SpaceX launches first official cargo resupply mission to International Space Station


15 Responses to “SpaceX launches first official cargo resupply mission to International Space Station”

  1. nixiebunny says:

    “The Falcon 9 rocket, powered by nine Merlin engines, performed nominally today during every phase of its approach to orbit, including two stage separations, solar array deployment, and the final push of Dragon into its intended orbit.”

    If you don’t count the explosion of engine number 1 a minute into the flight, that is.

    • Ian Wood says:

      It didn’t explode. It ejected pressure relief panels.

      • nixiebunny says:

        Anomaly is such a more pleasant word than failure.

        That said, it did recover nicely. Except for that thing about the Orbcomm satellite ending up in the wrong place. 

        • Ian Wood says:

          It’s not in the wrong place. It’s in a lower than intended orbit.

          • nixiebunny says:

            Which is not the place it’s intended to be. Sure, things in orbit move all the time, so you might not want to call an orbit a place. But consider that the place you put your reading glasses is also in orbit, as we’re all on a spinning ball that’s orbiting the sun.

    • Doug Sinclair says:

      A second stage relight before secondary deployment would have been nice too.  It looks like a bunch of my kit is stranded in very low orbit.

  2. IokSotot says:

    And commercial space ventures improve something the communists were doing since the early 80′s how exactly? 

    Now some millionaire is making money out of it? I see.  

  3. Culturedropout says:

    It’s interesting to me how much the SpaceX employees seem to care about the whole (pardon the pun) enterprise.  It’s almost as if, when you hire good people who really want to be doing what they’re doing for you, and then get out of the way, good things happen.  NASA is great, but I think that with a private company that’s a little less conservative in their approach to things, and a little more willing to take risks, you’re more likely to actually get things done in a reasonable time frame.  And as experience with the shuttle showed, even if you’re really, really cautious to an almost absurd degree, bad things can still happen.  The difference is in whether you allow failures to bring you to a stop, or treat them as a learning experience and maintain your momentum.

    • kateling says:

      Clearly the press release put some spin on things. But ignoring that, it’s not a difference between public and private. NASA was more risk-taking in the early days, and their failures were due to an entrenched bureaucracy, not an abundance of caution. They ignored engineers who told them there was a problem. There are plenty of private companies who’ve reached that same stage of entrenched bureaucracy, and it could easily happen to SpaceX in another 30 years.

Leave a Reply