4 ms·

I disliked that element of the reporting too. Your use of "they" is funny, too--SpaceX and NASA would say that CRS-5 was a complete success from the point of vi

I disliked that element of the reporting too. Your use of "they" is funny, too--SpaceX and NASA would say that CRS-5 was a complete success from the point of view of the mission. The reporter's not being disingenuous, she's just...not using words correctly. The mission was to keep the ISS astronauts supplied and alive. The mission succeeded. The tests around rocket reuse were not part of the mission.

SapphireSun 12y ago
True, but one is transformative and the other is more mundane. The issue is that to make progress in rocketry (the mission) you have to get other people to pay for it (making it ostensibly their mission). Not to knock the ISS in any way, it's just that any of the big players could have done this resupply run afaik.
- jpgvm 12y ago
  SpaceX also does them cheaper and with a higher max cargo due to Dragon being a more advanced vehicle than most, it can also return significant cargo from the ISS. So no, the other big players currently aren't on the same level as SpaceX when it comes to ISS missions.
  - tsotha 12y ago
    The Dragon capsule is a bit less capable than one would like in that it can't actually dock. That's what makes the Soyuz necessary and NASA's whatever-they're-calling-it-this-week capsule necessary. Technically the Dragon is "berthing", in that the space station's arm is what's actually bringing the two craft together, and any failure in that arm would render Dragon unable to connect or disconnect from the station.
- Rooster61 12y ago
  "There's nothing routine about flying to the Moon." - Apollo 13 Film This isn't a moon mission of course, but I don't know if I would ever call something reaching orbit mundane. Especially for a company with only 5 successful dockings to their name.