Slashdot Mirror
NASA Orders SpaceX Crew Mission To International Space Station (nasa.gov)
An anonymous reader writes: NASA has placed its first mission order for SpaceX to launch astronauts to the International Space Station from U.S. soil. SpaceX is now in a race with Boeing, who received a similar order in May, to see which private space company can deliver astronauts to the ISS first. NASA said, "Commercial crew missions to the space station, on the Boeing CST-100 Starliner and SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft, will restore America's human spaceflight capabilities and increase the amount of time dedicated to scientific research aboard the orbiting laboratory." They anticipate dramatic reductions in cost for launching astronauts to orbit compared to similar missions aboard Russian rockets. "Each company also must successfully complete a certification process before NASA will give the final approval for flight. Each contract includes a minimum of two and a maximum potential of six missions. A standard commercial crew mission to the station will carry up to four NASA or NASA-sponsored crew members and about 220 pounds of pressurized cargo. The spacecraft will remain at the station for up to 210 days, available as an emergency lifeboat during that time."
I hope it goes better than the last SpaceX launch.
Space is dangerous! But SpaceX is still new to the game and learning.
I've always wanted to go to space using the lowest bidder AND the winner of a race. Must be The New NASA.
dead or alive?
It'll be at least a decade before anyone catches up with Russia.
Why did we give up? Was is the Kardashians?
Funny how Boeing and SpaceX are competing for it but there is no mention of Boeing in the title. I smell bias.
At this point they're not really competing, both have been guaranteed contracts through the commercial crew program. This launch goes to SpaceX, other launches go to Boeing but the big hurdle for both is still the man rating. I imagine the road didn't get any shorter after SpaceX's launch failure and without that it's just a piece of paper.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
NASA awarded a contract to Boeing first, but what are the odds that SpaceX will fly first?
I am a Statistician. One false move and you are a Statistic
if it floats, flies or f*cks ... rent.
Funny how Boeing and SpaceX are competing for it but there is no mention of Boeing in the title. I smell bias.
You mean Americans who have subsidised Boeing with orders of magnitude more money in tax breaks over the decades than they have SpaceX... Yeah, they might be biased.
The rest of us just are probably just exited that a company is seriously attempting radical reductions in cost per unit of weight to orbit.
I would love to see Boing or any other mega-corporation attempt similar reductions in launch cost, but I doubt that will happen unless they are challenged by an outside company, like SpaceX...
Which brings me back to cheerleading for SpaceX. It's almost impossible to discuss space business without sounding like a SpaceX cheerleader.
I believe the ISS' current compliment is 6.
So, in your opinion, was the failure of CRS directly due to an organizational process failure of SpaceX as a company?
Beats your usual track record.
Hello from Sputnik 2. I am receiving you.
This is the second in a series of four guaranteed orders NASA will make under the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts. The Boeing Company of Houston received its first crew mission order in May.
Boeing's contract is not mentioned because it happened 6 months ago. This is SpaceX's first contract with NASA for a crewed mission.
Of course not. No corporation is every responsible for any mess they make.
How can it possibly be anything BUT the result of an organizational process failure of SpaceX as a company?
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's an interesting question. I'm not involved with spacex, but am with others. And I'm not familiar with (much) of the specifics of sx's problem, but I would guess as a company by not paying enough attention to the process. But it's not all bad as too much process hinders progress and can even cause things to go backward. The trick is to find the optimal point.
Is it less expensive to cut corners and pay for mistakes or to pay to ensure mistakes don't happen? The world has changed a lot in the past 50 years.
If you can't win, sue ... The Lockmart way.
Boeing was news back in May.
I hope Boeing wins. Starliner sounds so much better. "Crew Dragon"? What the fuck? Was it designed by a teenager?
The one that blew up? I cant say. I reviewed design process docentation. However, given that their business model is to avoid the cost of rigor, it seems so.
Funny how Boeing and SpaceX are competing for it but there is no mention of Boeing in the title. I smell bias.
No mention of Orbital Sciences or Rocketplane Kistler either. They were competing too before Congress killed off that competition.
I was on the USAF's SpaceX Certification program. We were basically directed by congress to certify their rocket, regardless of what may be in or missing from their documentation, design process, production process and QA. I'd give my left nut to go tot he ISS, but won't fly on a SpaceX rocket until they get a rigorous design process.
And I wouldn't trust a US government-derived "rigorous design process". The US orbital launch industry is chock full of failed "rigorous design processes" which add cost and do nothing to make the design of launch vehicles or the handling of launch failures even slightly better. We didn't need two years to figure out Shuttle launch failures. We didn't need the NASA and Congressional imposed stagnation of the US launch industry (1975-2005).
Instead, real world launch records are far better than any such process. If they have launch failures to a sufficiently low fraction of total launches, then they have solved the problem whether or not they have a "rigorous design process".