6 ms·
When NASA recovered capsules, they sent a carrier battle group. When SpaceX recovers capsules, they send a barge with a crane, a single crew boat, a couple of
by krschultz 14y ago
When NASA recovered capsules, they sent a carrier battle group.
When SpaceX recovers capsules, they send a barge with a crane, a single crew boat, a couple of inflatables, and a P3 Orion. [1]
That's pretty Lean.
[1] http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20120530 http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20120530
- efsavage 14y agoIt's all fun and games until they bring an alien back with them!
- kijin 14y agoTo be fair, NASA probably had good reasons to fear that the Soviets might try to intercept the capsules. SpaceX doesn't need to worry about that, unless they drop into the Somalian coast or something.
- planetguy 14y agoI doubt the Soviets would have intercepted a manned American capsule any more than they would have gone around kidnapping random American citizens or hijacking American ships -- that'd be an act of war.
- joezydeco 14y agoIf the capsule splashed down in an area that the Soviets considered their waters, you can be certain that it would have been considered an "act of war". Things were different during the Cold War.
- jlgreco 14y agoThe Russians were not unreasonable, if it were an accident the worst they would likely do is rescue the crew and return the capsule dissassembled.
- joezydeco 14y agoI'm not so sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Powers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Powers
- jlgreco 14y agoI am fairly certain the Russians would have recognized that an Apollo capsule landing in their ocean would be a good deal different than a spy plane flying over their country. At the very least they would have known from their own experiance that a reentering capsule would make possibly the worst spy platform ever made. Consider also that the two space programs were basically all about propoganda. Both countries were more or less on their best behaviour.
- waterlesscloud 14y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
- jlgreco 14y agoAgain, not space program and reasonable suspicion of spying.
- arethuza 14y agoThat flight was during a period when the Soviet's were terrified of a US first strike. Not long after this flight was the Able Archer 83 exercise, which is probably the only time since the Cuban Missile crisis that we got close to an actual nuclear war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 Of course, no excuse for shooting down an innocent airliner, but it's often overlooked just how scared the Soviet leaders were at this time.
- lupatus 14y agoI think you mean "worst", as in the "least amount". "Worsted" is a type of yarn [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worsted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worsted
- huhtenberg 14y ago> you can be certain that it would have been considered an "act of war" You should really read up on how touchy-feely Soviets were with all things space-related, and perhaps you would understand how patently idiotic your statement is.
- joezydeco 14y agoMaybe so. But the fact remains that the US dispatched a large carrier fleet to retrieve the manned capsule.
- pavs 14y agomilitary decisions are not based on rational thinking.
- jgrahamc 14y agoThat might have been because NASA was a national project and so national pride was involved. Showing the military strength and size would have been part of the overall story that the NASA program was showing.
- krschultz 14y agoAgreed, but the difference in scale is so extreme. Looking out my office window, I can see a fairly major sea port. The Navy can't get 1 ship off the dock without a half dozen tug boats, plus several security boats, etc. The flotilla SpaceX sent out is smaller than what it takes to undock 1 ship, and a carrier battle group consists of 20+ ships. I just find the contrast really illustrative of why SpaceX was able to do this for a fraction of the cost.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- cdibona 14y agoYou're assuming that NASA 'pays' for the flotilla the same way spacex pays for its gear. Think about it, SpaceX probably rents/leases the gear it needs for the time it needs and knows exactly what it costs. Nasa can basically call the local navy detachment and ask them to swoop in. It's not clear that is accounted for in the NASA budget vs. the normal operating budget of that battle group. Similarly, when NASA says something costs 20k to get to orbit, they're saying that because that's what they told someone it would cost when justifying the program. The real cost of things like a shuttle recovery are never as easy to track as one might think.
- mikeash 14y agoNASA was doing this for the first time. They needed resources to deal with unpredictable failures and mistakes. Some NASA capsules missed their target by a hundred miles or more. One sank. Either of those problems would have been far worse if they had been Lean.
- startupfounder 14y ago"Elon Musk @elonmusk Thrusters will also fire during reentry to adjust touchdown point. Next version will land w helicopter precision #Dragon" You know whats leaner then battleships and speedboats? No need for speedboats... vertical landing is next and will reduce time and cost of reusing the capsule by an order of magnitude. The $1.6b contract was dependent of safe landing and they weren't ready to pull out all of the stops with their "next gen" technology. Now that they have their contract they can continue hitting their milestones at a blistering pace, get huge press coverage and increase their pace towards the goal of multi-planetary solar system domination...
- mikeash 14y agoSorry, was this supposed to be a reply to a different comment?
- protomyth 14y agoBeyond security, do you think the Navy would pass up the PR opportunity. // security was a concern - that was the U-2 era
- jonknee 14y agoTo be fair, there were people in NASA's crafts. National heroes even. They sent out pretty lean teams to capture the SRBs for the Shuttle (which are much larger than the Dragon capsule): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWR_MHkuBMU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWR_MHkuBMU Also, carriers weren't used. Destroyers were (they're a lot more nimble) and we have a bunch chugging around doing exercises at any given point so that's probably a fairly cost effective method.
- PerryCox 14y ago>To be fair, there were people in NASA's crafts. The Dragon capsule is designed to hold people, so SpaceX wouldn't need a bigger ship or crane to haul them in.
- jonknee 14y agoDesigned to hold and have real life people inside are two very different things. NASA didn't want to have a successful mission and then lose their hero astronauts because they couldn't find them at sea in time. Also remember that NASA was doing this in the age before GPS...
- cdash 14y agoThe crew capsule will probably never land in the ocean as they plan to land on a pad with thrusters.
- crusso 14y agoI was all, like, "Really?" Google went all, like, "Really..." http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20120530 http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20120530 > In the future, Dragon will use SuperDraco thrusters to land on a landing pad on ground. This then led to looking up SuperDraco, which is on this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(rocket_engine_family) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(rocket_engine_family) And then we all know how wikipedia is. I'll be following links for the rest of the afternoon and probably shake myself out of it when I realize that I've been looking at Wikpedia articles for Marvel superheroes for 20 minutes. [edit ooh, this is worth seeing too] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUUnYgo1-lI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUUnYgo1-lI
- InclinedPlane 14y agoTo be fair to NASA there are some good reasons to have used a carrier battle group. First, it's a strong deterrent against interference, from either the Soviets, proxy forces, terrorists, or some independent 3rd party (pirates?). Second, it's handy to have 1st world medical care available immediately just in case. If a bad landing caused severe trauma, burns, or what-have-you, or if an emergency appendectomy was needed then care would be right at hand. Third, speed of recovery was important, which meant big ol' helicopters, which means aircraft carriers. Fourth, a worst case scenario survivable landing could involve the capsule landing significantly out of the drop zone, causing injury to the crew (partial chute failure, very hard landing), and sinking forcing the crew to evacuate the capsule. Potentially all without radio contact. In that scenario you'd want to be able to mount a robust search and rescue operation, which is just the sort of thing that a carrier battle group excels at. With more experience, less geopolitical pressure, and more capable spacecraft we can ratchet that response way down, but it wasn't entirely unjustified at the time. Edit: Case in point, the 2nd ever manned flight in the US (sub-orbital even) Liberty Bell 7 had the capsule sink and the astronaut, Gus Grissom, swimming without much assistance in the open ocean. If recovery had taken much longer (even by minutes) it's likely he would have drowned. That set the tone for the later recovery operations.
- reitzensteinm 14y agoJust a nitpick; you have to have your appendix taken out to travel to Antarctica, so I highly doubt they're sending up astronauts without having the procedure done! In 1961, this wasn't the case, and a surgeon was forced to operate on himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov
- protomyth 14y agoIs that still true, I was under the impression that practice had actually ended. In any case, it seems like NASA doesn't require this. http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/home/tech_life_adum.html http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/home/tech_life_adum.html http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309075858&page=102 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309075858&page=102 http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2008/06/04/on-trip-to-mars-nasa-must-rethink-death-and-ponder-the-bioethics-involved-in-deep-space-exploration/ http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2008/06/04/on-tri... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_Vehicle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_Vehicle