Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SpaceX To Present Manned Dragon Capsule

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the calling-shotgun dept.

NASA 128

camperdave (969942) writes "SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is set to unveil the Dragon V2 at a media event from Hawthorne, California, tonight at 7 pm. Pacific. The 'Dragon V2' is an upgraded, man rated version of the unmanned spaceship that has made several successful cargo trips to the International Space Station. The new craft will carry a mix of cargo and up to a seven crewmembers to the ISS. According to Musk, this is 'Actual flight design hardware of crew Dragon, not a mockup.' Following the space shuttle's forced retirement in 2011, US astronauts have been totally dependent on the Russian Soyuz capsules for ferry rides to orbit and back. The crisis in Ukraine, which has resulted in some U.S. economic sanctions imposed against Russia, also has the potential to threaten U.S. access to the ISS as the Russian government considers reciprocal sanctions of its own. 'Sounds like this might be a good time to unveil the new Dragon Mk 2 spaceship that @SpaceX has been working on with @NASA,' Musk tweeted. SpaceX is one of three commercial space companies competing for funding from NASA's Commercial Crew Transportation Capability program." (You can watch the event as a webcast.)

cancel ×

128 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

About time. (1)

horm (2802801) | about 3 months ago | (#47120425)

I can't wait for SpaceX to take us to the moon.

Re:About time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47120441)

Forget the Dragon v2, I'm waiting for the Dragon 32!

Re:About time. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47120755)

If Mozilla ran it, we'd have Dragon 32 next week.

Re:About time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47121263)

...and all the astronauts would be LGBT!

Re: About time. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47121293)

Haha! And if a nigger ran it, we'd have it robbing and murdering white people in the name of racism.

Go Malcolm X!!

Re:About time. (1)

nogginthenog (582552) | about 3 months ago | (#47122003)

I've still got a working Dragon 32. For those that don't know this was a British COCO clone.

Re:About time. (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#47122429)

I've still got a working Dragon 32. For those that don't know this was a British COCO clone.

Hopefully the SpaceX version will connect the heatsink properly, so it doesn't overheat after a few hours.

Re:About time. (-1, Troll)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 3 months ago | (#47120541)

Why stop at the moon? Elon Musk is so charismatic that I believe that Tesla now completely dominates the U.S. car market. And I also believe he could easily take us to other solar systems within the next decade, and that he is God's chosen prophet and I should do everything he says.

Re:About time. (3, Funny)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about 3 months ago | (#47120609)

He isn't going to stop with the moon, Musk's dream is to die on mars (and preferably not in the sudden stop of landing there)

Re:About time. (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 3 months ago | (#47120639)

All praise him!

Re:About time. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47120777)

You do realize that inhabited Mars missions are assessed to be in the 10 to 50 billion dollars ballpark, right?
And billionnaires typically have that kind of money.
So it's not really being a gullible cultish fanboy to think that Musk has a good chance to pull it off...

Re:About time. (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 3 months ago | (#47121015)

Long term goals for the launch recovery include recovery of the second stage, essentially the entire rocket would be recovered and reused. If that can be accomplished (a non-trivial "if" certainly), launch costs could drop to the hundreds of thousands range rather than the tens of millions. You could have 100 launches for the cost of a single one today (already one of the cheapest launch platforms in history). Most of the cost of major missions is getting stuff to orbit; cut that one item by 99% and a lot of budget math changes.

Re:About time. (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47121209)

Right, this is the decade where we start worrying about the economies of space travel instead of just the plausibility.

Re:About time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47121715)

Mars is probably a good place to raise your kids and start a new nation.

Re:About time. (2)

Megane (129182) | about 3 months ago | (#47121789)

In fact, it's cold as hell.

Re:About time. (1)

preaction (1526109) | about 3 months ago | (#47122231)

And it needs women!

Re:About time. (1)

Wraithlyn (133796) | about 3 months ago | (#47122775)

Musk thinks an 80,000 person colony on Mars can be established for around 36 billion, total.

"Musk added that he sees the future 80,000-person colony as a public-private enterprise costing roughly $36 billion."

http://www.wired.com/2012/11/e... [wired.com]

Re:About time. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 3 months ago | (#47120633)

Why stop at the moon? Elon Musk is so charismatic that I believe that Tesla now completely dominates the U.S. car market.

I'm probably totally missing the [sarcasm] and [joke] tags on your comment, but the Tesla is certainly the most successful electric car in it's class (or at all right now), and realistically, SpaceX is the most realistic alternative to the Russians. None of the other commercial space companies have anything remotely close to being ready for service; Jeff Bezos' "Blue Trampoline" or whatever he calls it is a "vanity" project that has a long, long way to go to be taken seriously.

Re:About time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47120735)

Shit, just compare Tesla sales to those pussies and Ford, Toyota, and GM and it becomes immediately clear that Tesla FUCKING OWNS the car market now! I can't even REMEMBER the last time I saw a non-Tesla on the road.

Also, the sky is green in my world.

Re:About time. (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 3 months ago | (#47120801)

Green sky?

Must be ancient Greece (they hadn't invented blue yet).

Re:About time. (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 months ago | (#47120965)

Must be ancient Greece (they hadn't invented blue yet).

So their Windex was green?

Re:About time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47120947)

I guarantee that Ford, Toyota and GM would love to have Tesla's economics in the car market.

Re:About time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47122097)

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12725408/1/how-will-tesla-motors-tsla-stock-react-to-sps-b-junk-rating.html

Re:About time. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 3 months ago | (#47121045)

Shit, just compare Tesla sales to those pussies and Ford, Toyota, and GM and it becomes immediately clear that Tesla FUCKING OWNS the car market now!

Reading comprehension must not be taught in Troll School. With regards to the Tesla, we're talking about electric . Not gas, not diesel, not hybrids.

Re:About time. (1)

Red4man (1347635) | about 3 months ago | (#47120649)

Shouldn't you wait for Luna Park to be built first?

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 83 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

... but I have positive Karma and am contributing to a discussion, Slashbots!

And you guys wonder why Digg and Reddit kick sand in your face on a daily basis.

Re:About time. (-1, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 months ago | (#47121475)

I can't wait for SpaceX to take us to the moon.

And only forty years after the US Government did it.

Way to go, private sector!

Re:About time. (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#47121797)

And only forty years after the US Government did it. Way to go, private sector!

And probably ten years before the government does it again, at a hundred times the cost if they're using SLS.

Next time NASA astronauts land on the Moon, there'll probably be a crowd of tourists from a SpaceX package tour waiting there to film them.

Re:About time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47121817)

And not to forget: a whole century after the first electric car! Space X and Tesla really suck.

Re:About time. (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 3 months ago | (#47121927)

Only 28 years since its been legal for an American company to launch things into space using their own equipment, and even after that western governments (including the U.S) were actively hostile towards private space flight. For instance they forced OTRAG operations into a 3rd world country and then banned using them because it might help the 3rd world country to develop long range missiles.

So no, not 40 years you ignorant statist twat. You give the state so much power that they prevent free markets from working, and then later claim that the "free market" you set up to fail didnt work.

Give people liberty, and free markets work just fine.

Re:About time. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47121973)

So no, not 40 years you ignorant statist twat. You give the state so much power that they prevent free markets from working, and then later claim that the "free market" you set up to fail didnt work.

Blah blah blah statists ... blah blah blah free market.

Free markets don't exist, don't work, and would lead to absolutely disastrous consequences.

But, hey, keep up with your drooling gibberish. It will keep people from taking you seriously.

Seriously, where the hell do you morons come up with this shit? Are you aware of how deluded you are?

Re:About time. (0)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#47121995)

Free markets are just what people do when no statist is pointing a gun at their head to force them to do something else.

Re:About time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47123677)

Give people liberty, and free markets work just fine

Somalia

we need at least two carriers (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 3 months ago | (#47121751)

given the incidents in which Russia is posing like the Bad Old Days are back, we need at least two operating alternatives to their facilities.

Seven crew? (1, Redundant)

joebok (457904) | about 3 months ago | (#47120467)

Transport seven crew to the ISS? Well, I'm impressed!

Re:Seven crew? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47120499)

I'm impressed by your Karma Whoring with a pointless comment.

Re:Seven crew? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47121223)

Sometimes having an opinion to share is the point.

Re:Seven crew? (1)

Rakarra (112805) | about 3 months ago | (#47123261)

Sometimes having an opinion to share is the point.

That's also precisely the reason why there's a -1, Redundant moderation.

Re:Seven crew? (1)

horm (2802801) | about 3 months ago | (#47120519)

The summary clearly states "up to a seven crewmembers."

Re:Seven crew? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47120565)

Yes, that's what it states. Just like the parent you're commenting on said...

Re:Seven crew? (1)

Delwin (599872) | about 3 months ago | (#47120921)

Seven crew means it can be used as an escape capsule for the ISS.

Re:Seven crew? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 months ago | (#47121149)

Seven crew means it can be used as an escape capsule for the ISS.

Well, for seven of them, anyway. There have been times when there have been a dozen people aboard the ISS.

Re:Seven crew? (4, Informative)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | about 3 months ago | (#47122631)

Seven crew means it can be used as an escape capsule for the ISS.

Well, for seven of them, anyway. There have been times when there have been a dozen people aboard the ISS.

Not as ISS crew. This was only temporarily, while the Shuttle was visiting (record number
of people on board the ISS is 13, but just for a couple of days: 6 ISS + 7 Shuttle).

ISS design crew initially was 7 - but that has been reduced to 6 for the time being,
due to the unavailability of full crew rescue vehicles.

At the moment, 2x Soyuz are used as escape pods. A parked Dragon would help to get
back to the initial crew size and free up a docking port. Very cool.

Re:Seven crew? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47122211)

An important cirterium for an ISS escape capsule is that it must be able to remain functional while being docked for months. I don't know if the dragon can be stored in space for half a year and still function reliably.

Re:Seven crew? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#47122325)

I don't know if the dragon can be stored in space for half a year and still function reliably.

That's not particularly hard, unless you generate your power from fuel cells, which would have to keep hydrogen liquid for months. And even the Apollo CSM could stay in space for 2-3 months for the longer Skylab missions.

"It will be absolutely safe," said Musk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47120469)

...right before the tragic accident.

Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47120521)

I guess I should use the term "duomaniac", since his threadshitting obsession seems to focus on both spaceflight and 3D printing.

The prospect of an actual commercial manned space industry just might be enough to finally push him over the edge.

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (0)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 3 months ago | (#47120617)

The problem with most private commercial flight companies is that they usually end up serving exactly one customer: the U.S. Government. I don't think it's fair to characterize that as "private." The harsh fact is that, aside from satellite launches, there is pretty much no reason for any other entity to go into space.

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 3 months ago | (#47120703)

The problem with most private commercial flight companies is that they usually end up serving exactly one customer: the U.S. Government. I don't think it's fair to characterize that as "private." The harsh fact is that, aside from satellite launches, there is pretty much no reason for any other entity to go into space

Believe it or not, the US Government (and other governments as well) are not the only people launching satellites or other spacecraft...

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47121251)

aside from. Look it up.

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47122157)

or other spacecraft... Look it up.

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (4, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 months ago | (#47120871)

The harsh fact is that, aside from satellite launches, there is pretty much no reason for any other entity to go into space.

Yeah, I guess that would explain why there has been at least one person in orbit every year since the last moon shot, and why the ISS has been continuously occupied for nearly 14 years.

As far as commercial flight goes, unlike the shuttle, anyone with the money can buy a launch from SpaceX. They're not restricted to government launches.

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 3 months ago | (#47121403)

Yeah, I guess that would explain why there has been at least one person in orbit every year since the last moon shot, and why the ISS has been continuously occupied for nearly 14 years.

Are you saying that a private company did all that, or you no read so good?

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47122661)

Forget it, he's a loon. I mean look at this jewel:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/c... [slashdot.org]

Yeah. Wow.

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 months ago | (#47122905)

I'm saying there are plenty of other customers other than the US government, and plenty of reasons other than satellite launches that private space corporations can cater to. NASA is not the only game in town.

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47124105)

But none of that has anything to do with some great market for "commercial manned space". No one's going anywhere you loon.

Unpack that Mars suitcase and grow up.

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 3 months ago | (#47120909)

Looking at their upcoming launch manifest I see: NASA, Orbcomm, Asiasat, Space Systems, Loral, Thales Alenia Space, US Air Force, CONAE, NSPO, Spacecom, Bigelow Aerospace, SKY Perfect JSAT Corporation, SES, Iridium, and SATMEX.

The US government isn't even the customer for a majority of the launches through 2015. If you're specifically talking about manned missions you might have a better argument. But even then the Bigelow Aerospace launch is tantalizing hints of the future... even if it's only the future for the fabulously, ridiculously wealthy.

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 3 months ago | (#47121457)

Those are all either satellite launches or government/government-contractor launches.

I'll say it again. Aside from satellite launches, there is just no other reason for non-governmental entities to go into space right now.

Even so-called "space tourism" isn't really going into space, and certainly nowhere near LEO.

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#47121815)

I'll say it again. Aside from satellite launches, there is just no other reason for non-governmental entities to go into space right now.

Well, duh. That's why SpaceX are working hard to slash the cost of launching things into orbit until other business opportunities make sense.

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47124015)

Even if going to LEO was free, what business could make sense? Grow up.

Re:Cue "Space nutter" monomaniac in 3... 2... (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 3 months ago | (#47122249)

No, it is totally legitimate to say it is "private" even if the government is the only buyer (and their not –as others have pointed out.) – the profits flow to Musk & Company.

I think what you are trying to say is that it is not a free market – but that also is not true. For a free market to work all you need is multiple independent agents (publicly or privately owned) who can freely bid for the work. That is the bare minimum in order to have a free market is to have multiple producers or multiple consumers.

Of course the fewer agents involved the greater the chance of mischief will occur but that would be a different point – the efficiency of the market.

Private Enterprise Saves the Day! (1, Insightful)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 3 months ago | (#47120585)

NASA holding onto an out-moded Space Shuttle design, crimped the US's space efforts for decades.

Welcome to the Space X Dragon and someone finally with GUTS; Elon Musk.

Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about 3 months ago | (#47121221)

NASA holding onto an out-moded Space Shuttle design, crimped the US's space efforts for decades.

Welcome to the Space X Dragon and someone finally with GUTS; Elon Musk.

Well, there are reasons why NASA pushed the shuttle for so long that have nothing to do with incompetency. The whole "Gee whiz! Look kids! It's reusable!" approach was a way to save money in the face of budget cuts. Why were budgets being cut, do you ask? Well, there is no shortage of Americans who say "Why are we throwing away money on NASA for nothing when we have too many problems at home to fix?" It took a long time and 2 spectacular fatal events before the message got driven home so clearly that even a government bureaucrat couldn't miss it that bolting the shuttle to giant launch rockets was always going to have a small but always present chance of a fatal accident that was unacceptably high. Putting a capsule on top of a rocket isn't sexy, but it works. Russia hasn't had even one fatality related to their launch system. NASA's ongoing Orion project is using the old school capsule approach because it just works. I fully commend Musk for getting Space X to where it is as he's going to basically save the space station, but NASA does now understand that right now the whole reusable shuttle idea is a bad one. Columbia drove it home that the shuttle could never be as safe as it needed to be because the whole idea was fatally flawed, so the only way to quickly get things done was to turn to private industry. Orion is going OK as far as I know, but the pace is pretty slow and it won't be passenger ready until probably a few years after Space X is already taking people to the space station.

Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! (1)

hey! (33014) | about 3 months ago | (#47121239)

That's because launch system designs don't just appear out thin air. They have to be paid for.

What's more, there isn't enough money in the world to pay for a launch system project that is "privatized" the way politicians mean "privatized": undertaken by contractors with no competition and no money of their own at stake.

Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 3 months ago | (#47122093)

"there isn't enough money in the world to pay for a launch system", but wait there is enough money for a $1 trillion dollar program that has NOT achieved its stated desired results as verified by the GAO!

Head Start = No Start

Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! (1)

hey! (33014) | about 3 months ago | (#47122591)

"there isn't enough money in the world to pay for a launch system", but wait there is enough money for a $1 trillion dollar program that has NOT achieved its stated desired results as verified by the GAO!

Head Start = No Start

QED.

Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47121265)

Yeah, because it's so easy to design a new orbital vessel.

Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! (4, Insightful)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 3 months ago | (#47121323)

NASA holding onto? Are you insane? The space shuttle was MANDATED by congress, just like the heavy lift rocket they are developing for no reason. Not only does congress tell NASA what to build, they insist certain companies and states manufacturing capacity be used. NASA often isn't even allowed to price shop because it would price ATK and other defense contractors out of competition. NASA is treated by congress as one great big pork barrel where rather than giving NASA options to reduce cost they force NASA to buy and build things they don't even want. Not unlike the military where congress frequently forces the military to buy defense products they don't want because some congresscritter's district holds the factory.

Remember Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex? Well NASA is a key component of that abuse because just like the DOD NASA spends enough money to draw the attention of those with influence who can make lots of money on those items.

How was it not private before? (2)

laing (303349) | about 3 months ago | (#47121563)

NASA is helping SpaceX. Is Boeing a branch of the Federal Government? How is now different from before?

Re:How was it not private before? (1)

Megane (129182) | about 3 months ago | (#47121851)

How is now different from before?

Fixed price contracts?

Re:How was it not private before? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47122805)

Fixed price contracts are a change in the way government does business, and the other players are still private businesses. And even with a fixed price contract, if something goes wrong [government agency] will usually buy an investigation and pay for corrective action - so in a way it is still cost-plus. On huge, complex tasks it is often cheaper to investigate and fix a problem than it is to start from scratch with a new vendor.

Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! (2)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about 3 months ago | (#47122087)

GUTS: Getting Us To Space!

Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47124145)

Government Unlimited Tax Source! What's so appealing about space? I really don't get it. It's not like Star Trek up there, you know?

Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 3 months ago | (#47122693)

The Space Shuttle is a really weird mix of qualities. The boosters are actually very good at their job - they're extremely powerful, and surprisingly reusable. The main engines are also good - they're some of the most efficient engines to be flown, period, and they're the most efficient that ever flew regularly. Using an external tank also is a good move - it's much cheaper, and it means the only thing getting thrown away is an empty tank. On paper, the Shuttle should have been an amazing craft.

The biggest problems with the Space Shuttle are deeper.

The first problem is the choice of fuel. Liquid hydrogen is amazingly efficient, but it's both bulky (look at the external tank) and expensive. I suspect NASA thought that, by flying dozens of shuttle missions per year, they could build up a large LH industry in the US, the same way UDMH and other fuels went from chemical curiosities to made-by-the-ton commodities. That didn't happen, possibly because the Shuttle never flew as often as it was designed to. But a more conventional fuel would have been both cheaper to use, and would have allowed for a smaller vehicle.

The second problem is the airframe. The basic idea of the Shuttle is a good one ONLY if you regularly need to recapture satellites and deorbit them intact. This basically never happened. Without that, the Shuttle is a massive, heavy airframe with no purpose. This is getting fixed with SLS/Orion, which is basically a Space Shuttle with a capsule instead of pseudo-spaceplane. Well, assuming NASA actually makes it. Considering how simple the design is, I don't know why it isn't flying already, except for politics.

The third problem is the politics. To get Congressional support, parts for the Shuttle were made all over the country. That's inefficiency for the sake of inefficiency. Then, once Challenger happened, bureaucrats went through everything and OSHA-fied it. Things that were designed to be reused a few times were made disposable, or were rebuilt after every flight. Training times went through the roof. That made the program as a whole slower and less effective - so Congress started slashing funding, because who wants to fund such an ineffective program?

That third problem is honestly the biggest one. If they had been flying them according to the original plan, and using all the capabilities of the Shuttle, it would have been a great spacecraft. And you could easily use the parts of the Shuttle program to build a great spacecraft still. But you won't be seeing that from NASA, at least without some major changes in other parts of the government.

Still, I hope someone can buy up the SSME design. One of those would make a good upper stage for a heavy lift rocket.

Re:Private Enterprise Saves the Day! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47122729)

Dragon 2 should be nicknamed Tramopline for multiple reasons.

Excellent! (2)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | about 3 months ago | (#47120631)

Let's get this baby loaded, do a couple unmanned tests, including the crew escape system and lets roll.

I have to imagine if you're the Russian Space Agency this has to be very unwelcome news.

Re:Excellent! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47121519)

They have been testing a crew escape system, that has been one of the main things being tested for the man rated dragon design over the last few years.

Its a novel design, it uses the RCS system to blast free from the rocket instead of an apollo style throw-away rocket tower mounted on top of the capsule.

Re:Excellent! (2)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | about 3 months ago | (#47122007)

It makes complete sense. Why add weight and complexity when you've got a perfectly good propulsion system already on your capsule.

Re:Excellent! (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#47122393)

It makes complete sense. Why add weight and complexity when you've got a perfectly good propulsion system already on your capsule.

Isn't this one reason why SpaceX want to remove the parachutes, too? If you design it to land with the thrusters, they can perform launch abort, in-orbit maneuver, and landing with the same fuel (obviously, if you do a launch abort, you don't need any fuel for in-orbit maneuver, so it can be used for landing).

The US will of course forbid this (-1, Flamebait)

gelfling (6534) | about 3 months ago | (#47120657)

Unless Musk becomes a massive Obama donor. I hope he takes his company to another country altogether. The US doesn't 'do' space science anymore.

Re:The US will of course forbid this (3, Informative)

ModernGeek (601932) | about 3 months ago | (#47120751)

Musk is actually a huge Obama supporter, and Obama has been seen talking to, giving praise to, and visiting with Elon Musk. SpaceX and Elon Musk have been a huge part of the Obama Space Strategy. Any anti-obama sentiment comes from the ending of Republican-politican-approved programs, such as the Space Shuttle through companies like ATK and Boeing.

Re:The US will of course forbid this (0)

e r (2847683) | about 3 months ago | (#47122257)

I want to see someone get Musk's full opinion of Obama, say, two years from now...

What if? (1)

sls1j (580823) | about 3 months ago | (#47120791)

It's hard to tell from the picture, but they looked lined up. What happens if a front seat rider spews during take off. I'd hate to be seated below.

Re:What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47120937)

Despite the picture, a launch is not going to be a shirtsleeve environment. If someone spews, it will be into their own helmet.

Re:What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47121073)

It's hard to tell from the picture, but they looked lined up. What happens if a front seat rider spews during take off. I'd hate to be seated below.

If only they sent people on some kind of training before sending them into space, to, you know, see how well they handle that kind of thing...

Re:What if? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#47122351)

If only they sent people on some kind of training before sending them into space, to, you know, see how well they handle that kind of thing...

If the training is going to involve someone puking on my face, I'm withdawing my application to NASA to become an astronaut...

"Man rated"? Who talks like that? (1)

pla (258480) | about 3 months ago | (#47120981)

The 'Dragon V2' is an upgraded, man rated version of the unmanned spaceship that has made several successful cargo trips to the International Space Station.

The Dragon V2: Strong enough for a man, gyroscopically balanced for a woman!

Re:"Man rated"? Who talks like that? (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about 3 months ago | (#47121103)

Nasa talks like that. Musk knows his audience. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-420... [nasa.gov]

Re:"Man rated"? Who talks like that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47121127)

It's short for human rated. http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002B_ And that's the NASA standards document laying out all the requirements for same.

Posting as AC as I'm at work.

Re:"Man rated"? Who talks like that? (2)

necro81 (917438) | about 3 months ago | (#47121391)

Actually, my quibble isn't with the gender connotations of the statement, but with the verb tense of the statement. The V2 hasn't, as far as I know, actually received certification for manned space flight. Rather, it has been designed (and probably some testing complete) to be able to receive such a rating.

It hasn't been rated yet, just that it could be and is intended to be. In that sense, it is more accurate to call it "man ratable" (the subjunctive tense) rather than "man rated" (past tense).

Re:"Man rated"? Who talks like that? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#47121865)

Actually, my quibble isn't with the gender connotations of the statement, but with the verb tense of the statement. The V2 hasn't, as far as I know, actually received certification for manned space flight.

Nor did the shuttle, as far as I'm aware. Certainly it couldn't meet NASA's current requirements for commercial crew (1 in 500 loss on ascent and 1 in 500 loss on descent, according to Wikipedia).

Re:"Man rated"? Who talks like that? (2)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 3 months ago | (#47122179)

back in the days "man-rated" meant the ICBM was modified to not shake the man apart in pogo oscillations and speed the capsule up to 17,500 mph.

Boycott? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47121159)

Sorry if this was already asked but I only occasionally visit this site and it seems like there are far fewer comments and insights here. Is there some sort of boycott going on over the new format?

Re: Boycott? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47121557)

No, the current slashdork readership only comments on stories with possible conspiracy, ties to the NSA, climate change, politics, vaccination, or a chance to exclaim that "correlation does not equal causation"

Basically, you have a bunch of ignorant faggots here these days.

Does that answer your question?

But when will he come out with his own cologne? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47121483)

His name has always sounded like some kind of cologne.

Soyuz influence? (1)

Max_W (812974) | about 3 months ago | (#47122017)

Chairs and cabin look like on Soyuz space ship.

Re:Soyuz influence? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47122117)

Considering it's the only system not having massive failures in 30 years, well...

Re:Soyuz influence? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#47122367)

Considering it's the only system not having massive failures in 30 years, well...

It's come pretty close, though. If I remember correctly, the last decade has had at least one backward reentry when the service module failed to detach, and at least one ballistic reentry when the computer lost contol for some reason.

Re:Soyuz influence? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 months ago | (#47124139)

One of the nice things about the Soyuz design is that it will passively self-orient. Even if it starts re-entry backwards, the drag will pivot the craft into a heat-shield first orientation.

Machete kills...in space! (1)

Enry (630) | about 3 months ago | (#47122085)

Really? I'm the first person to mention this? Before you decide to mod me into oblivion yes, it's on topic. Go watch Machete Kills

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>