SpaceX Updates

[voyager4d]

So, I've got a question, assuming Obama's current plan (as of 14 February 2010) is implemented by Congress, when would the first humans fly on a SpaceX rocket? Or any of the other USA commercial LEO rockets?

--Brian

1. April 2014...

Impossible to know..
But the timeframe we are looking at is between 2012 and 2020.
My guess would be late 2014 or early 2015.
SpaceX could if everything goes perfect (but it never does) do it sooner (maby 2013).

 

[astc]

Hopefully Never,
and Nasa get its act together

 

[Boris_Badenov]

So, I've got a question, assuming Obama's current plan (as of 14 February 2010) is implemented by Congress, when would the first humans fly on a SpaceX rocket? Or any of the other USA commercial LEO rockets?

--Brian

A guess on my part would be not before the second half of 2012. But that's only a guess from an observer/fan boy.

 

[nimbus]

Hopefully Never,
and Nasa get its act together

Some of the crow-eating would be fatal.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Adding Rocket Man to His Résumé
The coming debate over the future of the American space program will, in no small part, revolve around this question: Should the United States hire Elon Musk, at a cost of a few billion dollars, to run a taxi service for American astronauts?

 

[edkyle99]

So, I've got a question, assuming Obama's current plan (as of 14 February 2010) is implemented by Congress, when would the first humans fly on a SpaceX rocket? Or any of the other USA commercial LEO rockets?

--Brian

Augustine Committee suggested 2016 as a possibility for the generic "commercial space taxi", but this all very much remains to be seen. SpaceX was founded eight years ago. It took seven years to achieve its first successful satellite launch, which actually isn't bad compared to some other efforts. Europe began Vega development in 2000. Vega was supposed to be small, quick, and cheap! It probably won't fly for another year yet, at least. Soyuz ST at Kourou also keeps getting delayed year after year. This is a rocket that is already developed! Russia's Angara project started during the mid 1990s and has yet to get into full swing. Etc.

- Ed Kyle

 

[aaron38]

Hopefully Never,
and Nasa get its act together

The two aren't in competition. SpaceX handling the boring routine taxi service lets NASA get it's act together. Nasa can build the shuttle derived BFR and establish remote bases. Then SpaceX can build Musk's BFR, relieve NASA of that duty, and let NASA build a Jupiter mission or something.

The only way you can have a gov't agency handle the full entirely of solar system colonization is to abolish war and turn the defense budget into a space budget. Until then, space is going to have to be colonized by privatizing the wake of the outward push.

 

[edkyle99]

Sad news today about the loss of three Tesla employees in a plane crash. Elon Musk was not one of them. http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_14419427

- Ed Kyle

 

[halman]

Hopefully Never,
and Nasa get its act together

NASA does not belong in the space taxi business. It should be spending its money on advanced technology, such as what I have outlined in my thread "A cheap and easy way into space." Getting into space is still the most difficult part of space exploration, and the part that has to be improved drastically.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Bump

 

[menellom]

So, I've got a question, assuming Obama's current plan (as of 14 February 2010) is implemented by Congress, when would the first humans fly on a SpaceX rocket? Or any of the other USA commercial LEO rockets?

Optimistically? I'd say we could possibly see a manned SpaceX flight by the end of 2013.
Realistically? By the end of 2014
Pessimistically? An asteroid comes out of nowhere and life on Earth is wiped out. :lol:

 

[edkyle99]

So, I've got a question, assuming Obama's current plan (as of 14 February 2010) is implemented by Congress, when would the first humans fly on a SpaceX rocket? Or any of the other USA commercial LEO rockets?

Optimistically? I'd say we could possibly see a manned SpaceX flight by the end of 2013.
Realistically? By the end of 2014.

Augustine Committee thought that no commercial provider would be ready prior to 2016, and SpaceX was clearly part of the review.

If it had unlimited funds, SpaceX might be ready to try a crewed launch on its own prior to 2016, but I don't see it trying one for NASA before then. NASA will bury it in requirements.

- Ed Kyle

 

[docm]

Only for ISS flights could NASA "bury it in requirements". SpaceX has long said they have other customers.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

There's a big update. It's dated Sunday, but it hit my email around midnight.
INAUGURAL FALCON 9 / DRAGON FLIGHT HARDWARE UPDATE
Sunday, March 14, 2010
On Saturday, March 13, SpaceX successfully completed a test firing of the inaugural Falcon 9 launch vehicle at Space Launch Complex 40 located at Cape Canaveral. Following a nominal terminal countdown, the launch sequencer commanded ignition of all 9 Merlin first stage engines for a period of 3.5 seconds.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

The first one is actually the video, I just can't get it to post. There are several other pix as well.

SpaceX Updates Page

 

[neutrino78x]

So, I've got a question, assuming Obama's current plan (as of 14 February 2010) is implemented by Congress, when would the first humans fly on a SpaceX rocket? Or any of the other USA commercial LEO rockets?

--Brian

A guess on my part would be not before the second half of 2012. But that's only a guess from an observer/fan boy.

To follow up on this, Shuttle launches to the ISS seem pretty far apart anyway. Isn't it logical to think that if we go with Obama's Flexible Path plan, with private LEO launches, we might never have to pay the Russians for a ride? It is almost mid 2010, the Shuttle is supposed to be over this year. So, we could probably wait a year until someone gets one of their rockets man-rated.

But, still, as I have said before, NASA needs to be accelerating that process as much as possible. I mean, the rocket is on the Cape right now. This man rating process needs to be faster.

btw if you are launching Private Astronauts, you don't need NASA's "man rating", correct?

It would just be up to SpaceX to make sure it is safe, and the NASA "man rating" is only for NASA astronauts?

After all, Virgin Galactic is not going through any government process on the Space Ship Two, right? Just a commercial process of going through various test flights to make sure it is safe?

--Brian

 

[EarthlingX]

I think it has to be HR for ISS docking, similar to Leonardo MPLM, but don't remember any such requirement for BA-330 ..

Not to mention, that ISS is not exactly 'tourist friendly' in any great numbers. Those poor gals'n'boys up there usually don't have much time for their own, very busy schedule as a rule, and i don't think tourists would be much appreciated in that lab, you know, little children pressing buttons, dogs peeing ..

 

[voyager4d]

I think it has to be HR for ISS docking, similar to Leonardo MPLM, but don't remember any such requirement for BA-330 ..

The cargo version will already have this in place, because like the Leonardo MPLM it will be docket with the station.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Thursday, May 6, 2010
Great big update.

 

[docm]

Real interesting is the part that documents how over-designed the PICA-X TPS is. Wow.

 

[mj1]

Did anyone happen to watch the Senate transportation committee hearings on NASA last week? It is amazing how little these senators who are supposed to be responsible for overseeing the NASA program actually KNOW about what is going on. For example, NONE of them had ANY idea that the commercial space program is MUCH further along than they think. NO ONE knew that the Falcon 9 is launching this month or what the COTS program is all about. They were all STILL focused on trying to salvage the Constellation program, even though they were being told right there that the program is WAY over budget and cannot be completed without spending billions and billions more taxpayer dollars. They were also shocked to find out that the Dragon will be ready for manned flights to the ISS by 2015 or earlier. A piece of news here is that Mr. Bolden pretty much made a commitment that Space-X and Orbital will definitely be flying manned space flights to the ISS, if they prove themselves in the COTS program.

 

[rcsplinters]

I didn't get to watch all of it but I did see some portion. My interpretation was a bit different. I got the impression they knew about those programs (and you'd have to live under a rock not to). However, they had the attitude "PROVE IT". I think this is a very legitmate and prudent approach. Are these businesses viable without being heavily propped up by federal funding? Do they have a viable business model. I have no doubt that the industry would say, "We can do it, send billions". Should we believe them and what's their history to substantiate that belief? I've got almost no doubt that NASA will succeed with ARES and that stems largely from the Augustine report. Do you take the bird in hand or do you gamble billions on private industry to develop a capability that only three countries in the world have achieved?

Some interesting insight and quotes at http://www.spacepolitics.com. In my opinion, we had a clear, technically viable if unfunded path that was going to yield a LEO and HLV capability. Now we have chaos with the design choice and path forward likely falling to congress looking compromise with the administration whose actions say they would like to exit manned space flight as a nation. Now that's scary.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

I didn't get to watch all of it but I did see some portion. My interpretation was a bit different. I got the impression they knew about those programs (and you'd have to live under a rock not to). However, they had the attitude "PROVE IT". I think this is a very legitmate and prudent approach. Are these businesses viable without being heavily propped up by federal funding? Do they have a viable business model. I have no doubt that the industry would say, "We can do it, send billions". Should we believe them and what's their history to substantiate that belief? I've got almost no doubt that NASA will succeed with ARES and that stems largely from the Augustine report. Do you take the bird in hand or do you gamble billions on private industry to develop a capability that only three countries in the world have achieved?

Some interesting insight and quotes at http://www.spacepolitics.com. In my opinion, we had a clear, technically viable if unfunded path that was going to yield a LEO and HLV capability. Now we have chaos with the design choice and path forward likely falling to congress looking compromise with the administration whose actions say they would like to exit manned space flight as a nation. Now that's scary.

So where was the "PROVE IT" attitude for the Ares program? SpaceX is NOT federally funded. I dont think the Ares program was the "bird in the hand" that you speak of, it was over budget and behind schedule "We can do it, send billions" was their motto. Anyway this post is about the SpaceX updates and not political cross talk. There are other posts for that.

 

[rcsplinters]

I didn't get to watch all of it but I did see some portion. My interpretation was a bit different. I got the impression they knew about those programs (and you'd have to live under a rock not to). However, they had the attitude "PROVE IT". I think this is a very legitmate and prudent approach. Are these businesses viable without being heavily propped up by federal funding? Do they have a viable business model. I have no doubt that the industry would say, "We can do it, send billions". Should we believe them and what's their history to substantiate that belief? I've got almost no doubt that NASA will succeed with ARES and that stems largely from the Augustine report. Do you take the bird in hand or do you gamble billions on private industry to develop a capability that only three countries in the world have achieved?

Some interesting insight and quotes at http://www.spacepolitics.com. In my opinion, we had a clear, technically viable if unfunded path that was going to yield a LEO and HLV capability. Now we have chaos with the design choice and path forward likely falling to congress looking compromise with the administration whose actions say they would like to exit manned space flight as a nation. Now that's scary.

So where was the "PROVE IT" attitude for the Ares program? SpaceX is NOT federally funded. I dont think the Ares program was the "bird in the hand" that you speak of, it was over budget and behind schedule "We can do it, send billions" was their motto. Anyway this post is about the SpaceX updates and not political cross talk. There are other posts for that.

Actually, Ray, I think you'll find the Augustine report declares ARES as a technically viable solution seems to lend itself to the phrase, "Bird in hand", particularly since the organization responsible for ARES was, until recently, the world leader in manned space flight. In regards to politics, I was merely responding to a prior post on the Transportation subcommittee discussions. Depending on the outcome, those hearing could have a profound effect on SpaceX manned capability. If in no other way, they could virtually eliminate any government market depending on what plan actually takes shape. Ironically, I would suggest that the most critical component of any successful commercial venture at this point is found on capital hill. That includes SpaceX since at some point, they'll need customers outside the rich and famous crowd.

 

[MeteorWayne]

So where was the "PROVE IT" attitude for the Ares program? SpaceX is NOT federally funded. I dont think the Ares program was the "bird in the hand" that you speak of, it was over budget and behind schedule "We can do it, send billions" was their motto. Anyway this post is about the SpaceX updates and not political cross talk. There are other posts for that.

Indeed, please say on topic to SpaceX updates. There are a half a dozen other threads active to discuss other space future issues.