SpaceX officially selected for ISS crew mission

http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/20/9...sion-announced

Houston: "SpaceX, you are GO for crewed launch to ISS."
SpaceX: "SpaceX actual, I'm raring to go Houston."
Houston: "That's fine SpaceX actual, but remember Elon, you do have to fly a
few of our folks along with you when you go."

I suspect the mission will slip to 2018, but that's still great news.

I'm sure we'll get cheaper flights than the Russians have been selling us.
(though I suspect they'll suddenly be willing to negotiate cheaper flights
too!)

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:31:34 PM UTC-5, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/20/9...sion-announced

Houston: "SpaceX, you are GO for crewed launch to ISS."
SpaceX: "SpaceX actual, I'm raring to go Houston."
Houston: "That's fine SpaceX actual, but remember Elon, you do have to fly a
few of our folks along with you when you go."

I suspect the mission will slip to 2018, but that's still great news.

I'm sure we'll get cheaper flights than the Russians have been selling us.
(though I suspect they'll suddenly be willing to negotiate cheaper flights
too!)


congreess should fully fund space x like companies to end russia transporting americans

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:31:34 PM UTC-5, Greg (Strider) Moore
wrote:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/20/9...sion-announced

Houston: "SpaceX, you are GO for crewed launch to ISS."
SpaceX: "SpaceX actual, I'm raring to go Houston."
Houston: "That's fine SpaceX actual, but remember Elon, you do have to
fly a
few of our folks along with you when you go."

I suspect the mission will slip to 2018, but that's still great news.

I'm sure we'll get cheaper flights than the Russians have been selling
us.
(though I suspect they'll suddenly be willing to negotiate cheaper
flights
too!)


congreess should fully fund space x like companies to end russia
transporting americans

What would you define as "fully fund". They already bought a number of
flights.

I think SpaceX is doing well the way things are.
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 9:57:57 AM UTC-5, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:31:34 PM UTC-5, Greg (Strider) Moore
wrote:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/20/9...sion-announced

Houston: "SpaceX, you are GO for crewed launch to ISS."
SpaceX: "SpaceX actual, I'm raring to go Houston."
Houston: "That's fine SpaceX actual, but remember Elon, you do have to
fly a
few of our folks along with you when you go."

I suspect the mission will slip to 2018, but that's still great news.

I'm sure we'll get cheaper flights than the Russians have been selling
us.
(though I suspect they'll suddenly be willing to negotiate cheaper
flights
too!)


congreess should fully fund space x like companies to end russia
transporting americans

What would you define as "fully fund". They already bought a number of
flights.

I think SpaceX is doing well the way things are.
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

the head of nasa has stated publically that congress by dragging its feet are slowing the private space launch business

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 9:57:57 AM UTC-5, Greg (Strider) Moore
wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:31:34 PM UTC-5, Greg (Strider) Moore
wrote:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/20/9...sion-announced

Houston: "SpaceX, you are GO for crewed launch to ISS."
SpaceX: "SpaceX actual, I'm raring to go Houston."
Houston: "That's fine SpaceX actual, but remember Elon, you do have to
fly a
few of our folks along with you when you go."

I suspect the mission will slip to 2018, but that's still great news.

I'm sure we'll get cheaper flights than the Russians have been selling
us.
(though I suspect they'll suddenly be willing to negotiate cheaper
flights
too!)


congreess should fully fund space x like companies to end russia
transporting americans

What would you define as "fully fund". They already bought a number of
flights.

I think SpaceX is doing well the way things are.

the head of nasa has stated publically that congress by dragging its feet
are slowing the private space launch business

Great, but I'm asking you what YOU would suggest.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

What would you define as "fully fund". They already bought a number of
flights.

I think SpaceX is doing well the way things are.

the head of nasa has stated publically that congress by dragging its feet
are slowing the private space launch business

Great, but I'm asking you what YOU would suggest.

provide more money to get russia out of our supply chain to orbit.

but its really not about that.

congress sees space x launching for a small fraction of SLS orion.

10% to 20 % of the nasa designed deep space launcher.

congress wants to protect their pork piggie partners.

nasa promotes we need a orion capsule for deep space trips. while everyone here knows that just plain wrong.

7 peopleor even 3 cant live exclusively in a orion capsule for months at a time.

they will need multiple modules put together as a station, with a transhab living areas.

a capsule was fine for a trip to the moon that was over fast.

but orion is zero capable of a crew for a years mission, even beyond the cost.

at one billion per launch, not including payload.

SLS is a pure pork pig to no where......

the problem is were wasting billions on it;(

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 2015-11-22 15:40, bob haller wrote:

provide more money to get russia out of our supply chain to orbit.


Assuming Space X gets manned capsule working ,and Boeing gets CST100
going, won't the contract provide sufficient capacity to bring non
russian crews to and from the ISS without help from Soyuz ?

I understand that Russia is a diplomatic bad boy these days, and ending
reliance of their services is a diplomatic goal.

But from a purely pragmatic point of view, shouldn't Soyuz be kept as an
option ?

Say SpaceX has accident and it takes a year before they get back in
business. Isnt it convenient to be able to purchase an extra Soyuz to
replace it ?

Similarly, say the Soyuz has an accident and is grounded for a few
months, isn't it convenient to be able to sell them seats ?


Also, until SpaceX and Boeing has manned vehicle "in production", isn't
it smart for government to only fund developmeht and test flights ?

Once the vehicle is ready for commercial ops, then the government knows
it can count of vehicle and can buy a specific number of flights over a
period of time.

The other variable is that nobody knows when manned Flacon/Dragon will
become commercial relative to Boeing CST100. Say Boeing is delayed 3
years, during which Dragon gets 100% of flights. Once CST100 is
operational, they share the flights 50/50.

So until you know this, you can't make long term contracts to purchase
SpaceX flights since you don't know how many flights will be needed.
(same with CST100)



nasa promotes we need a orion capsule for deep space trips. while
everyone here knows that just plain wrong.

Not entirely. You do need longer-term life support and a heavier heat
shield.

But I suspect a Dragon V3 could handle much of that.


Any chance SLS/Orion will become a 3rd "shuttle" to/from the ISS ? or
perhaps only for visiting crews who stay a week or two ?

No, the Orion really is designed for "deep space". It's designed to be
launched on SLS, which is too expensive for simple flights like this.


Or will the unmanned testing of SLS consume all of the Shutle's engines
and there won't be any left for actual use ?

I'm not positive NASA really has thought that far ahead. I think there's a
bit of "then a miracle occurs" in their planning.


From a policy point of view, would NASA allow a manned Orion be to
lanched on another rocket ? (are there any that are "man rated" ?)


Not sure it could, other than perhaps a Falcon 9 Heavy. It's too big I think
a Falcon 9.



SLS is a pure pork pig to no where......
the problem is were wasting billions on it;(

Political pork to maintain NASA and ATK jobs in politically sensitive
states.

Does SpaceX and Boeing create many jobs in Florida and Louisiana ? Yeah
it would have been easier to give all those employees early retirememt
and be done with it.

The thing is, they don't necessarily have to. Shareholders don't care about
where the money is spent as much as where it comes from.



In fairness: does Orion/SLS development advance the "state of the art"

No, not really.


in terms of space technologies/materials ? If there are any benefits
that come out of it and can be used by SpaceX and Boeing, then all is
not lost. (still pork though).

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

What would you define as "fully fund". They already bought a number of
flights.

I think SpaceX is doing well the way things are.

the head of nasa has stated publically that congress by dragging its
feet
are slowing the private space launch business

Great, but I'm asking you what YOU would suggest.

provide more money to get russia out of our supply chain to orbit.


Which they are doing. US Cargo is flying via SpaceX and Orbital Sciences. So
in that regards, Russia is already out.

Come 2017 I believe there's 8 or 12 (I've seen both numbers) of crewed
flights to be flown by Boeing or SpaceX. That pretty much cuts out the
Russians.


but its really not about that.

congress sees space x launching for a small fraction of SLS orion.

10% to 20 % of the nasa designed deep space launcher.

congress wants to protect their pork piggie partners.

Yes, and that will continue.


nasa promotes we need a orion capsule for deep space trips. while everyone
here knows that just plain wrong.

7 peopleor even 3 cant live exclusively in a orion capsule for months at a
time.

No one has claimed they will.


they will need multiple modules put together as a station, with a transhab
living areas.

a capsule was fine for a trip to the moon that was over fast.

but orion is zero capable of a crew for a years mission, even beyond the
cost.

And again, no one is saying that's the usage.

This is admittedly a huge gap in NASA's planning. It relies on "and then a
miracle occurs"


at one billion per launch, not including payload.

SLS is a pure pork pig to no where......

the problem is were wasting billions on it;(

Yes, but there's no evidence if we stopped spending it on SLS that Congress
would spend it on CRS or CCTC.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 9:37:49 PM UTC-5, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message
...

What would you define as "fully fund". They already bought a number of
flights.

I think SpaceX is doing well the way things are.

the head of nasa has stated publically that congress by dragging its
feet
are slowing the private space launch business

Great, but I'm asking you what YOU would suggest.

provide more money to get russia out of our supply chain to orbit.


Which they are doing. US Cargo is flying via SpaceX and Orbital Sciences. So
in that regards, Russia is already out.

Come 2017 I believe there's 8 or 12 (I've seen both numbers) of crewed
flights to be flown by Boeing or SpaceX. That pretty much cuts out the
Russians.


but its really not about that.

congress sees space x launching for a small fraction of SLS orion.

10% to 20 % of the nasa designed deep space launcher.

congress wants to protect their pork piggie partners.

Yes, and that will continue.


nasa promotes we need a orion capsule for deep space trips. while everyone
here knows that just plain wrong.

7 peopleor even 3 cant live exclusively in a orion capsule for months at a
time.

No one has claimed they will.


they will need multiple modules put together as a station, with a transhab
living areas.

a capsule was fine for a trip to the moon that was over fast.

but orion is zero capable of a crew for a years mission, even beyond the
cost.

And again, no one is saying that's the usage.

This is admittedly a huge gap in NASA's planning. It relies on "and then a
miracle occurs"


at one billion per launch, not including payload.

SLS is a pure pork pig to no where......

the problem is were wasting billions on it;(

Yes, but there's no evidence if we stopped spending it on SLS that Congress
would spend it on CRS or CCTC.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net


i believe that not to long ago nasa signed a contract for several more years of soyuz crew rotation

nasa states SLS orion are needed to go into deep space. but thats really a lie?

so wasteful spending is ok? shouldnt those bucks be spent better in some other way? like a vasmir engine prototype to get us to mars. it could be first used for a unmanned flights, say a grand tour of the solar system, dropping on lander / rover along its way out of te solar system

In article om,
says...

On 2015-11-22 15:40, bob haller wrote:

provide more money to get russia out of our supply chain to orbit.


Assuming Space X gets manned capsule working ,and Boeing gets CST100
going, won't the contract provide sufficient capacity to bring non
russian crews to and from the ISS without help from Soyuz ?

I understand that Russia is a diplomatic bad boy these days, and ending
reliance of their services is a diplomatic goal.

But from a purely pragmatic point of view, shouldn't Soyuz be kept as an
option ?

No, that's why Commercial Crew is funding two different crewed vehicles
from two different companies that launch on two different launch
vehicles from two different companies. That's all the redundancy you
need.

Say SpaceX has accident and it takes a year before they get back in
business. Isnt it convenient to be able to purchase an extra Soyuz to
replace it ?

No, you buy more launches of CST-100 from Boeing, which would launch on
an Atlas V.

Similarly, say the Soyuz has an accident and is grounded for a few
months, isn't it convenient to be able to sell them seats ?

Never happen. The Russians are always capable of flying Soyuz because
they'll work fast to fix whatever is wrong. And even if they're not
exactly sure what went wrong, they'll mitigate what they can and fly
anyway. Soyuz has a long history and Russia is not afraid to take the
risk.

Also, until SpaceX and Boeing has manned vehicle "in production", isn't
it smart for government to only fund developmeht and test flights ?

That is how the program works. As I understand it, they are not going
to be paid for flights to ISS in advance. This isn't a contract like
Orion.

Once the vehicle is ready for commercial ops, then the government knows
it can count of vehicle and can buy a specific number of flights over a
period of time.

The other variable is that nobody knows when manned Flacon/Dragon will
become commercial relative to Boeing CST100. Say Boeing is delayed 3
years, during which Dragon gets 100% of flights. Once CST100 is
operational, they share the flights 50/50.

So until you know this, you can't make long term contracts to purchase
SpaceX flights since you don't know how many flights will be needed.
(same with CST100)

You can second guess yourself to death in this business. But having a
backup is the key. That is why the NASA Administrator wants full
funding for Commercial Crew. Funding shortfalls over many years can
create development delays that start to pile up.

nasa promotes we need a orion capsule for deep space trips. while
everyone here knows that just plain wrong.

Any chance SLS/Orion will become a 3rd "shuttle" to/from the ISS ? or
perhaps only for visiting crews who stay a week or two ?

Or will the unmanned testing of SLS consume all of the Shutle's engines
and there won't be any left for actual use ?


When SLS/Orion was first funded, that was one of my fears. But that
program is its own worst enemy. But, there has been only one very early
test flight of Orion (on a Delta IV Heavy) on the books. And, we are
still a few years before the first unmanned SLS test flight.

With the billions spent on SLS/Orion each year, you'd have thought it
would be flying by now. But, that's not the real goal of the program,
is it? If it were, Congress would be up in arms about the lack of
progress.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer