As I was just tweeting, you know what would be pretty funny? If the other ISS partners weighed in on the Russian thing.
Can you imagine the embarrassment if Canada and ESA said, “Hey, maybe NASA and Congress are afraid to fly without an abort system on the Dragon, but we think that having assured access to ISS is pretty important, even if there’s a risk to crew. Our astronauts are willing to chance it, to stick it to Rogozin. That’s what they signed up for.” I’d love to see the French tell us to stop being such merde du poulet.
“As I was just tweeting, you know what would be pretty funny? If the other ISS partners weighed in on the Russian thing.”
It wouldn’t be funny if they sided with Russia.
Hard to imagine the Canadians doing that.
You know, why couldn’t someone other than NASA engage SpaceX for a manned spaceflight this year? Are there regulatory or legal bars to that?
That question has been asked of both Musk and Shotwell. The official line is: we’d love to take your money, but we’re focused on getting NASA’s astronauts to the station right now.
No. All that is lacking is someone with the funds to do it who wants to do it.
Of course, SpaceX doesn’t want to piss off NASA right now, while they’re awaiting the awards for the next phase of commercial crew.
I am sure BA meets that requirement. But yes it would annoy NASA, which you worry about if you are a NASA contractor…
That is an interesting question.
What are the legal and regulatory barriers to a private flight to ISS.
1) You need an FAA Launch License, so if your orbital mission plan includes Close approach to ISS, i think the FAA will ask the interagency coordinating group. (DoD, State, NASA,) and I’m not sure NASA would grant permission.
2) To dock to the station, current procedure is Dragon gets real close then the arm grabs it, so you need NASA-JSC to support that. (Schedule, time, resources).
3) the Russian side has docking targets, but i think that’s all APAS, and the russians probably wouldn’t want to support that.
now could someone apply for a FAA mission to go say 6 times around, and return? Probably.
There shouldn’t be a legal bar there, and while you may need a regulatory approval,
i don’t see how the feds deny that.
The question had nothing to do with ISS, you moron.
Once proven, then sure, Dragon could be tapped for ISS duty, but you’re right–I’m wondering whether NASA’s absurd hesitation to move could be circumvented by a private customer.
I get that SpaceX may be reluctant to upset its biggest customer, but another option would be a military client. Our absence of manned space flight capability could certainly be viewed as a strategic problem.
That said, the real hope in the long run is that private customers totally dominate manned spaceflight and NASA simply becomes a secondary client.
the real hope in the long run is that private customers totally dominate manned spaceflight and NASA simply becomes a secondary client.
Indeed, unfortunately with people like DN-guy; the first thought is how to regulate it and how that regulation should work, thus making sure NASA and the government never become a secondary client.
1) So much wrong with your thinking.
2) The Dragon connects via the CBMs which requires the arm for the necessary precision.
3) Soyuz/Progress don’t use APAS. They use probe and drogue.
So Rand, are you reaching out to contact anyone like this?
requests@chrishadfield.ca perhaps?
I don’t think that he’s in a position to make such a political statement as that. Though he could potentially be influential.
Great angle, Rand.
Yep, that would be superb. My variation on it would be
“We cannot comprehend why NASA and Congress are afraid to fly without a tested abort system on the Dragon when Shuttle had nothing at all, but we think that having assured access to ISS is pretty important, even if there’s a risk to crew. Our astronauts are willing to chance it, to stick it to Rogozin. That’s what they signed up for.”
The question I would like to see asked of SpaceX is why aren’t they pressing NASA to send NASA crews to the ISS in 2015 if they’ll be able to send their own crews to space then?
Bob Clark
Actually, i think a more interesting and safer strategy would be:
“On further consideration, we don’t think enough work has been done on long-duration human spaceflight. We think that Polyakov’s record was admirable, but we think it can it can be bettered. So we’ll keep our current crew up for some time. We won’t need a return trip in September after all. Our current goal is 438 days, which may be extended if circumstances warrant.
Interestingly, 438 days from now we will probably be able to provide our own two-way transportation with a tested LAS system. So by then your transportation services will probably no longer be required. But it’s been an interesting experience working with you.”
The other partners are too much of pussies to do that.
Actually this editorial indicates some groups in Japan may well be happy if the Russians give them the excuse to be able to get out of ISS sooner.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/05/20/editorials/reconsider-japans-space-program/
Reconsider Japan’s space program
[[[The Japanese government has so far spent some ¥826 billion on the project and plans to use another ¥35.7 billion in fiscal 2014. Its noteworthy national financial contribution to the project is comparable to that of Europe as a whole though smaller than the United States.’]]]
[[[Sending unmanned space probes to Mars multiple times would also be less costly, result in more technological and scientific achievements, and contribute more to advancement of industries than sending a manned spacecraft to the planet.
We should recall how much the Hayabusa unmanned space probe accomplished in studying an asteroid. Hayabusa, launched in May 2003, brought sample material from asteroid 25143 Itokawa to Earth in June 2010 at a cost of only about ¥20 billion. As budget pressures strengthen, Japan’s experts and taxpayers should seriously consider what approach will best serve its needs for space observation and exploration. The discussions should not be left to bureaucrats and politicians.]]]
I find this highly unlikely. The Japanese have always been gung-ho about manned spaceflight and even had a project to do their own space shuttle, HOPE, which they took a long time to abandon. They never quite completely abandoned the space plane idea.
Yes, their space program would be a prime target for Bigelow Aerospace if they weren’t locked into the orbiting money pit. Imagine how much further their budgets would go just paying BA to fly their astronauts when they want them to fly. Who knows? Demand might be big enough to justify SpaceX placing a launch site in Japan as a foreign expansion.
“…manned spaceflight program … has produced nothing of scientific value.”
Then proves himself wrong by saying men repaired the Hubble which seems to have had some scientific value but what do I know. Saying it could have done more in a higher orbit is just red herring. It could have done more if it was a bigger scope on the far side of the moon. Or a dozen scopes synced together. Or a warp ship that went to see directly. Or a rainbow unicorn.
But it was a scope with defective optics fixed by our space men.
Except the Hubble was fixed by the Shuttle, not ISS. And we no longer have the Shuttle to fix things in space…
Giving you the benefit of the doubt (there aught to be an abbreviation for that phrase!) and you noted I quoted manned flight (not shuttle or ISS) you are correct that we do not have shuttle. Good thing. What we will have is other vehicles providing manned capabilities. Vehicles built to support commercial endeavors for profit. A really good trade in MHO.
There is no shaming Congress because almost everyone in Congress is an arrogant, power hungry idiot who thinks they are smarter and more important than anyone and anything else in the world.
Gregg beat me to it. Shame congress? You’d have a better chance of getting them to think the constitution had something to do with American law. Both chances hovering near zero.