That's really exciting, having the private sector involved! This could be an alternative to Soyuz if all goes well, as the dragon capsule is also designed for crew.
SpaceX is really progressing well. Still, there must be more flights before I would put humans in it, so lets see what the upcoming test flights will bring.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3887 posts, RR: 13 Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4909 times:
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 1): SpaceX is really progressing well. Still, there must be more flights before I would put humans in it, so lets see what the upcoming test flights will bring.
Yes they are but a long way to go before it carries a crew. My personal feeling is that the Boeing CST-100 will beat SpaceX at least in terms of carrying crew to the ISS. Boeing are targetting 2014 for an initial piloted mission.
comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4721 posts, RR: 17 Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4907 times:
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 2): Yes they are but a long way to go before it carries a crew. My personal feeling is that the Boeing CST-100 will beat SpaceX at least in terms of carrying crew to the ISS. Boeing are targetting 2014 for an initial piloted mission.
How does this work? Will the crew be NASA or Boeing/SpaceX employees?
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4838 times:
While Boeing has the established industrial muscle, I'd still not bet against SpaceX to be first with a crew.
They'll claim that they don't have the layers of corporate bureaucracy, we shall see.
FVTu134 From Russia, joined Aug 2005, 169 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4646 times:
Don't forget that SpaceX is eating into Boeing (through ULA) business and with the addition of F9 Heavy that will only make the field more competitive. ULA will have to cut margins to compete with the (on paper) better economies of F9 launches.
I still believe SpaceX will be the more agile and creative company with Boeing having to copycat in certain cases. I highly doubt Boeing would have come up with this if SpaceX hadn't pushed forward with their ambitions for manned flight.
Just my 2cents of course.
FVTu134
who decided that a Horizon should be HORIZONtal???
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5123 posts, RR: 29 Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4345 times:
I think it's fantastic to have the private sector on the leading edge of space science. The more alternatives available for manned space operations, the less the chance that problems with one group can scuttle manned operations.
Also, the more seats available to space, the faster things can get built and the more resources available for potential moon shots...somewhere man should never have left.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4247 times:
I would question the contention that we know the Moon, while our knowledge of our satellite - and also of the early Solar System and Earth - increased exponentially with Apollo, even the later J missions could explore and sample a small area around the landing site for a limited time, just 6 sites were explored.
Lack of funds, then lack of rockets as well as the limitations of the Apollo system, meant that some notable sites of scientific interest were never reached.
The poles - since Apollo an area of renewed interest, the far side - there could be significant differences with the near side as recent studies suggest, Tycho in the Southern Highlands.
DiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1299 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4186 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 9):
I think Roscosmos and Soyuz are the best. Think reliability, efficiency and all these years of experience and success.
That may be the first time I've heard reliability, success and Soyuz in the same mentioning. It's an old design. Yes it still works, but honestly, the SpaceX Falcon 9 is a great rocket, which will likely hurt the heck out of ULA, Boeing and others in the business, not to mention the Soviets (err, Russians)
Boeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4146 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 7): I think it's fantastic to have the private sector on the leading edge of space science.
Quoting comorin (Thread starter): That's really exciting, having the private sector involved!
SpaceX is using NASA money to develop Dragon/F9 (and before that DARPA money for Falcon 1). So how are they any different from ULA? The answer is they aren't. I'm sick of hearing "the private sector is now involved in spaceflight" when it has been involved from the very beginning.
Anyways, good luck to SpaceX on this mission. Yet another aerospace contractor is a good thing.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7502 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4020 times:
Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 11): I'm sick of hearing "the private sector is now involved in spaceflight" when it has been involved from the very beginning
Of course, but the balance of power is shifting now. The government alone is not making the big design and policy decisions anymore. It makes space just a high tech industry that can function on its own. Your point that SpaceX receives a bit of govt funding is well taken. But our govt ought to do that even more often, encouraging new companies (not just Boeing and its merged up subsidiaries, and Lockheed). It is competition... not the private-ness of the organization... that is new here. Multiple bidders... a true connection with enterprise. Not just hundred year old companies but new enterprise. Then you know it's not all dead wood.
Point taken, but the age of the company doesn't indicate how innovative they are. Even the 100 year olds are innovative. There's a reason afterall that they made it to 100 years.
I am all for SpaceX, but let's not turn them into Apple with a bizarre cult mentality. After all, their launch systems are really just the same concepts that we've been using before. They're more evolutionary than revolutionary. Heck they're even years behind schedule when you look at the original COTS contract, and probably overbudget as well.
But they are still a company worth supporting, as with all the others. A vibrant aerospace industry with good attention to R & D is part of the formula that makes this country great. And I'm not trying to take any swings at them.
Combining the last two flights is a notable goal. It carries a bit more risk as the original second flight called for testing of maneuvering and breakaway procedures alone. But in this case, if the spacecraft sails through those tests, then why not dock in the same flight? It'll certainly save on schedule. And it gets NASA a new crew capsule sooner.
For all the bleating that the end of the shuttle program means the end of American manned spaceflight, it's amazing that those same loons don't realize that with Dragon, CST-100, and the Orion/MPCV we not only will have manned spaceflight, but we'll be the first nation with the beginnings of a comprehensive FLEET of spacecraft fulfilling a variety of roles from LEO to Mars exploration. Our aerospace community is developing the tools that will give us unprecedented flexibility in the coming years, way beyond having just Apollo, or just STS, or just Soyuz.
kalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 472 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3957 times:
Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 14): it's amazing that those same loons don't realize that with Dragon, CST-100, and the Orion/MPCV we not only will have manned spaceflight, but we'll be the first nation with the beginnings of a comprehensive FLEET of spacecraft fulfilling a variety of roles from LEO to Mars exploration. Our aerospace community is developing the tools that will give us unprecedented flexibility in the coming years, way beyond having just Apollo, or just STS, or just Soyuz.
What about Soyuz and Buran co-existing in USSR for a while?
I'm afraid situation would end up with chasing to rabbits. Time will tell, but is there really enough demand to justify multiple programs?
Boeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3954 times:
Quoting kalvado (Reply 15): What about Soyuz and Buran co-existing in USSR for a while?
Buran never carried any Cosmonauts into space. It never even operated beyond its first test flight.
Quoting kalvado (Reply 15): I'm afraid situation would end up with chasing to rabbits. Time will tell, but is there really enough demand to justify multiple programs?
Time will tell, but we do have demand for a cheap semi-reusable ISS taxi and something beefier for missions beyond LEO.
nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1576 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3911 times:
Quoting kalvado (Reply 15): I'm afraid situation would end up with chasing to rabbits. Time will tell, but is there really enough demand to justify multiple programs?
There's usually not much demand for a service that doesn't exist. That's what makes Elon Musk different than Boeing or Lockheed. He's putting his money into something not to squeeze the maximum profit from the least work, but to create the demand in the first place. he's trying to be the Henry Ford to the bankers Cadillac.
It's a pretty good bet that if he can launch for $100 million what others are charging $200 million for, the demand will be there. And if the Falcon Heavy pans out, ULA and Ariane will be out of business.
(In the voice of Ray Liotta...."Launch it and they will come")
eksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1154 posts, RR: 27 Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3891 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW ARTICLE EDITOR
Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 14): For all the bleating that the end of the shuttle program means the end of American manned spaceflight, it's amazing that those same loons don't realize that with Dragon, CST-100, and the Orion/MPCV we not only will have manned spaceflight, but we'll be the first nation with the beginnings of a comprehensive FLEET of spacecraft fulfilling a variety of roles from LEO to Mars exploration. Our aerospace community is developing the tools that will give us unprecedented flexibility in the coming years, way beyond having just Apollo, or just STS, or just Soyuz.
Well said and spot on!
Too bad the mass media and the general public have not got pass the planned retirement of the STS program to the points you mention.
Too bad the mass media and the general public have not got pass the planned retirement of the STS program to the points you mention.
Personally I wouldn't cheer too loudly. It seems likely to me that at least one and perhaps two of the spacecraft being developed for commercial crew will not fly. I can't explain why however I feel Boeing and SpaceX will get something off the ground, I'm not so confident regarding Sierra Nevada & Blue Origin.
I hope I'm wrong.....
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
eksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1154 posts, RR: 27 Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3794 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW ARTICLE EDITOR
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 19): Personally I wouldn't cheer too loudly. It seems likely to me that at least one and perhaps two of the spacecraft being developed for commercial crew will not fly.
They all do not need to fly for success and most likely they will not. The mere fact that there are credible contenders ensures the competition remains competitive. May the best fly and evolve PERIOD!
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3258 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3792 times:
Quoting eksath (Reply 20): They all do not need to fly for success and most likely they will not. The mere fact that there are credible contenders ensures the competition remains competitive. May the best fly and evolve PERIOD!
It does put a hole in B4evers thought of a FLEET of spacecraft however. And if Boeing & SpaceX do not think of the others as credible then they don't represent much in the way of competition.
It's going to be fun to watch regardless...
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10346 posts, RR: 40 Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3746 times:
How does SpaceX finance themselves? Do they get money from the US government for their research and development to carry American astronauts to the ISS (or other destinations) in the future or if not, who are their principal investors?
The banking sector seems to be in a bit of trouble so I have no idea where their financing comes from.
Takes quite a bit of money to run a Space program especially being a newbie/start-up..
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
Boeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3740 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 21): It does put a hole in B4evers thought of a FLEET of spacecraft however. And if Boeing & SpaceX do not think of the others as credible then they don't represent much in the way of competition.
What hole? You alone brought up Blue Origin. I omitted them for a reason.
As eksath says, we now have credible contenders. Should they be successful, it will be a major boon to A & D.
Elon Musk made billions off of PayPal (as one of the co-founders), and started SpaceX up around '02. Financials are not disclosed, however DARPA was involved in Falcon 1 development and likely put up a good chuck of change for that rocket. NASA money likely makes up the vast majority of funding for Dragon/F9 development. There are a number of entities, both private and government that have orders for launches.
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3258 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3727 times:
Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 23): What hole? You alone brought up Blue Origin. I omitted them for a reason.
Unfortunately you did not explain your reason for omitting Blue Origin, it would have been enlightening if you had.
Seeing as how Blue Origin is a party to the commercial crew contract, of which you were speaking, I can only assume that you erred.
No matter. I agree with the gist of your original statement though I would disagree with the name calling. It's not necessary.
IMHO NASA will be doing well if 2 of the 4 participants actually get a spacecraft flying & if NASA gets an Orion beyond LEO.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
25 Boeing4ever: Blue Origin tends to keep things close to the vest. A little too close frankly. I'm not sure what to make of them, but unfortunately I have a hard ti
26 gigneil: Practically none, considering what they blew out their asses on Ares. Privately. They're privately owned and their CEO is the largest investor. They
27 Boeing4ever: You mean the intentionally underfunded Ares? It still does not change where the money for Dragon/F9 came from. DARPA funding and COTS funding is hard
28 JoeCanuck: Why get your shorts in a knot about semantics? The difference is SpaceX started, specifically, as a rocket business without government contracts or N
29 gigneil: Its been a couple hundred million dollars total vs billions and billions on the way over budget Ares. Its a drop in the bucket vs what SpaceX has inv
30 Boeing4ever: Your assertion wasn't that the government has spent more on Ares than on SpaceX, your assertion was that SpaceX is all privately funded and what mone
31 gigneil: And I reiterate that claim. It IS all privately funded, and the money that they get from the government (to develop and purchase a product, I might a
32 cosmofly: Now that the Russian rocket has failed to send supplies yesterday, could Space X sent some fresh food as experimental load?
33 tugger: That is a very wrong statement. Government spending (US and other nations) on space accounted for less than a third of the total spending. The commer
34 kalvado: There is a distinction between generic orbital delivery and human spaceflight. Human spaceflight is 99+% government-funded (a few space tourists on g
35 tugger: Fair dinkum, point taken. I obviously was reading it as not exclusively referring to human spaceflight. But is not much of the current crop of human-
36 ZANL188: So much for reliability.... http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe...russia.rocket/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
37 Boeing4ever: This is getting old. By that claim, it is no more private than Boeing, Lockheed, etc. The government owns no stakes in those companies either. So goi
38 JoeCanuck: Regardless of who is funding what, that isn't the big story. Having another vehicle humans can use to travel to space is the important thing. I'm one
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4721 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3350 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3887 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, 
From Russia, joined Aug 2005, 169 posts, 
From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10346 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
