When is the first manned test flight planned?
SpaceX performed two milestones, its Dragon Primary Structure Qualification and Delta Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review, in November as part of its CCiCap agreement. Under that agreement, SpaceX also performed other critical design reviews of its systems and operations this year. The company continued to provide NASA with data in preparation for the company’s Certification Baseline Review under its CCtCap contract, which was approved this month. SpaceX also closed out its CPC contract with NASA in 2014. Next year, SpaceX will perform two abort tests for its Crew Dragon spacecraft under its CCiCap agreement.
SpaceX held several CCiCap meetings with NASA, including one in August that covered the company’s launch and mission operations plans and the associated ground systems at Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Complex 39A. The company also held a series of technical interchange sessions with the agency’s spaceflight experts to discuss the intricacies of the progress, testing and plans associated with the Crew Dragon spacecraft and the Falcon 9 v 1.1 rocket.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/21/2014 07:19 pmWhen is the first manned test flight planned?2016. Reported on this very site, linked in the article you've just read (smug face )....http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/06/spacexs-reisman-next-giant-leap-dragon-v2/
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 12/22/2014 07:24 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 12/21/2014 07:19 pmWhen is the first manned test flight planned?2016. Reported on this very site, linked in the article you've just read (smug face )....http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/06/spacexs-reisman-next-giant-leap-dragon-v2/Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but if SpaceX is planning on doing a "manned" test flight in 2016, shouldn't there be something... about space suits... somewhere?
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/20/2014 05:55 pmI’m really looking forward as to which spacecraft will be the first for its crewed orbital test flight. The first is going to get a lot of press especially if it is Dragon 2 for what I see as “media bias” as it makes for a better storey to cover in their eyes... Not really fair but that’s the way it’s probably going to play out... Good incentive for Elon to make it happen...It really makes no difference to the program but of course only one company gets the gold, while the other gets the silver.Unless Boeing is holding out on unannounced progress my bet is on Dragon 2 getting the gold. That's because of the way the entire competition was done. Each company was allowed to write its own milestones. SpaceX chose the more difficult ones that required creating and flying operational flight hardware while Boeing created lots of procedures and documentation and some really good boilerplate hardware to test some systems. ISTM that leaves Boeing at a disadvantage in that it now needs to create and prove the operational flight hardware that SpaceX has already accomplished. However it could also be that Boeing feels it can do the flight hardware faster than SpaceX because of its heritage capabilities. To me that's iffy but it could be.I could be wrong, but that is my impression.
I’m really looking forward as to which spacecraft will be the first for its crewed orbital test flight. The first is going to get a lot of press especially if it is Dragon 2 for what I see as “media bias” as it makes for a better storey to cover in their eyes... Not really fair but that’s the way it’s probably going to play out... Good incentive for Elon to make it happen...
This is SpaceX you talking about and Elon's optimistic forecasts that always slip by a year or two.
In Boeing's favor, they said from the beginning that they were using to the greatest extent possible proven hardware and designs (which many consider boring), so even though they are behind in terms of building flight hardware, the presumption is that when they do start building it there will be few surprises, and it will all go to according schedule. Whereas SpaceX are going for a much more radical design, including designing and building a new compact and high performance engine, and although the CRS Dragon gave them a head start in hardware, and their CCiCAP goals put them further ahead (2 goals remain to be completed, however). We don't know what is holding up the pad abort, but if it is related to the performance and reliability of SuperDraco it could cause more delays. It could be a tortoise and hare scenario, although I am cheering for the hare.
Quote from: Jcc on 12/22/2014 11:00 pmIn Boeing's favor, they said from the beginning that they were using to the greatest extent possible proven hardware and designs (which many consider boring), so even though they are behind in terms of building flight hardware, the presumption is that when they do start building it there will be few surprises, and it will all go to according schedule. Whereas SpaceX are going for a much more radical design, including designing and building a new compact and high performance engine, and although the CRS Dragon gave them a head start in hardware, and their CCiCAP goals put them further ahead (2 goals remain to be completed, however). We don't know what is holding up the pad abort, but if it is related to the performance and reliability of SuperDraco it could cause more delays. It could be a tortoise and hare scenario, although I am cheering for the hare.IIRC, SpaceX announced they had completed development and testing of SuperDraco before the Dragon 2 unveiling. Unless they were lying, SuperDraco won't be holding anything up unless they discover some issue in flight that didn't show up in ground testing.
From the article: "While praising SpaceX's strong approach for incremental development and testing with risk reduction, Gerstenmaier expressed a worry that the company has "the least robust approach for addressing the actual specific feedback on Phase 1 products that are the foundation of certification in the second phase."
One explanation for this is that the other two companies roll over backwards at anything NASA asks them to change...
...while SpaceX challenges them on it and argues with them about the best choices.
Gerstenmaier is a career NASA guy. It wouldn't be surprising if he believed the NASA way was the best way and didn't like a company that didn't defer to NASA the way traditional contractors do.
While the near-term importance of returning a domestic crew launch capability to the United States is obvious, the funding to achieve that goal has been placed on a low calorie diet when compared to some of NASA’s more obese flagship projects, such as SLS, Orion and even the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).
OK, in an attempt to tie in ever more directly with the original article, I quote from that article:QuoteWhile the near-term importance of returning a domestic crew launch capability to the United States is obvious, the funding to achieve that goal has been placed on a low calorie diet when compared to some of NASA’s more obese flagship projects, such as SLS, Orion and even the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).What is the near-term importance of returning to a domestic crew launch capability? What will be lost to the US if the Russians suddenly say, no more flights to the ISS? What will be lost to the US if the ISS ends up underwater in 2018 versus 2024? Do these potential losses merit additional expenditures now?