5 ms·

SpaceX ISS Dragon resupply mission is today

89 points by iwwr 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Hmm, the site says we're still 23 hrs from launch so perhaps they meant "tomorrow" in the headline. Aka "Sunday"
chaud 14y ago
Launch of this first commercial resupply mission (SpaceX CRS-1) to the complex is set for 8:35PM EDT Sunday, October 7 from Launch Complex 40 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.
tsotha 14y ago
If by "today" you mean "tomorrow". I really hope this goes well. The Falcon 9 is still a pretty new rocket, and the Dragon is still a pretty new capsule. Give me five more good launches and I'll be able to watch without holding my breath.
- softbuilder 14y ago
  > Give me five more good launches and I'll be able to watch without holding my breath. Until they put people in them. And then the breath-holding starts all over.
- danielweber 14y ago
  IIRC the safest class you can get a rocket into occurs once it has 14 successful launches in a row. PS I'm not an expert in this.
VexXtreme 14y ago
To me, this is nothing short of amazing. This is the first time we are seeing commercial entities working closely with national/international government run space programs. This is a new era for space exploration because this is the first time private money will start rolling into space exploration programs. The problem with government funded programs is they are underfunded, limited in scope and often have no competition that would push them forward. One of the reasons why Apollo programs were so successful is because Americans and Russians were trying to out do each others and that created a healthy environment for amazing new tech to emerge. The problem today is that no country really cares about space exploration anymore... at least not to the extent they used to. When you allow free market forces and commercial competition to do their thing, you end up with all sorts of great things that otherwise never would've been. Can all of you imagine where we would be right now if everything computer related was ever researched and invented solely by governmental research programs? Probably somewhere in the 80s/90s, tech wise. If it weren't for Apple and Google trying to make as much money as possible in the phone market, we'd still likely be stuck with black and white phones with mechanical keypads. Same thing is about to happen with space programs. It's the capitalism, competition and free markets that allow for great inventions to emerge. Human greed CAN be a good thing.
- chucknelson 14y ago
  I sometimes wonder why space exploration interest ever waned. You would think as population increases and natural resource supplies tighten, that the world would be a bit more motivated. I'm convinced that interest is low because the problem is just too damn hard.
  - tisme 14y ago
    Because once you've won a race there is no point in continuing to run. Access to space never was about access to space to begin with, it was a showdown on the world political stage.
    - btyrad 14y ago
      Exactly. And what is the end goal of space exploration? Colonize another planet? Do you know how impossible that seems -air, food, facilities?? Billions spent for what exactly...mining operations?
      - chucknelson 14y ago
        So what is the catalyst that sets off "real" space exploration? Near-exhaustion of Earth's resources?
- codex 14y ago
  The Space Shuttle was designed and built by a private contractor (North American Rockwell) after a competitive selection process among many private parties; even in the SpaceX case, the funding is provided by the government to private parties through the age-old bidding process. So I'm not sure what's so revolutionary here, especially given an almost zero potential for space profits absent government support. Mining the asteroids might be an opportunity the private sector could exploit in a few decades.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    The big difference is SpaceX was able to keep the cost down because they put the money in up front and thus weren't forced by Congress to spread the work over 20 states. But that will change now that they have government contracts.
chucknelson 14y ago
FYI - A bit strange, but the actual pre-launch news conference doesn't start until 37:15 into the video on the page this story links to.
mkramlich 14y ago
What excites me the most about SpaceX and Elon Musk is not so much the superficial/ostensible meaning of what they're doing (private contracts to deliver payloads to space) but the following. The fact that a foundation is being laid for a situation where basically a single guy, a private citizen, namely Musk with his personality and talents and passion, can one day slam his fist down and say, "That's it. Fuck it. We're going to Mars." and then make it happen. Putting humans on the surface of Mars. Or an asteroid, whatever. As completely private missions, if desired. Without getting bogged down by a flaky showboating Congress, by NASA budgets, by legacy bureaucracy, etc. Because they're building (incrementally) a complete in-house stack for taking people off-planet and (eventually) to other ones, and back. Yes you have to make the money work. That's doable. But more importantly it reduces their exposure to bureacracy, government and BDC inertia. And it's not a baby-vs-bathwater situation. They can hire away the brains from NASA and other space companies, where needed, where possible, so it's not like they're losing out on all that accumulated experience and best practice. But they do get to start from scratch and make it much easier to greenlight new "risky" projects and Get Things Done. Planetary Resources excites me for similar reasons. Though I don't think they have quite the same degree of talent at the top in a single guy as with the case of SpaceX. But still, very promising team, vision and approach.
- codex 14y ago
  Given that a publically funded manned Mars mission would be at least $10B, a private mission would be difficult even if the cost were reduced 10x. And SpaceX can't even reduce orbital launch costs by 10x over today's gold standard; according to Wikpedia, the Russians have the currently cheapest operational LEO system on a per kilogram basis. Meanwhile, SpaceX's costs are 2x over original estimates. While the Space Shuttle was such a boondoggle that almost anyone could reduce costs as compared to it, contemporary Russian programs are not nearly as poorly designed and executed.
  - varjag 14y ago
    Russian programs are not contemporary: they are early 1970s projects with some 21st century trim jobs. They R&D costs and production lines were amortized before Reagan came to power.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
reichert 14y ago
Sometimes I wonder if the reason Musk has worked so hard/had so much success with spacex is just because he wants to return to his home planet.
- jonsen 14y ago
  What an alien comment.

89 points by iwwr 14y ago

Hmm, the site says we're still 23 hrs from launch so perhaps they meant "tomorrow" in the headline. Aka "Sunday"

chaud 14y ago

Launch of this first commercial resupply mission (SpaceX CRS-1) to the complex is set for 8:35PM EDT Sunday, October 7 from Launch Complex 40 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.

tsotha 14y ago

If by "today" you mean "tomorrow". I really hope this goes well. The Falcon 9 is still a pretty new rocket, and the Dragon is still a pretty new capsule. Give me five more good launches and I'll be able to watch without holding my breath.

softbuilder 14y ago
> Give me five more good launches and I'll be able to watch without holding my breath. Until they put people in them. And then the breath-holding starts all over.
danielweber 14y ago
IIRC the safest class you can get a rocket into occurs once it has 14 successful launches in a row. PS I'm not an expert in this.

VexXtreme 14y ago

To me, this is nothing short of amazing. This is the first time we are seeing commercial entities working closely with national/international government run space programs. This is a new era for space exploration because this is the first time private money will start rolling into space exploration programs. The problem with government funded programs is they are underfunded, limited in scope and often have no competition that would push them forward. One of the reasons why Apollo programs were so successful is because Americans and Russians were trying to out do each others and that created a healthy environment for amazing new tech to emerge. The problem today is that no country really cares about space exploration anymore... at least not to the extent they used to. When you allow free market forces and commercial competition to do their thing, you end up with all sorts of great things that otherwise never would've been. Can all of you imagine where we would be right now if everything computer related was ever researched and invented solely by governmental research programs? Probably somewhere in the 80s/90s, tech wise. If it weren't for Apple and Google trying to make as much money as possible in the phone market, we'd still likely be stuck with black and white phones with mechanical keypads. Same thing is about to happen with space programs. It's the capitalism, competition and free markets that allow for great inventions to emerge. Human greed CAN be a good thing.

chucknelson 14y ago
I sometimes wonder why space exploration interest ever waned. You would think as population increases and natural resource supplies tighten, that the world would be a bit more motivated. I'm convinced that interest is low because the problem is just too damn hard.
- tisme 14y ago
  Because once you've won a race there is no point in continuing to run. Access to space never was about access to space to begin with, it was a showdown on the world political stage.
  - btyrad 14y ago
    Exactly. And what is the end goal of space exploration? Colonize another planet? Do you know how impossible that seems -air, food, facilities?? Billions spent for what exactly...mining operations?
    - chucknelson 14y ago
      So what is the catalyst that sets off "real" space exploration? Near-exhaustion of Earth's resources?
codex 14y ago
The Space Shuttle was designed and built by a private contractor (North American Rockwell) after a competitive selection process among many private parties; even in the SpaceX case, the funding is provided by the government to private parties through the age-old bidding process. So I'm not sure what's so revolutionary here, especially given an almost zero potential for space profits absent government support. Mining the asteroids might be an opportunity the private sector could exploit in a few decades.
- tsotha 14y ago
  The big difference is SpaceX was able to keep the cost down because they put the money in up front and thus weren't forced by Congress to spread the work over 20 states. But that will change now that they have government contracts.

chucknelson 14y ago

FYI - A bit strange, but the actual pre-launch news conference doesn't start until 37:15 into the video on the page this story links to.

mkramlich 14y ago

What excites me the most about SpaceX and Elon Musk is not so much the superficial/ostensible meaning of what they're doing (private contracts to deliver payloads to space) but the following. The fact that a foundation is being laid for a situation where basically a single guy, a private citizen, namely Musk with his personality and talents and passion, can one day slam his fist down and say, "That's it. Fuck it. We're going to Mars." and then make it happen. Putting humans on the surface of Mars. Or an asteroid, whatever. As completely private missions, if desired. Without getting bogged down by a flaky showboating Congress, by NASA budgets, by legacy bureaucracy, etc. Because they're building (incrementally) a complete in-house stack for taking people off-planet and (eventually) to other ones, and back. Yes you have to make the money work. That's doable. But more importantly it reduces their exposure to bureacracy, government and BDC inertia. And it's not a baby-vs-bathwater situation. They can hire away the brains from NASA and other space companies, where needed, where possible, so it's not like they're losing out on all that accumulated experience and best practice. But they do get to start from scratch and make it much easier to greenlight new "risky" projects and Get Things Done. Planetary Resources excites me for similar reasons. Though I don't think they have quite the same degree of talent at the top in a single guy as with the case of SpaceX. But still, very promising team, vision and approach.

codex 14y ago
Given that a publically funded manned Mars mission would be at least $10B, a private mission would be difficult even if the cost were reduced 10x. And SpaceX can't even reduce orbital launch costs by 10x over today's gold standard; according to Wikpedia, the Russians have the currently cheapest operational LEO system on a per kilogram basis. Meanwhile, SpaceX's costs are 2x over original estimates. While the Space Shuttle was such a boondoggle that almost anyone could reduce costs as compared to it, contemporary Russian programs are not nearly as poorly designed and executed.
- varjag 14y ago
  Russian programs are not contemporary: they are early 1970s projects with some 21st century trim jobs. They R&D costs and production lines were amortized before Reagan came to power.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

reichert 14y ago

Sometimes I wonder if the reason Musk has worked so hard/had so much success with spacex is just because he wants to return to his home planet.

jonsen 14y ago
What an alien comment.