Congratulations SpaceX

Your the clueless one. Japanese HTV (HTV: 3 times to ISS as part of resupply of Kibo), Space X dragon (3 assisted with Canadarm2 module), and Cygnus (ZERO flights to ISS) had been to ISS six times at best. The real heavy load of station upkeeping is done by automated androgynous free-flying Progress modules of Energia and ATV of ESA. So SpaceX "remarkable" failure right next to the ISS is hardly a success, however you paint it in patriotic colors. They failed their Orbcomm payload mission too...
Had it not been for Canadarm2 module, the entire thing would have became flying space junk))))

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My mistake, it is the DragonRider version that is being developed along with the NASA Docking System that will have autonomous ability to dock, not the current Dragon capsule.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Before the capture by Canadarm2 there has to be done ACS thruster corrections, if the propulsion thruster fail abruptly like that it may have disastrous consequences.

 

That's probably why they didn't proceed before the thrusters were tested as working.

 

A robot spacecraft launched from Canaveral carrying over a ton of supplies for the ISS, which it successfully delivered. If that's your definition of "failure" you're going to be pretty disappointed by every technological achievement Mankind has come up with.

Some other famous failures:

Apollo 11, where Armstrong couldn't even land the LEM on target

The breaking of the sound barrier in the X-1, where Yeager couldn't even use the aircraft's elevator to control pitch as he broke the sound barrier - and then landed 1/4 mile off target

The Freedom-7 flight, where the automatic attitude control system failed and John Glenn ran out of fuel before the parachutes deployed, leaving the capsule completely out of control for the last portion of re-entry

Miserable failures one and all, eh? It's hilarious that people actually thought they were significant . . .

 

Kind of like the old saying, any landing that you can walk away from is a good one. Success can be measured in different ways. Even that lost satellite in the last launch, the company said that they still got some good data from it, and that also teaches a lesson about being a secondary payload on a mission going to the ISS with its low tolerances for adjustments.

 

Dear Billvon,

I know of your "unbound limitless love" for me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but let us focus on this commercial space mission and the faults within, not on the random prospects of the US in space industry)))
* Clogged pressurization valves/blockage in oxidizer pressurization due to debris in propellant lines
* ACS partial failure requiring helium blowout to clear free of debris
* Failed to bring payload Orbcomm satellite into correct ephemeris position (TOTAL FAILURE)

 

well yeah with that respect they should have sent a block of iron to the ISS orbit and claimed mission was just as successful)

 

Tell that to OrbComm.

SpaceX and Orbcomm Inc. have agreed to new contract terms for the launch of 18 data communications satellites beginning in mid-2013

Ah, but it's their money they want to waste.

Interestingly, I didn't realize that the Falcon 1 is possibly being discontinued. Not worth the effort since more money is in larger capacity maybe? And of course a lot more redundancy in the F9.

 

Yep. Result - successful mission and a big chunk of cash from NASA for the delivery of supplies to the ISS. Most companies in the world are going to love those kinds of "failures."

"let us focus on this commercial space mission and the faults within, not on the random prospects of the US in space industry"

 

Non-impact docking (via robotic arm) is WAY safer then impact docking mechanism, mir had a Progress crash into it in fact! Impact docking requires both spacecraft and station are in a collision course and that a dock mechanism absorbs the impact forces! Using The robotic arm for Dragon and HTV allows the crafts to be on an approach orbit that bring them within a few meters of the station but not directly impacting course, if there was a total failure of the propulsion systems they would be less likely to collide then a spacecraft that relies on an impact docking system.

Also a review of the flight can be found here: http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/005/status.html

SpaceX is our last best hope for manned space travel in our life times, its its not a likely hope at that, I give them credit for how far they have gotten, farther then their competitors, even NASA at potentially having human spaceflight capably returned to the US manifest.

 

Their agreement was made before this mission commenced. And Orbcomm has insured their satellite...so not that big of a problem, I guess. Well Falcon 1 started with 570 kg to LEO and now Falcon Heavy with 53,000kg to LEO, so obviously they made the first one just as prototype for testing.

 

It's just science fiction of course, but I recall that even the Enterprise of Star Trek would normally use the tractor beam to pull their shuttle craft into the cargo bay. It really does make more sense for the main structure to control that final approach.

 

Tell that to guys at Orbital developing Cygnus...

 

That's all nice an all, but the arm is used heavily on ISS to move panels around for solar array, assemble new structures like Kibo, and even have astronauts get a piggyback ride around...so if you want a real solution to the problem, they should probably utilize ion propulsion on board of Dragon S/C for fine tuning ACS approach to ISS. And Dragon should use freeflying androgynous docking mechanism.