Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX and Boeing Slated For Manned Space Missions By Year's End (fortune.com)
schwit1 shares a report from Fortune, covering NASA's announcement last week that it expects SpaceX to conduct a crewed test flight by the end of the year: SpaceX's crewed test flight is slated for December, after an uncrewed flight in August. Boeing will also be demonstrating its CST-100 Starliner capsule, with a crewed flight in November following an uncrewed flight in August. NASA's goal is to launch crews to the ISS from U.S. soil, a task that has fallen to Russia's space program since the retirement of the U.S. Space Shuttle program in 2011. NASA began looking for private launch companies to take over starting in 2010, and contracted both SpaceX and Boeing in 2014 to pursue crewed launches. The push to restore America's crewed spaceflight capacity has been delayed in part, according to a detailed survey by Ars Technica, by Congress redirecting funds in subsequent years. The test flights could determine whether Boeing or SpaceX conducts the first U.S. commercial space launch to the ISS. Whichever company gets that honor may also claim a symbolic U.S. flag stuck to a hatch on the space station. Sources speaking to Ars describe the race between the two companies as too close to call, and say that a push to early 2019 is entirely possible. But in an apparent vote of confidence, NASA has already begun naming astronauts to helm the flights.
The chance of a lifetime.
they have put in big curved monitors and cheat us, there is no space, there is nothing
This will be good practice for SpaceX's crewed trip to Mars in 2024. We truly live in exciting times!
Don't you have something better to do than spam this site with your stuff?
How can you do a crewed test flight? You send people up, tell them to do no work, and then examine whether they've exploded or not? Who volunteers for that mission?
This space intentionally left blank
Even if Boeing (who has the knowledge and a successful track record) builds the capsule, fact is SpaceX has yet to have a single fully successful mission (they always had a major problem) and has a track record of ignoring problems.
Ok. There's so much wrong here, I'm not sure where to begin. First of all, Boeing and SpaceX have different capsule systems. Space X is using the Dragon 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_2 on top of a Falcon 9. Boeing is using the Starliner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100_Starliner on top of an Atlas rocket. As for the idea hat SpaceX has yet to have a single successful mission, this is demonstrably not true as a glance at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches where for example you can see 17 successful launches in 2017 alone. While SpaceX has had some very high profile failures, there success rate at this point is close comparable to other major rocket companies, and the Dragon spacecraft has also successfully returned to Earth. Moreover, one of the major things that people think of a as a "failure" of SpaceX is when one of their rocket's first stages doesn't land successfully. In fact, that didn't happen at all in 2017, and moreover isn't an issue anyways because it isn't an issue for mission success, simply an issue for if they have a rocket available for cheap reuse later.
I suppose one could point to the rumors of failure of Zuma, but it is pretty clear that if anything failed there it was on the Northrop-Grumman payload end, not SpaceX, as demonstrated by the fact that SpaceX did not halt flights after the Zuma launch.
All of that said, there are some signs that SpaceX has been too fast and loose with some safety issues. A recent set of government audits found serious safety and protocol issues at pretty much all the major space contractors but with more issues at SpaceX than any of the others https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-22/top-u-s-space-contractors-cited-for-lapses-by-pentagon-watchdog. However, none of those issues have so far translated into any substantial problem.
Except for 4 full failure launches. I put the last mission on them. The same mechanism has worked on other rockets for years without failure. I wouldn't go on a SpaceX rocket even if given a free ticket. I have too much to live for. Meanwhile other rockets such as the Delta are at 100% success rate.
Meanwhile other rockets such as the Delta are at 100% success rate.
So, almost no one has a 100% success rate. Note by the way, that this is part of why both the Dragon and Starliner(the Boeing capsule) have an ability for the capsule to separate if there's an issue with the rocket. It is interesting that you mention the Delta, since around 9% of Deltas have failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_(rocket_family)#Launch_reliability. Last I checked, 91% is not 100%. (Granted, many of the failures were early Deltas and many of those failures were partial failures where people in a capsule above might survive). But, in fact, NASA doesn't think that man-rating any version of the Delta makes sense https://www.wired.com/2008/07/why-nasa-isnt-t/, whereas NASA is in favor of man-rating the Falcon 9, Block 5, so the people who think about this sort of thing have thought very carefully about this. Part of why NASA won't man-rate the Delta is because its regular flight profile subjects payloads to 6 gs, but a major part is also its lack of redundant systems where adding them in would require massive work.
NASA is insisting, quite appropriately on at least a few Falcon 9 Block 5 flights before they put people on it. The Block 5 is going to be the final version of the rocket and has a lot of tweaks which will make reuse easier but also other bits that will improve safety and reliability.
Oh, yeah, the other 100 or so targets promised by Musk and not delivered on time. It's all a big PR sham.
Indeed, stop panting, fan boys, this isn't happening, and you'll be lucky if we get anywhere near Mars in your lifetime let alone begin colonizing space. In case you haven't noticed by now, Musk is a liar.
The Zuma failure is only a rumour, and if it happened, it was caused by hardware which SpaceX was not allowed to see or touch, so it isn't their fault.
Falcon has had two full failures: CRS7 failed in flight AMOS-6 failed on the pad. Falcon has had one partial failure: CRS1 was successful but a secondary payload did not make its intended orbit and was lost. They also blew up a 'grasshopper' experimental vehicle but that is in no way comparable to a Falcon failure.
Two and a bit failures from 48 flights (or intended flight in the case of AMOS-6) is neither great nor terrible.
To be allowed to fly people, SpaceX and Boeing have to convince NASA they have less than 1/270 chance of losing crew.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Then submit a post of your own for publication praising Allah. The rules of this site ask that you reply on the topic posted.
Should have happened 30 years ago. Not now and not at this price. Space belongs to everyone.
Troll bot
Islamophobe!
Yup lied about rockets. Lied about south Australia's battery. Lied about electric cars. Lied about you being a dumbarse. Oh, well he at least got the last one right
The trolls sure are out in force for this one! I guess Russia/China/Soros/etc just HATE to see America retaking the lead in space exploration.
So your comment, that is made possible by science only, is deceiving? If you'd believe in your own drivel you'd pray instead of posting here.
The battery is going great, and has saved parts of the National grid at times with its ultra fast response time to transient loads, Like when a big Victorian Coal plant shat itself recently. A great success, furthering our world leading renewable startegies here in SA.
Instead of exploring space, explore the truth. Allah is the truth. Islam is the truth. The Qur'an is the truth. Convert to Islam and turn away from the science that will deceive you and turn you away from the truth that is Allah.
At the time of the Abbasid Caliphate you had science to, and in fact invented several of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Is big, really big. You might think its a long way down the street to the chemist, but thats just peanuts compared to space.
You are a coward for Islam and you are a liar for Islam. You engage in taqiyya. Get back to us when your religion isn't murdering people AND you are willing to post from an account instead of as an Anonymous Coward
The truth is that Mohamed was a pedophile who married a six year old, had sex with her when she was nine, and impregnated her at twelve.
Space is fake. The Earth is flat.
I'm not thrilled of constant delays by SpaceX, BO, NASA Orion but rather than bitching and moaning, how about insightful commentary? I haven't RTFA nor am I a rocket scientist. I offer this https://www.youtube.com/watch?... where "Everyday Astronaut" summarizes reasons for FH delays (some insights of why not to just stop improving and fly the same thing over and over). There are probably better articles, finding them can be challenging particularly private companies don't want to reveal too much. Or maybe building something so high performance is much more difficult than first imagined.
At times I wonder how were we able to do it so fast back in the days when nowadays a flying a new manned spacecraft keeps getting delayed. My first guess is the infrastructure (hardware, parts logistics, education system) ain't what it used to be. But then I don't really know.
mfwright@batnet.com
Except for 4 full failure launches.
There has actually only been one full launch failure - CRS-7. (That one was actually so benign a LES wouldn't have had any problem riding it out.)
I put the last mission on them. The same mechanism has worked on other rockets for years without failure.
It's rather difficult to label it as "the same mechanism" if F9 doesn't have the same physical interface.
Meanwhile other rockets such as the Delta are at 100% success rate.
I'm trying to fathom the logic that ascribes "4 full failure launches" to F9 while deeming Delta IV Heavy's first flight as a success, but to no avail.
Ezekiel 23:20
even worse are the assholes that respond to the assholes that respond to trolls
uuuummm yeah, no
wrong on every single statement you made
What else is missing in reliability, is that both Boeing and Lockheed Martin, used others equipment, which was old and expensive. And both Delta/Atlas are way too expensive to compete in the global market. Otoh, SpaceX has not only developed their own, but now have the lowest cost with the largest payload, and is going to even bigger payloads. In the mean time, ULA is doing nothing, except dying.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
There has actually only been one full launch failure - CRS-7. (That one was actually so benign a LES wouldn't have had any problem riding it out.)
The payload could even have aborted and gone down on parachute (minus the "trunk" with the docking adapter, I'm sure), except they never expected such a situation, so they didn't program the flight control software to do that.
I'm trying to fathom the logic that ascribes "4 full failure launches" to F9 while deeming Delta IV Heavy's first flight as a success, but to no avail.
The only logic I can think of is "ULA shill". SpaceX hatebois are even more annoying than Apple hatebois.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I don't quite agree with this either. Vulcan and ACES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Cryogenic_Evolved_Stage are both very interesting projects which could both reduce some space costs and allow types of missions that are close to impossible right now. Tony Bruno, the new head of ULA, has really shaken things up there.
I live short ways from ULA HQ, and know a number of engineers there. Vulcan is moving slowly, and aces is on hold ( horrible mistake ). I had high hopes for bruno, but he really has not done squat.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.