6 ms·

SpaceX Dragon successfully docks with International Space Station

223 points by iProject 14y ago

eliben 14y ago
It would be interesting to see the total cost of this mission, and compare it to the total cost of similar NASA missions in the past.
- csixty4 14y ago
  I'm sure there's a lot of information that could paint a more complete picture, but here's a start. According to NASA[1], a shuttle launch cost $450 million on average. Their contract with SpaceX covers 12 launches for $1.6 billion[2], or roughly $133 million per launch. SpaceX also received $75 million from NASA to develop a crewed version of the Dragon capsule. I'm sure NASA has made other payments to SpaceX over the years, but even if those payments totaled a couple billion it's still cheaper than 12 Shuttle launches just to supply the ISS. According to Wikipedia[3], the Falcon 9 rocket itself costs half as much as an Atlas V. [1] http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10 http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttl... [2] http://www.space.com/13012-nasa-unveils-private-space-taxi-contract.html http://www.space.com/13012-nasa-unveils-private-space-taxi-c... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_sy...
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    If a shuttle launch and a Dragon launch have the same utility, what you say is true, but the shuttle can carry a lot more cargo. For example, the Dragon is nowhere near large enough to carry a full space station module. I'm not sure that this renders what you said false, but there's a lot more to it than this.
    - InclinedPlane 14y ago
      That's a bit of a red herring. In terms of specific utility for cargo delivery / return they are actually fairly comparable, in cost at least. Dragon will probably pull ahead as they load it with more cargo in later flights using the upgraded Falcon 9 v1.1. In terms of space station modules, any new modules are more likely to be delivered in standalone launches from an expendable vehicle (such as the Falcon Heavy). Although, the SpaceX CRS-8 mission is expected to deliver the Bigelow Expandable Activity module, but it's a fairly tiny module.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    The $450 million / flight cost for a Shuttle is a fantasy, it's a hypothetical sort of best-case cost. Over the lifetime of the program the actual cost was $1.5 billion.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Cost is an unknown except to SpaceX. Price (i.e. cost to the consumer) is easier to figure out but a little more complicated for reasons I'll explain later. The easiest direct comparison would be to the ESA's ATV. Each ATV launch costs around $900 million in amortized development costs plus vehicle costs plus launch costs. But, it delivers 6,595 kg of cargo, which puts the delivered cost of cargo at about $132/gram. In comparison, the Dragon is on a fixed price contract (about $133 million per vehicle) which includes launch and operations and whatnot. This particular Dragon is delivering 1050 kg of supplies (677 kg within the pressurized part of the spacecraft, the rest within the unpressurized "trunk"). This comes out to a cost to NASA of $127/gram. Which, admittedly, is not Earth shattering. However, this flight will also be returning 1370 kg of equipment back to Earth, including highly valuable scientific experiments and such-like. And Dragon is currently the only vehicle capable of doing so. On the whole this makes Dragon more than worthwhile. However, this is still only the 2nd operational Dragon resupply mission, and they will continue to increase the amount of cargo delivered as they become more confident in the vehicle and especially as the Falcon 9 v1.1 becomes operational (which will happen in the next flight) which will add about 4 tonnes of additional payload capacity. If fully utilized it could bring the cost of cargo deliveries to ISS down to around $30-$50/g. Also, there is definitely an element of subsidizing the development of new systems in the CRS contract terms, though even so they're reasonably cost effective. Edit: to compare to the Shuttle, on an MPLM mission the Shuttle could deliver about 15 tonnes of supplies and equipment and cost around $1.5 to $2 billion per launch (the higher figure due to the extremely low flight rate near the end of the Shuttle program), which works out to a cargo delivery cost of around $100/g, though the Shuttle could also return significant amounts of cargo. Edit2: I inadvertently omitted the cost of the MPLM modules themselves from the calculation above, although including them would be difficult since most of them were built by the Italian Space Agency as payment in kind for ISS access, overall they would only affect the cost figures by less than 20%. Also, fun fact: the MPLMs were named for famous Renaissance artists, or ninja turtles, here's NASA's logo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Multi-Purpose_Logistics_Module_Logo.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Multi-Purpose_Logistics_Mo...
  - eliben 14y ago
    Very interesting, thank you.
- dbarlett 14y ago
  Previous thread on SpaceX costs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3857904 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3857904
rockyroadster 14y ago
I wonder what biological samples taken from the crew means.
- jdavis703 14y ago
  It probably means what you think: urine, blood, saliva, fecal matter... Whatever a scientist or doctor on the ground might need to analyze.
DeepDuh 14y ago
I didn't follow everything in detail this time. What was with that problem they were talking about?
- ramidarigaz 14y ago
  The capsule's thrusters had a blockage which prevented them from maneuvering and deploying the solar panels. They managed to clear the blockage just fine.
  - DeepDuh 14y ago
    Interesting. Did they release informations on how they solved that? Also, don't they have some built in redundancy for the thrusters?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      3 of 4 thruster packs experienced the issue; they need 2 of 4 to open the solar panels and 3 of 4 to dock with the ISS. From what I understand they got all 4 working again using the "water hammer" effect to clear the blockage, but I'm not sure how accurate that is.
      - DeepDuh 14y ago
        Imagine it's your job to fiddle around remotely with fuel pump electronics (or whatever may create that water hammer) within a time window of maybe 20 minutes or else you've just sunk a 100M investment somewhere in the ocean. Must be lots of fun o.O
        pestaa 14y ago
        There's plenty of excitement for me just tweaking a live production server, not sure my heart could cope with what you just described.
    - ramidarigaz 14y ago
ameister14 14y ago
I think a big congratulations is due for SpaceX; one is an aberration, two is on it's way to being normal. So congrats to them for moving towards a normalization of privatized space operations.
methodin 14y ago
Is there any significance to the fact that both major launches had problems but did not hinder a successful mission? Is that a common occurrence as far as missions go to fail (or have failures) while still gracefully completing?
- tharax 14y ago
  I remember my statistics lecturer was fond of pointing out that NASA estimated the probability of SOMETHING failing on launch was (1). That is, because of the complexity of the project, there was always something that was missed or broken - although it could have been as simple as a bulb that was backlighting a switch might be blown, or a cupboard might have been restocked incorrectly, or a calculation for external events might be slightly off.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    This is the way complex systems work, pretty much. The more systems and sub-systems you need to have running the more likely it is that one will have something wrong with it. And when you add in redundancy and extra capacity you actually increase the chance of something going wrong, you just reduce the chance of it having such a negative effect on the mission.
  - neurotech1 14y ago
    They had a shuttle mission where everything was nominal, even the toilet kept working the whole mission. But yeah, space flight is like that. Then again its relatively rare for a jet fighter to consistently return Code 1, no faults. Usually its Code 2 with minor fixes required pretty regularly. Code 3 is an abort.
    - stcredzero 14y ago
      The human body is basically code 2 all the time. It's just that it can fix itself, until you get code 3.
- jacquesm 14y ago
wasnotwas 14y ago
Perhaps the New York Times should review the launch.

223 points by iProject 14y ago

It would be interesting to see the total cost of this mission, and compare it to the total cost of similar NASA missions in the past.

csixty4 14y ago
I'm sure there's a lot of information that could paint a more complete picture, but here's a start. According to NASA[1], a shuttle launch cost $450 million on average. Their contract with SpaceX covers 12 launches for $1.6 billion[2], or roughly $133 million per launch. SpaceX also received $75 million from NASA to develop a crewed version of the Dragon capsule. I'm sure NASA has made other payments to SpaceX over the years, but even if those payments totaled a couple billion it's still cheaper than 12 Shuttle launches just to supply the ISS. According to Wikipedia[3], the Falcon 9 rocket itself costs half as much as an Atlas V. [1] http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10 http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttl... [2] http://www.space.com/13012-nasa-unveils-private-space-taxi-contract.html http://www.space.com/13012-nasa-unveils-private-space-taxi-c... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_sy...
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  If a shuttle launch and a Dragon launch have the same utility, what you say is true, but the shuttle can carry a lot more cargo. For example, the Dragon is nowhere near large enough to carry a full space station module. I'm not sure that this renders what you said false, but there's a lot more to it than this.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    That's a bit of a red herring. In terms of specific utility for cargo delivery / return they are actually fairly comparable, in cost at least. Dragon will probably pull ahead as they load it with more cargo in later flights using the upgraded Falcon 9 v1.1. In terms of space station modules, any new modules are more likely to be delivered in standalone launches from an expendable vehicle (such as the Falcon Heavy). Although, the SpaceX CRS-8 mission is expected to deliver the Bigelow Expandable Activity module, but it's a fairly tiny module.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  The $450 million / flight cost for a Shuttle is a fantasy, it's a hypothetical sort of best-case cost. Over the lifetime of the program the actual cost was $1.5 billion.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Cost is an unknown except to SpaceX. Price (i.e. cost to the consumer) is easier to figure out but a little more complicated for reasons I'll explain later. The easiest direct comparison would be to the ESA's ATV. Each ATV launch costs around $900 million in amortized development costs plus vehicle costs plus launch costs. But, it delivers 6,595 kg of cargo, which puts the delivered cost of cargo at about $132/gram. In comparison, the Dragon is on a fixed price contract (about $133 million per vehicle) which includes launch and operations and whatnot. This particular Dragon is delivering 1050 kg of supplies (677 kg within the pressurized part of the spacecraft, the rest within the unpressurized "trunk"). This comes out to a cost to NASA of $127/gram. Which, admittedly, is not Earth shattering. However, this flight will also be returning 1370 kg of equipment back to Earth, including highly valuable scientific experiments and such-like. And Dragon is currently the only vehicle capable of doing so. On the whole this makes Dragon more than worthwhile. However, this is still only the 2nd operational Dragon resupply mission, and they will continue to increase the amount of cargo delivered as they become more confident in the vehicle and especially as the Falcon 9 v1.1 becomes operational (which will happen in the next flight) which will add about 4 tonnes of additional payload capacity. If fully utilized it could bring the cost of cargo deliveries to ISS down to around $30-$50/g. Also, there is definitely an element of subsidizing the development of new systems in the CRS contract terms, though even so they're reasonably cost effective. Edit: to compare to the Shuttle, on an MPLM mission the Shuttle could deliver about 15 tonnes of supplies and equipment and cost around $1.5 to $2 billion per launch (the higher figure due to the extremely low flight rate near the end of the Shuttle program), which works out to a cargo delivery cost of around $100/g, though the Shuttle could also return significant amounts of cargo. Edit2: I inadvertently omitted the cost of the MPLM modules themselves from the calculation above, although including them would be difficult since most of them were built by the Italian Space Agency as payment in kind for ISS access, overall they would only affect the cost figures by less than 20%. Also, fun fact: the MPLMs were named for famous Renaissance artists, or ninja turtles, here's NASA's logo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Multi-Purpose_Logistics_Module_Logo.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Multi-Purpose_Logistics_Mo...
- eliben 14y ago
  Very interesting, thank you.
dbarlett 14y ago
Previous thread on SpaceX costs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3857904 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3857904

rockyroadster 14y ago

I wonder what biological samples taken from the crew means.

jdavis703 14y ago
It probably means what you think: urine, blood, saliva, fecal matter... Whatever a scientist or doctor on the ground might need to analyze.

DeepDuh 14y ago

I didn't follow everything in detail this time. What was with that problem they were talking about?

ramidarigaz 14y ago
The capsule's thrusters had a blockage which prevented them from maneuvering and deploying the solar panels. They managed to clear the blockage just fine.
- DeepDuh 14y ago
  Interesting. Did they release informations on how they solved that? Also, don't they have some built in redundancy for the thrusters?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    3 of 4 thruster packs experienced the issue; they need 2 of 4 to open the solar panels and 3 of 4 to dock with the ISS. From what I understand they got all 4 working again using the "water hammer" effect to clear the blockage, but I'm not sure how accurate that is.
    - DeepDuh 14y ago
      Imagine it's your job to fiddle around remotely with fuel pump electronics (or whatever may create that water hammer) within a time window of maybe 20 minutes or else you've just sunk a 100M investment somewhere in the ocean. Must be lots of fun o.O
      - pestaa 14y ago
        There's plenty of excitement for me just tweaking a live production server, not sure my heart could cope with what you just described.
  - ramidarigaz 14y ago

ameister14 14y ago

I think a big congratulations is due for SpaceX; one is an aberration, two is on it's way to being normal. So congrats to them for moving towards a normalization of privatized space operations.

methodin 14y ago

Is there any significance to the fact that both major launches had problems but did not hinder a successful mission? Is that a common occurrence as far as missions go to fail (or have failures) while still gracefully completing?

tharax 14y ago
I remember my statistics lecturer was fond of pointing out that NASA estimated the probability of SOMETHING failing on launch was (1). That is, because of the complexity of the project, there was always something that was missed or broken - although it could have been as simple as a bulb that was backlighting a switch might be blown, or a cupboard might have been restocked incorrectly, or a calculation for external events might be slightly off.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  This is the way complex systems work, pretty much. The more systems and sub-systems you need to have running the more likely it is that one will have something wrong with it. And when you add in redundancy and extra capacity you actually increase the chance of something going wrong, you just reduce the chance of it having such a negative effect on the mission.
- neurotech1 14y ago
  They had a shuttle mission where everything was nominal, even the toilet kept working the whole mission. But yeah, space flight is like that. Then again its relatively rare for a jet fighter to consistently return Code 1, no faults. Usually its Code 2 with minor fixes required pretty regularly. Code 3 is an abort.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    The human body is basically code 2 all the time. It's just that it can fix itself, until you get code 3.
jacquesm 14y ago

wasnotwas 14y ago

Perhaps the New York Times should review the launch.