Aviation Week: manned SpX Dragon by 2011?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

qso1

Guest
All i can say is, good luck to Musk and Space "X". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
D

danhezee

Guest
<font size="2">If he succeeds with the launch in June, I hope the mainstream media gives it great coverage.</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

ThereIWas2

Guest
<p><font size="3"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></font><font size="3"><font>Musk acknowledged that many are skeptical of SpaceX's ability to carry out COTS D, and many of those skeptics are lawmakers. </font></DIV></font></p><p><font size="3">Perhaps because the more SpaceX does, the less pork for all those old military contractors in their districts.&nbsp; It isn't like congressmen have any technical knowledge...</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps because the more SpaceX does, the less pork for all those old military contractors in their districts.&nbsp; It isn't like congressmen have any technical knowledge...&nbsp; <br /> Posted by ThereIWas2</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>No, it is because Spacex hasn't done anything to warrant the attention.&nbsp; It hasn't launched one orbital mission yet, so why would one think it can do a manned spacecraft.&nbsp;</p>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;No, it is because Spacex hasn't done anything to warrant the attention.&nbsp; It hasn't launched one orbital mission yet, so why would one think it can do a manned spacecraft.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Jim, that is one of the poorest arguments I've heard.</p><p>Using that logic, someone saying in 1956 that, since&nbsp;no one&nbsp;had ever launched an orbital mission,&nbsp;a manned spacecraft could not be done. Of course, you're never wrong, so I expect you'll somehow spin this to prove <em><strong>me</strong></em> wrong. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
<p><font size="3">Not only that but in the late 50's NASA had many launchers go RUD before they got off the pad much less orbit.&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="3">SpaceX has had one RUD&nbsp;and one flight that came very close to orbit save for the 2nd stage&nbsp;oscillations, and in that one orbit would have been desset and not the main course (not a primary mission goal).&nbsp;Not shabby in my book.</font></p><p><font size="3">IMO they have a better shot this summer than NASA had in 1957.</font></p><p><font size="3">I also find it entertaining that when NASA has a problem it's excuses all around saying&nbsp;that it's a "normal part of the development process",&nbsp;but when SpaceX etc. have a similar problem their whole integrity is questioned by NASA types.&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="3">Hyprocracy of the the first order.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

KosmicHero

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not only that but in the late 50's NASA had many launchers go RUD before they got off the pad much less orbit.&nbsp; SpaceX has had one RUD&nbsp;and one flight that came very close to orbit save for the 2nd stage&nbsp;oscillations, and in that one orbit would have been desset and not the main course (not a primary mission goal).&nbsp;Not shabby in my book.IMO they have a better shot this summer than NASA had in 1957.I also find it entertaining that when NASA has a problem it's excuses all around saying&nbsp;that it's a "normal part of the development process",&nbsp;but when SpaceX etc. have a similar problem their whole integrity is questioned by NASA types.&nbsp; Hyprocracy of the the first order. <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /><br />Space is hard folks.&nbsp; SpaceX is promising to run when it hasn't even crawled.&nbsp; There is nothing wrong with that except two things: they're promising to do it in 3 years and SpaceX is a commercial venture and cannot be stood up with the kind of funds that 1957 NASA (NACA actually)&nbsp;was.&nbsp; I wish SpaceX the best... but I'll be honest, I'm not holding my breath. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
<p><font size="2">&nbsp;If I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet against this next SpaceX launch.</font></p><p>&nbsp;<font size="2">There can be absolutely no question building & flying rockets is hard. Very, very hard.</font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;But it can be done. </font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;The people that work for SpaceX have in some cases already launched rockets for other companies & Elon Musk has the money to make sure his product is capable of making it to orbit even if it takes three tries.</font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;The real question for me is, can&nbsp;enough profit be made to make it worthwhile to go all the way to Mars? If the answer is yes, then we can maybe become a two planet civilisation in the relatively near future.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not only that but in the late 50's NASA had many launchers go RUD before they got off the pad much less orbit.&nbsp; SpaceX has had one RUD&nbsp;and one flight that came very close to orbit save for the 2nd stage&nbsp;oscillations, and in that one orbit would have been desset and not the main course (not a primary mission goal).&nbsp;Not shabby in my book.IMO they have a better shot this summer than NASA had in 1957.I also find it entertaining that when NASA has a problem it's excuses all around saying&nbsp;that it's a "normal part of the development process",&nbsp;but when SpaceX etc. have a similar problem their whole integrity is questioned by NASA types.&nbsp; Hyprocracy of the the first order. <br /> Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>1.&nbsp; They weren't NASA launchers, they were DOD launchers</p><p>2.&nbsp; Of course they have a better shot than the DOD in 1957 (NASA didn't exist) . &nbsp; How easy was it in the 1953 to design and build an airplane, 50 years after the Wright Bros. &nbsp;&nbsp; spacex has 50 years of experience to draw upon and it made conscience choice to&nbsp; blatantly disregard of lessons learned from the past which lead to problems on the first flight. &nbsp; That is hypocrisy.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>3.&nbsp; I am not making any excuses for the abomination called Ares I&nbsp;</p>
 
D

docm

Guest
<p><font size="3"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; They weren't NASA launchers, they were DOD launchers</DIV></font></p><p><font size="3">At that point in time a distinction without a difference because NASA wasn't created until&nbsp;1958.</font></p><p><font size="3">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.&nbsp; Of course they have a better shot than the DOD in 1957 (NASA didn't exist) . &nbsp; How easy was it in the 1953 to design and build an airplane, 50 years after the Wright Bros. &nbsp;&nbsp; spacex has 50 years of experience to draw upon and it made conscience choice to&nbsp; blatantly disregard of lessons learned from the past which lead to problems on the first flight. &nbsp; That is hypocrisy.</DIV></font></p><p><font size="3">If you say so <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></font></p><p><font size="3">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;3.&nbsp; I am not making any excuses for the abomination called Ares I&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></font></p><p><font size="3">No one should,&nbsp; In fact, abomination may be too mild a term.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY