My prediction; They’ll soon force a down-select to one provider for commercial crew, and will order NASA to decide which one on the merits alone, giving NASA full freedom to choose whichever of the current commercial crew contractors that begins with “B” that they prefer.
So, with the CST-100, we’ll proudly attain full manned flight independence from Russia, launching it with the RD-180 engines of the Atlas 5. The Atlas 5’s long safety record will be a key deciding point, which makes perfect sense as it looks like the last Atlas 5 will fly the year the first CST-100 launches (about 2019, by my guess).
The Falcon 9 is, basically, just too new to be trusted for manned flight, so much better to use ULA’s Vulcan, the Atlas 5 replacement which should be flying in a few years.
It all makes perfect sense, if you’re congress.
I hope I’m wrong.
There was a pretty good op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today:
Unfortunately, it’s behind a paywall. I read it in the dead tree edition, which my boss gets at work.
The author pointed out that SpaceX has less experience than ULA, but seemed to be more critical of Congress’ efforts to ban the import of the RD-180.
I forgot to mention that the photo accompanying the article showed the Falcon 9 in normal flight, with the first stage plume spread out at high altitude. I don’t know whether it was a stock photo, or one of CRS-7 before the failure.
Interesting you’re linking to Rick Tumlinson who, you recently said, no one pays attention to.
I don’t recall when I said that. But I’m not sure what your point is even if I did.
My prediction; They’ll soon force a down-select to one provider for commercial crew, and will order NASA to decide which one on the merits alone, giving NASA full freedom to choose whichever of the current commercial crew contractors that begins with “B” that they prefer.
So, with the CST-100, we’ll proudly attain full manned flight independence from Russia, launching it with the RD-180 engines of the Atlas 5. The Atlas 5’s long safety record will be a key deciding point, which makes perfect sense as it looks like the last Atlas 5 will fly the year the first CST-100 launches (about 2019, by my guess).
The Falcon 9 is, basically, just too new to be trusted for manned flight, so much better to use ULA’s Vulcan, the Atlas 5 replacement which should be flying in a few years.
It all makes perfect sense, if you’re congress.
I hope I’m wrong.
There was a pretty good op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today:
National Security After the SpaceX Explosion
Unfortunately, it’s behind a paywall. I read it in the dead tree edition, which my boss gets at work.
The author pointed out that SpaceX has less experience than ULA, but seemed to be more critical of Congress’ efforts to ban the import of the RD-180.
I forgot to mention that the photo accompanying the article showed the Falcon 9 in normal flight, with the first stage plume spread out at high altitude. I don’t know whether it was a stock photo, or one of CRS-7 before the failure.
Interesting you’re linking to Rick Tumlinson who, you recently said, no one pays attention to.
I don’t recall when I said that. But I’m not sure what your point is even if I did.