, I wouldn't be able to sleep for a week.
    - crazyjncsu 6y ago
      Ambien. Members of SEAL team 6 actually napped on the helicopter ride to take out Bin Laden: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/how-does-seal-team-6-get-sleep-lots-ambien/323764/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/ho...
m0zg 6y ago
Flawless work. And to think that just a year ago the United States did not have the ability to deliver humans to the orbit, and now it not only has this ability, but also has it at a record breaking low cost, and it'll only get better from here on out.
- Tepix 6y ago
  Your post is misleading on so many levels: * It was not a flawless launch, there were (minor) issues. * NASA's inability to deliver humans into orbit was a temporary one * Technological advances are not a given, as both the past shows and Elon Musk is saying all the time.
  - m0zg 6y ago
    Your post, on the other hand, is facepalm inducing. Best I can tell NASA _still_ doesn't have the ability to deliver humans into orbit due mostly to bureaucracy and neglect. They purchase it from SpaceX. And to call a launch where everything went darn near perfect, 4 people were inserted into orbit and the first stage landed smack dab in the middle of the barge anything less than flawless is pedantic to the extreme. #3 is mind reading, so I won't even address it.
    - Tepix 6y ago
      They outsourced the development of this capability to two companies, one of them is able to deliver now. To me that sounds as if they can deliver people into orbit. Regarding the flaws, well I woke up, checked twitter (the launch was a few hours earlier) and the first 20 tweets or so were about two flaws that had since been fixed. Clearly it wasn't flawless. It was a great launch for sure but calling it flawless is just wrong.
      - m0zg 6y ago
        "Outsourcing" is when you own the resulting IP. That is not the case here, so SpaceX is not "outsourcing".
  - 6y ago
credit_guy 6y ago
Elon Musk may or may not know it yet, but his biggest contribution to humankind will not be that the Starship will take us to Mars, or that Tesla will help us shake off the dependency on fossil fuels. His biggest contribution will be to bring the end of the MAD world. The Mutually Assured Destruction world in which the majority of the living people were born, and never thought it will ever end. You see, in the '80s the US had a missile defense idea called Brilliant Pebbles [1]. Basically they would put about 10k to 100k small missiles in orbit and these missiles would detect ICMB launches and go and destroy them. The problem was the economics of the system. It was simply too expensive. And because of that it was very easy to counter it: it was cheaper to build a few additional ICMBs than to add the necessary "pebbles" to neutralize them. But SpaceX changed this calculus. It's now much easier to put things in LEO. And it will become cheaper still. It is very likely that in 10 years the Brilliant Pebbles will become economical. And if they do, they become obligatory. Because it will be only a matter of time until Russia (or maybe China) builds the capability of cheap space launches that will match SpaceX. And if they do, and build the Brilliant Pebbles first, then the US will find itself in a very unenviable position. So in a very near future someone from the Pentagon will approach Elon Musk with an offer he won't be able to refuse. And why would he? Being part of the thing that ends the MAD will be certain to net him a Nobel Prize for Peace. And he will definitely be worth it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  I'd expect such a system to severely ramp up tensions during development. "Our nukes are about to be useless, and theirs will work fine" is not a great thought to have in an adversary's mind for a 5-10 year period.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    This is also is in line with the Russian objection to the the US wanting to convert some of their SSBNs to fire conventional warheads, to paraphrase their response “we won’t be wasting time trying to figure out what was launched and where is it heading”.
option 6y ago
If Elon succeeds in his mission on making humans multi-planetary species (an enormously huge IF), he will be remembered as the greatest human who has ever lived for a very long time.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hvdfhbj 6y ago
  In the long term I'm thinking that planets are the wrong approach. If you're going to get a significant fraction of the human race living off Earth you'll need to build something nicer than Earth, and Mars doesn't cut it. Giant ring-shaped space stations like the orbitals in the Culture series seem like the way to go. You can build enough of them for a population of trillions simply by disassembling the moon, and build them with climate, gravity and aesthetics that are pleasing to humans. Mars is probably a necessary first step, but it's small fry.
  - Tepix 6y ago
    Getting the cost of transport into space down by several orders of magnitude with full reuseability is the achievement.
  - mandeepj 6y ago
    > If you're going to get a significant fraction of the human race living off Earth you'll need to build something nicer than Earth that's what Blue Origin is working-on but their timeline is unsure to me :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Uyfqi_TE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Uyfqi_TE8
  - nine_k 6y ago
    Being outside of control of any government on Earth would be a strong enough magnet for some. Remember how people on Mayflower were not going for more daily comfort.
plasma 6y ago
The interior of the spacecraft definitely looks “modern” with those large screens like Tesla’s for heads up display.
gregoriol 6y ago
I'm wondering what would be the procedure if that giant mosquito we saw at about 2:45:10 went inside the capsule (before closing of the hatch, or if discovered after!)

219 points by DavidSJ 6y ago

in case you want to live discuss I also posted to sqwok https://sqwok.im/p/QGSQH214bPZbBQ https://sqwok.im/p/QGSQH214bPZbBQ

aazaa 6y ago

Amazing how normal this is all starting to seem. A private company sends a crew into space. The re-usable booster lands Buck Rogers-style on a robotic boat - without a hitch.

tenpies 6y ago
See I consider it a non-issue because I largely consider SpaceX to be a government company. All the grants, financing, and their largest contracts - all government. Without government, SpaceX would literally not exist. So in my mind they're as "private" as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, or Boeing; meaning sure, the government doesn't own the company shares, but they are de-facto extensions of the US government and would die if the government wanted them to cease to exist. The truly amazing things for me with SpaceX are: Elon Musk is somehow allowed to have a role despite ties to China and a behavioural history that would make anyone else ineligible, and the fact that they are intentionally staying privately-owned in order to keep financials out of the public realm.
- erklik 6y ago
  I honestly think this is a great model for other greenfield technologies, that further humanity but wouldn't be profitable enough at the start for the capitalistic system to move into it. I truly believe this is how we will have to solve the anthropological climate change problem. It will have to be the government that grants, finances, and provides contracts for the private sector to build various carbon sequestering tech. Why I think the government should provide contracts to the private sector is because it seems like that allows for the private sector to maintain its efficiency and ensure the bureaucracy doesn't sink the whole thing.
- xfitm3 6y ago
  It very well could be characterized as a government institution but the structure frees the company from the bureaucracy that has kept NASA stagnant. For example NASA is running low on mission ready space suits. This delayed the first all female spacewalk[1] because there weren't enough medium sized suits available although a SpaceX ISS supply mission failure did contribute to the delay[2]. It's extremely expensive to refurbish these suits and a new design has been in R&D for a long time. Russia has kicked the USA's ass in this regard[3]. NASA has done a lot of good for humanity but I can't help but feel it's overburdened with politics and featherbedding. I didn't know anything about NASA and space suits until I read this: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nasa-spacesuits-so-expensive-cost-russia-spacex-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nasa-spacesuits-so-expen... NASA report: https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-17-018.pdf https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-17-018.pdf [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/03/26/706779637/nasa-scraps-first-all-female-spacewalk-for-want-of-a-medium-sized-spacesuit https://www.npr.org/2019/03/26/706779637/nasa-scraps-first-a... [2] https://apnews.com/article/29bf226917954d6e9358b01e83d3a6f5 https://apnews.com/article/29bf226917954d6e9358b01e83d3a6f5 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlan_space_suit#Models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlan_space_suit#Models
  - simonh 6y ago
    Government institutions are managed and run by the government. That's what makes them government institutions. SpaceX is neither managed nor run by the government. But more broadly, suppose I accept your characterisation. What does that say about SpaceX that is interesting. Why is that particular approach to organisational taxonomy useful?
- nickik 6y ago
  This is a very one sided interpretation. First of all, its factually wrong. SpaceX would exist without the government. It got started without government money. It is equally false that SpaceX would not exist without government money. SpaceX might have gone bankrupt without COTS contract, but at that time they had already proven the technology and in some form would have come back in some form. During all of SpaceX existence government flights were never the majority of flights and SpaceX didn't fly for the DoD for a very long time. They had a huge backlog of commercial buissness. > The truly amazing things for me with SpaceX are: Elon Musk is somehow allowed to have a role despite ties to China and a behavioural history that would make anyone else ineligible, and the fact that they are intentionally staying privately-owned in order to keep financials out of the public realm. This points me towards the real reason for your arguments. You dislike Musk and thus if SpaceX is doing well and is private he is both responsible and has a lot of control and he gets credit. What is truly shocking is that some people believe any of this would have happened without Musk, or that it would simply continue at the same rate without him. Great now we have SpaceX, so we can kick away Musk and continue to milk the golden goose. You claim that anybody else would not ineligible is just nonsense, nothing he has done would disqualify any other buissness owner from working for the government. The same goes for his relationship with China. The reality is that SpaceX and their ability to innovate is what saved NASA, all of NASA internal development have been major shit-shows for the last couple of decades and it was SpaceX that made space popular again. Even within NASA the type of contracting they are now doing with SpaceX was very controversial, but once COTS started happening slowly most of NASA was converted to this being a better way to do buissness that has now been adopted for a huge amount of new programs and has foster in the US the most innovative private space industry in the world by far. SpaceX has profited from government money, but the government has profited 10x as much from SpaceX ability to actually get shit done. Non of that would have happened if SpaceX was 'just' part of the government or if it made sense to think think of them like that. They are different organizations with different culture working on different things and sometimes work together.
  - electriclove 6y ago
    Agreed! Equating SpaceX to LM, Raytheon, Boeing just shows how much the parent doesn't understand that SpaceX is disrupting the industry. And it is definitely due to Musk whether you like him or not.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ekianjo 6y ago
  > So in my mind they're as "private" as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, or Boeing; meaning sure, the government doesn't own the company shares, but they are de-facto extensions of the US government and would die if the government wanted them to cease to exist. Ridiculous, as numerous industries depend from investment in Space anyway to launch satellites - private companies would survive even if there was no government involvment.
- joefourier 6y ago
  There is a vast difference between being a government agency and having the government as a customer. NASA has no say on SpaceX's engineering practices, the exact specifications beyond specified in the contract, or whether or not a senator's favourite supplier is used for certain parts. At the end of the day, SpaceX can choose to spend its profits however it pleases, whether that it on a stainless steel giant rocket or digging tunnels because the CEO is tired of sitting in traffic, without needing approval from any politician. You also would do well to read up on the details of SpaceX's financing. Private capital has contributed several billions to its funding - just earlier this year, they raised $1.9 billion. Several projects were entirely privately funded, including Falcon 1 and its engines, Falcon Heavy and until recently, Starship. Government funding is of a similar magnitude of course, but it is disingenuous to say it comprises the entirety of SpaceX's finances. As another poster said, just NASA's choice of using commercial operators (including Boeing) was hugely controversial, drawing skepticism even from Neil Armstrong and other astronauts. It's a massive departure from the previous approach where NASA would design the overall vehicle and subcontract portions of it to different subcontractors; instead, they're paying for a complete package that is owned by a private corporation that designed everything on their own down to the spacesuits.
  - greedo 6y ago
    While I agree largely with most of your points, NASA does have a lot of say in SpaceX's engineering practices. If you read up on the certification process and especially the reviews after the various failures (Crew Dragon tests), SpaceX had to get NASA sign off. Now as long as SpaceX can show that doing something with XYZ works fine, then they can do XYZ.
    - simonh 6y ago
      NASA has to sign it off so yes they do have input into engineering practices in that sense, but they do not have any say in the design itself or how SpaceX reach the engineering criteria. They set the goals, but not the methods of achieving them.
agumonkey 6y ago
One of the nicest normalization of the decade I think.
nerdface 6y ago
I read some of the NASA books recently and you’d think things are going without a hitch and yet hundreds of anomalies happen along the way that the casual observer simply didn’t see.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  A good example is the one we did see today - they closed the dragon hatch and noticed a very small leak during a pressure test. So they opened the hatch back up and inspected it for “FOD” (I think foreign object debris). They found some piece of FOD, removed it, and closed the hatch again. Then the pressure test passed. I did not see the debrief where they said they’d talk more about what they found. But needless to say they are checking and fixing so many tiny and big things I’m sure.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    Earlier in the launch prep, they mentioned how much attention was being placed to the integrity of the seals of the zippers on their space suits, since they'd be required in the event of a cabin depressurization. And shortly after I could see that, yes, they had good reason for these detailed precautions.
    - Jaruzel 6y ago
      > attention was being placed to the integrity of the seals of the zippers on their space suit IIRC during the DEMO-1 launch, the two astronauts mentioned that their suit zippers were not fully fastened and there were minor suit pressure leaks.
  - skissane 6y ago
    There was another anomaly after launch – Thermal Control System (TCS) loop pressure spike. They decided it was not a serious issue and to continue in spite of it.
    - grecy 6y ago
davidhyde 6y ago
All the more important for SpaceX to keep the masses impressed and interested which they seem to be doing a good job of. The Apollo program died party because people lost interest. > "And Apollo was a victim of its own success. For laymen, one moon landing after another was a little boring." Ref. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch22-8.html https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch22-8.ht...
- gregoriol 6y ago
  That's actually true: I used to watch the first landings, but not anymore. Recently watched Demo-1 and the last Heavy, but not sure if I'll watch any other until something really new happens
  - irjustin 6y ago
    Starship is coming!
randyrand 6y ago
all things norminal!

app4soft 6y ago

Intro Music from the Race Into Space may be the best SpaceX Crew-1 liftoff OST (and Final Music as OST for Falcon 9 stage landing).[0,1] P.S. Crew-1 Live discussion thread on r/SpaceXLounge.[2] [0] https://twitter.com/app4soft/status/1328132147014721537 https://twitter.com/app4soft/status/1328132147014721537 [1] https://sourceforge.net/projects/raceintospace/files/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/raceintospace/files/ [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/juuthn/crew1_mission/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/juuthn/crew1_...

randrews543 6y ago

Awesome achievement for SpaceX! So excited for what is in store for space travel the several decades

NikolaeVarius 6y ago

TLDW: First stage recaptured, nominal orbital insertion, 24 hours until autonomous docking.

mlindner 6y ago

Link to the next stream here for in-flight that is already live: https://youtu.be/eVB02SSeqgQ https://youtu.be/eVB02SSeqgQ

ilyagr 6y ago

Good place to follow the launch, will probably run until docking: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/ju7fxv/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/ju7fxv/

imglorp 6y ago

Soyuz recently developed a 3 hour flight profile to ISS, instead of a 27 hour one. Maybe they'll revise the Dragon profile sometime. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/10/soyuz-ms17-ultrafast-journey-to-iss/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/10/soyuz-ms17-ultrafast...

robbiet480 6y ago
My understanding is that if they had launched yesterday as originally planned it would’ve taken only 8 hours to get to ISS.
thamer 6y ago
Scott Manley posted a great video a few weeks ago explaining the differences between the ways SpaceX and Soyuz do their orbital insertion and rendez-vous with the ISS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUi0yWc5Dnw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUi0yWc5Dnw
- gdy 6y ago
  It's a bit incorrect -- Soyuz is using Russian-made rendezvous system Kurs-NA since 2016. Ukrainian-made Kurs system is obsolete.
solaris00 6y ago
This was just answered in the coast phase broadcast: Including a break for sleep is also a large factor in this profile given the time of day of today's launch.
- m0zg 6y ago
  I can't imagine sleeping under these circumstances. I'd probably be pumped so full of adrenaline, I wouldn't be able to sleep for a week.
  - crazyjncsu 6y ago
    Ambien. Members of SEAL team 6 actually napped on the helicopter ride to take out Bin Laden: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/how-does-seal-team-6-get-sleep-lots-ambien/323764/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/ho...

m0zg 6y ago

Flawless work. And to think that just a year ago the United States did not have the ability to deliver humans to the orbit, and now it not only has this ability, but also has it at a record breaking low cost, and it'll only get better from here on out.

Tepix 6y ago
Your post is misleading on so many levels: * It was not a flawless launch, there were (minor) issues. * NASA's inability to deliver humans into orbit was a temporary one * Technological advances are not a given, as both the past shows and Elon Musk is saying all the time.
- m0zg 6y ago
  Your post, on the other hand, is facepalm inducing. Best I can tell NASA _still_ doesn't have the ability to deliver humans into orbit due mostly to bureaucracy and neglect. They purchase it from SpaceX. And to call a launch where everything went darn near perfect, 4 people were inserted into orbit and the first stage landed smack dab in the middle of the barge anything less than flawless is pedantic to the extreme. #3 is mind reading, so I won't even address it.
  - Tepix 6y ago
    They outsourced the development of this capability to two companies, one of them is able to deliver now. To me that sounds as if they can deliver people into orbit. Regarding the flaws, well I woke up, checked twitter (the launch was a few hours earlier) and the first 20 tweets or so were about two flaws that had since been fixed. Clearly it wasn't flawless. It was a great launch for sure but calling it flawless is just wrong.
    - m0zg 6y ago
      "Outsourcing" is when you own the resulting IP. That is not the case here, so SpaceX is not "outsourcing".
- 6y ago

credit_guy 6y ago

Elon Musk may or may not know it yet, but his biggest contribution to humankind will not be that the Starship will take us to Mars, or that Tesla will help us shake off the dependency on fossil fuels. His biggest contribution will be to bring the end of the MAD world. The Mutually Assured Destruction world in which the majority of the living people were born, and never thought it will ever end. You see, in the '80s the US had a missile defense idea called Brilliant Pebbles [1]. Basically they would put about 10k to 100k small missiles in orbit and these missiles would detect ICMB launches and go and destroy them. The problem was the economics of the system. It was simply too expensive. And because of that it was very easy to counter it: it was cheaper to build a few additional ICMBs than to add the necessary "pebbles" to neutralize them. But SpaceX changed this calculus. It's now much easier to put things in LEO. And it will become cheaper still. It is very likely that in 10 years the Brilliant Pebbles will become economical. And if they do, they become obligatory. Because it will be only a matter of time until Russia (or maybe China) builds the capability of cheap space launches that will match SpaceX. And if they do, and build the Brilliant Pebbles first, then the US will find itself in a very unenviable position. So in a very near future someone from the Pentagon will approach Elon Musk with an offer he won't be able to refuse. And why would he? Being part of the thing that ends the MAD will be certain to net him a Nobel Prize for Peace. And he will definitely be worth it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles

ceejayoz 6y ago
I'd expect such a system to severely ramp up tensions during development. "Our nukes are about to be useless, and theirs will work fine" is not a great thought to have in an adversary's mind for a 5-10 year period.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  This is also is in line with the Russian objection to the the US wanting to convert some of their SSBNs to fire conventional warheads, to paraphrase their response “we won’t be wasting time trying to figure out what was launched and where is it heading”.

option 6y ago

If Elon succeeds in his mission on making humans multi-planetary species (an enormously huge IF), he will be remembered as the greatest human who has ever lived for a very long time.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hvdfhbj 6y ago
In the long term I'm thinking that planets are the wrong approach. If you're going to get a significant fraction of the human race living off Earth you'll need to build something nicer than Earth, and Mars doesn't cut it. Giant ring-shaped space stations like the orbitals in the Culture series seem like the way to go. You can build enough of them for a population of trillions simply by disassembling the moon, and build them with climate, gravity and aesthetics that are pleasing to humans. Mars is probably a necessary first step, but it's small fry.
- Tepix 6y ago
  Getting the cost of transport into space down by several orders of magnitude with full reuseability is the achievement.
- mandeepj 6y ago
  > If you're going to get a significant fraction of the human race living off Earth you'll need to build something nicer than Earth that's what Blue Origin is working-on but their timeline is unsure to me :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Uyfqi_TE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Uyfqi_TE8
- nine_k 6y ago
  Being outside of control of any government on Earth would be a strong enough magnet for some. Remember how people on Mayflower were not going for more daily comfort.

plasma 6y ago

The interior of the spacecraft definitely looks “modern” with those large screens like Tesla’s for heads up display.

gregoriol 6y ago

I'm wondering what would be the procedure if that giant mosquito we saw at about 2:45:10 went inside the capsule (before closing of the hatch, or if discovered after!)