…than you were three years ago?
The official IOC for an Ares I crew launch vehicle able to send a crew of six to the International Space Station (ISS) in the Orion crew exploration vehicle is March 2015.
And now that the Russians have shown themselves for what they are in Georgia, isn’t it great to be dependent on them for crewed access?
Personally I am counting on Falcon 9 and Dragon cutting the gap to mere months, if not eliminate it all together.
That’s very, very generously assuming that SpaceX is in business and that NASA considers their vehicles reliable enough to ferry people. Currently, that would mean SpaceX has three years to demonstrate Falcon 9 is reliable enough to handle people. But they have yet to demonstrate they can launch anything to orbit.
Maybe they can ease the “Gap” by cutting months or years off the other end.
SpaceX hasn’t gotten anything into space yet but I think their test flights have shown that their hardware is 99 percent there, which more than NASA can say for Ares. If SpaceX gets all or most of the bugs ironed out with Falcon 1, Falcon 9 may very well be ready to launch a cargo Dragon by mid-late 09 and a manned Dragon by mid-late 2010.
Other than keeping the shuttles flying, it seems to me that SpaceX is probably the only game in town when it comes to possibly having a substitute for the Russians in 2010/2011 if (or should I say when) the Russians become a political no-go.
Given that SpaceX is running on a shoestring budget compared to NASA, it seems it would be in the strategic interest of the U.S. Government to make sure that SpaceX succeeds with the Dragon/Falcon 9 rather than mostly waiting on the sidelines and crossing their fingers.
Oops, Anonymous above was me.
>>Other than keeping the shuttles flying, it seems to me that SpaceX is probably the only game in town when it comes to possibly having a substitute for the Russians in 2010/2011 if (or should I say when) the Russians become a political no-go.
No offense, but three failures out of three attempts indicates that SpaceX is far from 99% there. But I do admit that they’re further along than Ares I is. NASA will be a very demanding customer. SpaceX currently doesn’t have the chops to fill those demands and I don’t see three years (especially given the current situation) as being enough time.
I agree with John. EELVs are much closer to filling the Gap.
I would have no problem with NASA pursuing an EELV solution, but is either stack currently compatible with the Orion? Or perhaps the Dragon? I seem to recall that is Orion pretty much just beyond the the upper bounds of the EELV heavy capabilities. Realistically, if NASA got it head out of its a** about keeping a manned orbital capability post 2010, what are the realistic options?
It seems almost criminal that NASA is putting the U.S. into the position of not having manned orbital capability for nearly five years — assuming Orion and Ares I/V don’t slip any further.
>>>I would have no problem with NASA pursuing an EELV solution, but is either stack currently compatible with the Orion? Or perhaps the Dragon? I seem to recall that is Orion pretty much just beyond the the upper bounds of the EELV heavy capabilities. Realistically, if NASA got it head out of its a** about keeping a manned orbital capability post 2010, what are the realistic >>>options?
—————————————–
How long did it take from concept to flight of the Gemini capsule? It is difficult for me to believe that nearly 5 decades later a simple system couldn’t be done in half the time by Motivated Experienced people.
Doesn’t have to be capsule, lifting body, winged or whatever. Has to work to this spec by this date or no check. No oversight. It is amazing what can be done by people when performance is the criteria, not conformity.
You ca
It is amazing what can be done by people when performance is the criteria, not conformity.
Indeed, I think you have the problem in a tight nutshell. We are definitely putting function behind form, and that tone was set during RFP.
When you speak of people for whom performance is the criteria rather than conformity, you’re talking about SpaceX. That’s why I have confidence in their ability to launch a manned vehicle by no later than early 2011, and possibly much sooner.
Yes they’ve had 3 failure for 3 attempts, but every failure mode is now well understood. That isn’t to say they can’t have another failure from another unanticipated issue next time they launch, but I think the odds are more and more in their favor every day.
Cecil, I strongly disagree. First, since SpaceX has yet to complete a launch, there’s always the possibility of more failures past the point that they’ve reached so far. Second, three launches won’t catch the flaws that trigger once in a while. If you have a serious error that manifests one out of ten times, then even with three successful launches, you only have roughly a 25% of seeing that error. If you want to reduce launch failure rate to one in a hundred (adequate failure rate for today’s manned launch vehicles), then you need to have somewhere on the order of a hundred successful launches to determine whether your failure rate
That anonymous reference to Gemini and performance was mine. Sorry.
I wasn’t trying to trash SpaceX, just point out that there are many options. The problem as I see it less hardware than systems approach. There are at least ten people that read this blog that could close the gap to 2011 given the resources that are going to be spent on the current approach. Several of them could write a performance based contract that would get a major player to do the job. I couldn’t.
Maybe it will be SpaceX. Maybe it won’t. If the govt offered Rand or one of his unindicted co-conspiritors $100,000.00 to write the contract within 30 days, I bet he would make it happen somehow. If there was an additional $1M bonus if it worked, after it worked, I bet it would work. Don’t tell them how to do it, just don’t pay if they don’t. It is possible one of the small guys could start launching in that time frame, I just brought up the EELVs because they already exist.