Quote from: Orbiter on 04/06/2013 04:09 pmWhy wouldn't SpaceX still stick with the two non-NASA crew flight missions in 2015? The CCiCap deadlines didn't get totally destroyed of funding.The non-NASA flight was part of the CCiCAP optional milestones, which are unfunded.
Why wouldn't SpaceX still stick with the two non-NASA crew flight missions in 2015? The CCiCap deadlines didn't get totally destroyed of funding.
Quote from: Orbiter on 04/06/2013 04:41 pmQuote from: Jorge on 04/06/2013 04:32 pmQuote from: Orbiter on 04/06/2013 04:09 pmWhy wouldn't SpaceX still stick with the two non-NASA crew flight missions in 2015? The CCiCap deadlines didn't get totally destroyed of funding.The non-NASA flight was part of the CCiCAP optional milestones, which are unfunded.So in short, it's not going to happen..?I've heard it's going to happen, but under CPC Phase 2, not CCiCAP.
Quote from: Jorge on 04/06/2013 04:32 pmQuote from: Orbiter on 04/06/2013 04:09 pmWhy wouldn't SpaceX still stick with the two non-NASA crew flight missions in 2015? The CCiCap deadlines didn't get totally destroyed of funding.The non-NASA flight was part of the CCiCAP optional milestones, which are unfunded.So in short, it's not going to happen..?
I'm sick and tired, of the use of the term sequestration as a cover for everything going wrong.
Quote from: Prober on 04/06/2013 04:45 pmI'm sick and tired, of the use of the term sequestration as a cover for everything going wrong. I don't see it used either in the article or in the L2 documentation... Are you sure that's the "excuse"?
... NASA may choose to pursue some of the initial optional milestones or a portion of a milestone if exercising them furthers the purpose of developing a capability that could ultimately be available to serve both government and commercial customers, but the benefit to the government would need to be high. NASA will not fly people to orbit under a space act agreement.
They should have capped the SLS instead! Man am I annoyed with this development! Good job, congress!
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/04/uscv-1-nasa-slip-iss-commercial-late-2017/Via L2 documentation and some source work over the evening/night. We'll follow it up, given it's not official, it's planning documentation - but we have experience with how that works via the FAWGs for Shuttle, etc.
I believe this is what Congress wanted. They will now be able state that the Commercial Crew program experienced "long delays" despite the fact that they funded the program at half the requested amount for years.
http://www.interfax.ru/news.asp?id=299874Aleksey Krasnov, head of department of manned programs of Roskosmos: "We discussed this subject on Baikonur Cosmodrome with our American colleagues. They say that taking into account the recent sequester of the budget first of all development of commercial projects will suffer. They don't exclude that readiness of space means for delivery of crews on ISS will be after planned terms. The end of 2017 doesn't sound any more".
Quote from: manboy on 04/06/2013 10:07 pmI believe this is what Congress wanted. They will now be able state that the Commercial Crew program experienced "long delays" despite the fact that they funded the program at half the requested amount for years.NASA helped them do that by never offering any other date than 2017 as the target date and ~$800M as the funding level. Sometimes even providing one without the other.
Quote from: riney on 04/06/2013 05:37 amSo, if SpX is still hinting at 2015 for their first non-NASA crew, and they're still the nominal frontrunner, where's the year slip coming from? Docking hardware? Qualifying their longevity, assuming the commercial crew vehicles are expected to maintain the same six month on-orbit performance as Soyuz? Procedures and software on the ISS side? Quite curious about this. I would guess that the manned Dragon's schedule will depend on the Bigelow-SpaceX partnership's ability to rent commercial station space. If they get customers, they can fund earlier manned flights. If they don't, they'd probably develop at the pace NASA sets.
So, if SpX is still hinting at 2015 for their first non-NASA crew, and they're still the nominal frontrunner, where's the year slip coming from? Docking hardware? Qualifying their longevity, assuming the commercial crew vehicles are expected to maintain the same six month on-orbit performance as Soyuz? Procedures and software on the ISS side? Quite curious about this.
There will be hearings on this to be sure. Elon Musk will say we're launching in 2015 with or without NASA. Then the pressure will be on NASA to take SpaceX as the sole provider because they are the only company capable of crossing the finish line with the least amount of expenditure. The decision has already been made. This is all a show at this point.