What is your thought on private space flight.

[nec207]

Do you think private space flight is going to start to take up people and cargo into space in one year from now or 2 years from now?

Do you think in a year or 2 from now that NASA can use private space flight to get into space than using the Russians?

From what I understand ( reading here ) Virgin Galactic and SpaceX is in service now . Where Dream Chaser ,Blue Origin,New Shepard is other 2 to 3 years out.

[pathfinder_01]

Cargo late this year or early next.
People depends 2015 is probably the best year. Space X is aiming for 2013, but I will bet they will take until 2015. Boeing and Dream Chaser are both aiming for this year too.

[Jorge]

Do you think private space flight is going to start to take up people and cargo into space in one year from now or 2 years from now?

Do you think in a year or 2 from now that NASA can use private space flight to get into space than using the Russians?

No. Minimum 3, more likely 4.

From what I understand ( reading here ) Virgin Galactic

Suborbital only, not even doing powered tests yet.

and SpaceX is in service now .

SpaceX will not fly to ISS until November at the earliest, and even then, unmanned.

Where Dream Chaser ,Blue Origin,New Shepard is other 2 to 3 years out.

3 to 4.

[manboy]

Space X is aiming for 2013

I believe they said three years after getting a contract, so 2014-ish.

[Norm Hartnett]

I was cautiously optimistic up until a month or so ago. Now I believe that NASA will return the CCP to a familiar contract based program and that we will see the "commercial" AtlasV/CST-100 flying manned missions in late 2016.

I believe that we will see SpaceX flying cargo missions next year but otherwise nada.

[happyflower]

Do you think private space flight is going to start to take up people and cargo into space in one year from now or 2 years from now?

Do you think in a year or 2 from now that NASA can use private space flight to get into space than using the Russians?

From what I understand ( reading here ) Virgin Galactic and SpaceX is in service now . Where Dream Chaser ,Blue Origin,New Shepard is other 2 to 3 years out.

Of course cargo will be taken up in one year.

For humans the issue is not technical, but lacking a goal in space. I think your question will be better asked this way: Why do you think people need to go up into space?

NASA has to be a mother bird and take private space firms under its wing and nurse them with a manly job that they can perform and make money in. With out NASA private space firms will take a great deal of time going to space, not because they cant, but because they wouldn’t have a reason to go.

If all the new buzz about paving a highway to deep space along gas stations in space come true, then NASA could be doing some stuff in L1 within 2 years that will require private space firms to take humans there.

[nec207]

I hear the European Space Agency is planning on working on human space flight by 2015 or 2020 .Is that true and are they building space craft to take people up into space by 2015 or 2020 ? If so could NASA not use the European Space Agency to get into space than having to go to Russia to get into space.

This is if private space flight does not work with NASA.

[Moe Grills]

  Several things come to mind.
Setting dates for launch attempts for private firms is
a tricky business. Money, government and engineering obstacles
make setting dates difficult to say the least.
UP Aerospace is already busy launching suborbital payloads for pay.
Even as you read this, Virgin Galactic's SS2 is being fitted out with a rocket motor. I expect first powered test flight in October, but I could easily be wrong.
   Yes, Virgin, SpaceX, XCOR are serious contenders who are near
the point where they can say we're open for business in a year or two.
(They have the money to back them up)
Armadillo, Masten & Blue Origin have had setbacks, or are finding their goals more an more difficult to achieve.

  I don't see International Launch Services, nor
Excalibur Almaz, etc. achieving much, except hype.

 Then there are issues such as: will commercial spaceflight become routine and affordable (10,000-20,000 dollars per suborbital passenger)?
  I don't think suborbital spaceflights will ever become economical enough for passenger tickets to drop lower than 50,000 dollars per seat.
And commercial suborbital manned spaceflight will NEVER become routine, even if launches take place every day (websites like this will cover
every manned space-launch; spacetravel will never become routine the way that commercial aircraft flights have).
 

[go4mars]

  Setting dates for launch attempts for private firms is
a tricky business.    Yes, Virgin, SpaceX, XCOR are serious contenders who are near
the point where they can say we're open for business in a year or two.

Though I've only been a serious spectator for the last 5-7 years, it seems that in nearly all cases, 'such n such' "will be ready in about 2 years".  That appears to be the standard timeframe (which is subsequently readjusted now and then to read "will be ready in about 2 years"). 

If you convert to tortoise years it comes out about right. 

[grr]

CST-100, Dream Chaser, and new shepard are to launch on a proven rocket, Atlas V, that is currently being modified for human launch.   There is little reason to doubt that Atlas V will be ready.

DC claims that they will be ready around early 2014. They are based on the H20, which was based on a proven russian design. There is little reason to believe that they will not be ready by end of 2014. They have limited private funding, so it is difficult to judge what will happen if NASA quits funding.

Boeing has years of experience building Aeronautics and Space vehicles. In addition, they have the financial backing, though, there is questions if NASA is told to quit funding private space. That will then depend on how close and what bigelow is up to.
There is little reason to believe that they will not finish this barring the money.

Blue Origin is quiet about what they are up to so difficult to judge when they will be ready. However, out of everybody, they have the private funding.  So, my bet is that they will be ready by end of 2014.


Finally you have SpaceX. They have F9 which is now 2 for 2 and going for 3.
Likewise, the dragon which has made done 1 launch/landing, is about to do so again in a few short months.
The dragon was built to handle human launches. What is interesting is that they have the seats, the life support, and even the avionics tested for this. All that is missing is escape tower. Assuming that cargo works a couple of times, it could be put into use as a lifeboat quickly. In addition, in a pinch,  a dragon can be used to put humans up to space without an escape system (which mercury, gemini, apollo 1, and shuttle went without). Considering that they actually have funding and can get more,  AND are looking at IPO, AND the cargo missions are the same as humans, it is hard to believe that they will not be ready by end of 2014.


So, it should be obvious to nearly all that the US will regain human launch by end of 2014 and possibly by end of 2013.

Personally, I think that you asked the wrong question.

I would be a bit more interested to see how 4 of these companies are going to survive? At this time, the assumption is that Bigelow will be there. What happens if Bigelow does not go? Then the human launch industry WILL collapse.  Then the question becomes who will survive?

I really am amazed that NASA and amazing people are not saying more about getting private space stations up there ASAP. Ideally, it should be bigelow and another such as IDC Dover. But at the least, it seems like NASA either buying a BA unit to attach to the ISS, or perhaps one to use for a human taxi between stations would make good sense. A BA unit with a tug to move between stations would make a lot of sense. In fact, more sense than having shore to ship lifeboats. With one to several units up there, we could move ppl from one station to the next in an emergency.

[Lars_J]

...a dragon can be used to put humans up to space without an escape system (which mercury, gemini, apollo 1, and shuttle went without).

A correction for you - Mercury and Apollo had escape systems. Gemini and the first four Shuttle flights had ejection seats. (I'm not sure how much practical benefit the ejection seats contributed, but better than nothing)

I'm not sure what you mean about Apollo 1, though.

[baddux]

Though I've only been a serious spectator for the last 5-7 years, it seems that in nearly all cases, 'such n such' "will be ready in about 2 years".  That appears to be the standard timeframe (which is subsequently readjusted now and then to read "will be ready in about 2 years"). 

If you convert to tortoise years it comes out about right. 

Exactly, at least for Virgin:

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2004-12/sale-soon-plane-rides-nowhere
"Start saving: The maiden ship, the VSS Enterprise, is slated to take off in 2007." (2004)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/12/20/203671/virgin-space-base-plan-allows-for-bigger-ships-in-future.html
"First flights for Virgin Galactic’s suborbital service, expected to take place in late 2008" (2005)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-07-17-virgin-spaceflight_x.htm
"Virgin Group, owned by billionaire businessman and part-time daredevil Richard Branson, said Monday it was on track to launch the world's first tourist space flights in 2008" (2006)

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-05-07-space-tourist_N.htm
"It hopes to start offering the flights in 2009." (2007)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/virgin_galatic_unveil_mothership/
"Virgin Galactic has not yet set a date for when passengers will get a ride, but expects the earliest flights could be late 2009 or early 2010." (2008)

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-12-07-virgin-galactic_N.htm
"A spacecraft designed to rocket wealthy tourists into space as early as 2011 was unveiled Monday" (2009)

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/10/virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-makes-first-glide-flight/
"Virgin Galactic boss Sir Richard Branson recently announced he expects the first passenger flights to suborbital space in SpaceShipTwo to happen within the next 18 months." (2010)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/31/virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo_n_842923.html#s259756
"The spacecraft, which was debuted in front of crowds last summer, hopes to be taking six tourists at time into space by 2013." (2011)

I kind of hope that XCOR or Armadillo gets there first.

I guess and hope that commercial suborbital and orbital crewed flight will take place before the end of year 2015, but not much before.

[Robotbeat]

Virgin had a lethal accident that set them back quite significantly. But keep in mind that they actually HAVE gone to space, three times actually.

I like XCOR's approach. "It'll be ready when it's ready."

I also think they'll end up getting lower prices because they don't have the complexity of a carrier craft and can just gas-and-go (allows them to do multiple flights in a day per vehicle). Think about the ground equipment and crew needed to remove a hybrid engine and load a new one on SpaceShipTwo (likely would need to be done in a hanger), plus the need to mate SpaceShipTwo to WhiteKnightTwo, both things that are not needed for XCor's efforts. Two pilots are also needed, and a long climb to altitude. XCor's Lynx, while only having one passenger, only requires kerosene, oxygen, and pressurant (all pretty easily available all over the globe compared to hybrid motors and nitrous). No carrier vehicle needed at all. Lynx can zoom right up to space, no slow spiral to altitude wasting valuable time that could be spent flying more people to space.

Lynx's ground handling requirements are far less than SpaceShipTwo's, which increases the likelihood Lynx will keep flying for a long time.

[baddux]

Virgin had a lethal accident that set them back quite significantly. But keep in mind that they actually HAVE gone to space, three times actually.

Yeah, I believe Virgin had nothing to do with SpaceShipOne? It was funded by Paul Allen. Of course you cannot blame Scaled Composites if Branson wants to announce dates all the time to get more customers.

[Robotbeat]

Virgin had a lethal accident that set them back quite significantly. But keep in mind that they actually HAVE gone to space, three times actually.

Yeah, I believe Virgin had nothing to do with SpaceShipOne? It was funded by Paul Allen. Of course you cannot blame Scaled Composites if Branson wants to announce dates all the time to get more customers.

Right, it's easy to get that mixed up. Sorry about that! Scaled Composites is responsible for both.

[nec207]

I hear the European Space Agency is planning on working on human space flight by 2015 or 2020 .Is that true and are they building space craft to take people up into space by 2015 or 2020 ? If so could NASA not use the European Space Agency to get into space than having to go to Russia to get into space.

This is if private space flight does not work with NASA.

Anyone going to reply to the above post?

[Jim]

I hear the European Space Agency is planning on working on human space flight by 2015 or 2020 .Is that true and are they building space craft to take people up into space by 2015 or 2020 ? If so could NASA not use the European Space Agency to get into space than having to go to Russia to get into space.

This is if private space flight does not work with NASA.

Private space is going to work. 

ESA has nothing in the works that will launch in 2015

Anyone going to reply to the above post?

[pippin]

You're kidding. ESA can't even get a DECISION in four years, let alone develop and launch a capsule. And no, there is no real work being done on such a project as of now.

[Danderman]

You're kidding. ESA can't even get a DECISION in four years, let alone develop and launch a capsule. And no, there is no real work being done on such a project as of now.

It looks like someone has an opinion about private vs government space.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

For private more time means more total money spent.

For government more time means less money spent right now even though the total will be much much higher, but thats in the future so who cares.

[pippin]

It looks like someone has an opinion about private vs government space.

Well, private will certainly be faster at taking decisions if you let them.
And ESA is not even a government, it's a multinational body that needs to get buy-in and funding from various governments to actually start something. This is not even like ONE government making decisions, this is at least half a dozen of them.

Once they have a buy-in, Arianespace, Astrium et al can do a pretty good job and they also do succeed commercially, also in the spacecraft business. But there is no such decision for a manned spacecraft within ESA yet and that means there is no way they can get anything off a pad before the 2020-2025 timeframe.

[happyflower]

and that means there is no way they can get anything off a pad before the 2020-2025 timeframe.

Im not even sure there is any kind of interest in Europe for human space flight right now. Maybe in 5 years after the economy recovers a bit, there will be interest and another 4-5 years to develope it. Yes, Pippin's time frame sounds about right to me.

[nec207]

It looks like someone has an opinion about private vs government space.

Well, private will certainly be faster at taking decisions if you let them.
And ESA is not even a government, it's a multinational body that needs to get buy-in and funding from various governments to actually start something. This is not even like ONE government making decisions, this is at least half a dozen of them.

Once they have a buy-in, Arianespace, Astrium et al can do a pretty good job and they also do succeed commercially, also in the spacecraft business. But there is no such decision for a manned spacecraft within ESA yet and that means there is no way they can get anything off a pad before the 2020-2025 timeframe.

The  ESA  has a bigger budget than NASA and there was plans for the clipper spacecraft that lack the money to keep it going.All they have to is build it.This will not take long if they get the green light to go and build it.

[Jorge]

The  ESA  has a bigger budget than NASA

Incorrect.

and there was plans for the clipper spacecraft

Canceled.

[Mandark]

The ESA won't be building any manned spacecraft anytime soon. Most of the member nations are too worried about their economies imploding at the moment!! The ESA will be hiring seats from other providers. You probably won't see anything from the ESA until the middle of the century.

[nec207]

Read below on ESA plan by 2017.

The ESA won't be building any manned spacecraft anytime soon. Most of the member nations are too worried about their economies imploding at the moment!! The ESA will be hiring seats from other providers. You probably won't see anything from the ESA until the middle of the century.

CSTS (Crew Space Transportation System) or ACTS (Advanced Crew Transportation System) is a human spaceflight system proposal. It was originally a joint project between the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Russian Space Agency (FKA), but is now solely an ESA project. It aims to design a spacecraft for low earth orbit operations such as servicing the International Space Station but also capable of exploration of the Moon and beyond. This study was conceived as a basic strategic plan to keep a viable European human space program alive because NASA officials have announced that NASA's Vision for Space Exploration Orion spacecraft will be developed without participation of international partners.[citation needed] CSTS had completed an initial study phase, which lasted for 18 months from September 2006 to spring 2008, before the project was shut down before an ESA member state conference in November 2008. However, the head of the ESA denies that the ATV evolution plan is an alternative and talks are still ongoing as to whether or not to continue funding the ACTS plan.[1] As of late November 2008, the project funding has been limited to a feasibility study with a launch of an actual vehicle possible no earlier than 2017.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSTS

[Mandark]

Very interesting. I knew the there was a joint project in the works as it hit the headlines a while back but I didn't know the Russians had bailed out. Even if the feasibility of the project is still being assessed, I still can't see how Europe could afford to build a vehicle inside the next 10 years or even the next 20 to be honest.

[hop]

CSTS (Crew Space Transportation System) or ACTS (Advanced Crew Transportation System) is a human spaceflight system proposal.

Relevant word bolded. See also: Viewgraph, powerpoint, paper study.

As of late November 2008, the project funding has been limited to a feasibility study with a launch of an actual vehicle possible no earlier than 2017.

In other words, if someone had ponied up gigabucks in 2009 or so, it could have theoretically flown by 2017. In reality, no one did.

[MrAnthonyDR]

CSTS (Crew Space Transportation System) or ACTS (Advanced Crew Transportation System) is a human spaceflight system proposal.

Relevant word bolded. See also: Viewgraph, powerpoint, paper study.

As of late November 2008, the project funding has been limited to a feasibility study with a launch of an actual vehicle possible no earlier than 2017.

In other words, if someone had ponied up gigabucks in 2009 or so, it could have theoretically flown by 2017. In reality, no one did.

Spot on, ESA are barely closer to putting a man in space than Iran or India are..

Going back to the original topic of the thread my thought is that we've reached a wall in space-flight. I know it's a cliched sentiment but we really do need a step-change in our approach to space-flight, just as how jet-engines were a step change to propellers.


Weather it's the Dragon, SpaceShipTwo, Lynx, Cygnus - whatever the commercial vehicle, it's become obvious by this point that we're struggling to make space flight viable for anything other than commercial or military satellites and some robotic exploration.

The only benefit that I see to the likes of SpaceX over NASA is that SpaceX is (theoretically) less bound by red-tape, and can be more ambitious and dynamic. In theory, and in publicity so far this has proved true. In practice, this is still debatable.

Even Virgin Galactic, who have had the technology, and vision to build SpaceShipTwo since 2004 have been delayed time and again, and what was originally supposed to fly in 2007 will now be most likely 2014.

So much for commercial energy and drive pushing the boundries of human access to space.

[go4mars]

The only benefit that I see to the likes of SpaceX over NASA is that SpaceX is (theoretically) less bound by red-tape, and can be more ambitious and dynamic. In theory, and in publicity so far this has proved true. In practice, this is still debatable.

A good observation, but to me, a bigger factor is that Blue Origin, SpaceX, and XCOR are all aiming toward rapid-reusable architectures.  I'm not certain that they'll get there, but it's a critical direction imo. 

[MrAnthonyDR]

The only benefit that I see to the likes of SpaceX over NASA is that SpaceX is (theoretically) less bound by red-tape, and can be more ambitious and dynamic. In theory, and in publicity so far this has proved true. In practice, this is still debatable.

A good observation, but to me, a bigger factor is that Blue Origin, SpaceX, and XCOR are all aiming toward rapid-reusable architectures.  I'm not certain that they'll get there, but it's a critical direction imo. 

Agreed, and I'd even take it a step further - I think our focus should be on rapidly reusable SSTO. That kind of craft would essentially be the start of 'real' space travel. SSTO may be ambitious with current tech, but it is that kind of ambition that will force a step-change. There's no reason why concepts like Skylon and X-33 cannot be realised, with enough hard work, ingenuity and R&D (and a little bit of luck).

Again, with reference to the thread title, my hope would be that the nature of private/commercial spaceflight will push such ambitious projects forward faster than near-sighted politics ever could.

[douglas100]

I would hope that private space flight companies would concentrate on getting their vehicles flying reliably and consistently. Only in that way can they hope to generate income and survive in the long term. Everything else is a distraction until this is achieved.

I think our focus should be on rapidly reusable SSTO. That kind of craft would essentially be the start of 'real' space travel. SSTO may be ambitious with current tech, but it is that kind of ambition that will force a step-change. There's no reason why concepts like Skylon and X-33 cannot be realised, with enough hard work, ingenuity and R&D (and a little bit of luck).

SSTO is marginal with current technology. It is exactly the sort of thing a private launch company should not be doing. You missed out one item from your list of things needed to make it work: money, and lots of it. A private company wishing to stay cash positive cannot afford to risk it, given the history of SSTO efforts so far.

We already have "real" space travel.

[nec207]

CSTS (Crew Space Transportation System) or ACTS (Advanced Crew Transportation System) is a human spaceflight system proposal.

Relevant word bolded. See also: Viewgraph, powerpoint, paper study.

As of late November 2008, the project funding has been limited to a feasibility study with a launch of an actual vehicle possible no earlier than 2017.

In other words, if someone had ponied up gigabucks in 2009 or so, it could have theoretically flown by 2017. In reality, no one did.

Spot on, ESA are barely closer to putting a man in space than Iran or India are..

Going back to the original topic of the thread my thought is that we've reached a wall in space-flight. I know it's a cliched sentiment but we really do need a step-change in our approach to space-flight, just as how jet-engines were a step change to propellers.


Weather it's the Dragon, SpaceShipTwo, Lynx, Cygnus - whatever the commercial vehicle, it's become obvious by this point that we're struggling to make space flight viable for anything other than commercial or military satellites and some robotic exploration.

The only benefit that I see to the likes of SpaceX over NASA is that SpaceX is (theoretically) less bound by red-tape, and can be more ambitious and dynamic. In theory, and in publicity so far this has proved true. In practice, this is still debatable.

Even Virgin Galactic, who have had the technology, and vision to build SpaceShipTwo since 2004 have been delayed time and again, and what was originally supposed to fly in 2007 will now be most likely 2014.

So much for commercial energy and drive pushing the boundries of human access to space.

Read this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26152.60


It not the scopes of this thread to discusses how to bring space cost down in this thread.

[nec207]

On a last note here for this thread you are right with the economic times most countries  in the world will not be putting people into space .

But when the the economic times look better there is no reason the ESA ,Japan or India will not continue their plan on manned space flight.

[savuporo]

I dont get the point of this thread : "private", or rather non-government run spaceflight has been going on for decades. Arguably since first Intelsat I.

The only real question is what other markets besides communication and remote sensing applications will develop, and how soon.

[nec207]

I dont get the point of this thread : "private", or rather non-government run spaceflight has been going on for decades. Arguably since first Intelsat I.

The only real question is what other markets besides communication and remote sensing applications will develop, and how soon.

The start of this thread was ----Do you think private space flight is going to start to take up people and cargo into space in one year from now or 2 years from now? -----

I got the reply no it is most likely 3 or 4 years from now.


Than I was saying could NASA not use the ESA and the reply is clear .

There is no plans before 2017.Meaning when the economic times get better and the ESA starts to put lots of money into CSTS or Skylon and no one pulls the plug on the projet it is going to be after 2017 before they cam start to take people up into space.


This is not going to help NASA now on how to get in space before the SLS is built and if no one pulls the plug on SLS for being too costly.

In other words the US is doomed.

[savuporo]

I dont get the point of this thread : "private", or rather non-government run spaceflight has been going on for decades. Arguably since first Intelsat I.

The only real question is what other markets besides communication and remote sensing applications will develop, and how soon.

The start of this thread was ----Do you think private space flight is going to start to take up people and cargo into space in one year from now or 2 years from now? -----

Yes i read that, comsats are cargo.

[douglas100]

In other words the US is doomed.

That's just silly. Try to keep a sense of proportion.

[nec207]

In other words the US is doomed.

That's just silly. Try to keep a sense of proportion.

I was saying how can the US go to space you got 4 options

1 -Go to Russia or China

you don't like that

2- around 2015 the private sector may be in its prime time to start to take people up into space .

3-  10 or 15 years in the future may be ESA ,India or Japan


4- 10 years in the future SLS if they do not pull the plug on it .

So in the mean time if you want to go to space ASAP you need to go to Russia or China or in 3 or 4 years from now the private sector .

Or you last option 10 or 15 years in the future may be ESA ,India or Japan.

There is no reason why the US is in this mess. How could big powerful country not have a way to get into space .

Why no rocket before SLS goes in service or give more money so SLS goes in service much faster.

[mlorrey]

There is no reason why the US is in this mess. How could big powerful country not have a way to get into space .

Why no rocket before SLS goes in service or give more money so SLS goes in service much faster.

More money wont speed up the failure that is the Senate Launch System. All it will do is make the date of cancellation sooner and the bill to the taxpayers bigger. We need to recognise that NASA is as incapable of building a new launch system as Washington DC is incapable of functioning as a national government, and end the misery for both organizations.

[beancounter]

There is no reason why the US is in this mess. How could big powerful country not have a way to get into space .

Why no rocket before SLS goes in service or give more money so SLS goes in service much faster.

More money wont speed up the failure that is the Senate Launch System. All it will do is make the date of cancellation sooner and the bill to the taxpayers bigger. We need to recognise that NASA is as incapable of building a new launch system as Washington DC is incapable of functioning as a national government, and end the misery for both organizations.

Yes have to agree.  All the evidence so far points to the SLS and I would also say MPCV being cancelled.  That leaves the commercial companies and of those it would appear that Boeing and SpaceX are the two most likely to get somewhere in the next couple of years.  That said, if CCDev converts to FAR based acquisition, then it's likely to be longer and more costly. 
One thing I've mentioned previously as an outside possibility is SpaceX leaving NASA and going it alone on HSF with Dragon Crew.  This would be aimed squarely at Bigelow complexes where licencing would require FAA approval, not NASA.  Boeing already is working with Bigelow however they've previously said they need government funding to make their business case.  Well they've got a bit so it could happen.
As I say, outside chance but better than no chance.

[nec207]

Cargo late this year or early next.
People depends 2015 is probably the best year. Space X is aiming for 2013, but I will bet they will take until 2015. Boeing and Dream Chaser are both aiming for this year too.

Some one may want to update the dates on this has they are all making very fast progress now and the dates may be closer than 2015.

I read that this year Space X is going to being going to the ISS.

I also read in the news that there are some new private companies that are just getting in on this now to compete and also get NASA contracts.

May want to talk about this too.

[Jason1701]

Cargo late this year or early next.
People depends 2015 is probably the best year. Space X is aiming for 2013, but I will bet they will take until 2015. Boeing and Dream Chaser are both aiming for this year too.

Some one may want to update the dates on this has they are all making very fast progress now and the dates may be closer than 2015.

I read that this year Space X is going to being going to the ISS.

I also read in the news that there are some new private companies that are just getting in on this now to compete and also get NASA contracts.

May want to talk aboy this too.

On the contrary, none of the providers is now expected to be earlier than 2017, and that will likely slip further when Congress halves CC again this year.

[nec207]

Can you elaborate ? If I understand they are doing testing .

And the news picture them going in space very soon.

[david1971]

They will hopefully do multiple trips to ISS as a cargo ship this year.

Humans are a whole other story...

[Voyager4DK]

Can you elaborate ? If I understand they are doing testing .

And the news picture them going in space very soon.

Yes, SpaceX is going to ISS this year,  but only with there cargo version of there Dragon space capsule. They still need to do life support, LES and full automatic docking with ISS.
They could be ready way before 2017, but it depends on how much testing and paperworks they need to do.

The other companies haven't even completed the full testing of there pressure vessel, so they can't be ready before 2015 at the earliest, 2017 is more likely.

[Jason1701]

How do you know SpaceX could fly crew "way before 2017?" They are ahead of their competitors in some ways but not all.

[Robotbeat]

How do you know SpaceX could fly crew "way before 2017?" They are ahead of their competitors in some ways but not all.

Their competitors (Boeing and SNC) also claim to be able to fly "way before 2017."

2017 is supposed to be the initial capability to NASA for ISS crew rotation. AFTER a few manned test flights to orbit (starting in the 2015 timeframe).

Of course, that won't be possible if Congress keeps low-balling the commercial crew budget.

[jongoff]

How do you know SpaceX could fly crew "way before 2017?" They are ahead of their competitors in some ways but not all.

Their competitors (Boeing and SNC) also claim to be able to fly "way before 2017."

2017 is supposed to be the initial capability to NASA for ISS crew rotation. AFTER a few manned test flights to orbit (starting in the 2015 timeframe).

Of course, that won't be possible if Congress keeps low-balling the commercial crew budget.

It should also be noted that the date most talked about for SLS/Orion is the date of the first unmanned demo launch, while the date talked about for commercial crew is the date of its entering operational service. But they're both in 2017, so that must mean that commercial crew is an expensive, bloated, behind-schedule handout to Obama's commercial space cronies...

~Jon

[Rahkashi]

I have honestly never been a fan of private MANNED spaceflight. I think that manned spaceflight is still in its infancy, and it needs to be handled by a government agency. I think it's fine for satellites, but not for manned spacecraft.

If NASA didn't provide all this money for CCDev, we could have SLS flying sooner.

[Tony Ostinato]

the nice thing about private is that its private. that means it can keep going thru different administrations.

too often these administrations just drop everything. they just take their ball and go home.

tho losing nasa funding wouldnt help spacex theyd still be around and moving forward even if at a snails pace.

[QuantumG]

I have honestly never been a fan of private MANNED spaceflight. I think that manned spaceflight is still in its infancy, and it needs to be handled by a government agency. I think it's fine for satellites, but not for manned spacecraft.

A 50 year infancy?

If NASA didn't provide all this money for CCDev, we could have SLS flying sooner.

That's simply nonsense, and CCDev isn't private spaceflight.

[SpaceGeek123]

Its finally getting to the point where a private mission to the Moon or Mars or Venus or the Asteroids are becoming achievable. But it won't be for profit. Space is for those who live for hope, not a quick buck. There are far safer ways to make profit on earth than in space. After 55 years of orbital space-flight (and 70 years after the first suborbital flight on the V-2) the only for profit ventures in space are either serving Governments, serving the rich elite "1%" or satellites. For profit is slowly expanding into orbit and sub-orbit (virgin galactic, bigelow aerospace) and they may open space to a few more people but they not open the space frontier.

However governments or non-profits have done far more. We have sent multiple probes to all the planets, built multiple space-stations, sent multiple manned missions to the Moon, and sent 5 probes to the stars (voyagers, pioneers and new horizons), have sent messages to the stars, created large machines to listen for signals and even built solar sails.

 

[nec207]

They will hopefully do multiple trips to ISS as a cargo ship this year.

Humans are a whole other story...

So everyone else is going for 2015/2016 and SpaceX and virgin galactic is going for 2013?

[QuantumG]

Some private rocketry, that may soon - we hope - be used for private spaceflight:

[nec207]

I have honestly never been a fan of private MANNED spaceflight. I think that manned spaceflight is still in its infancy, and it needs to be handled by a government agency. I think it's fine for satellites, but not for manned spacecraft.

Why do you say that ? The US and USSR was making leaps and bounds doing the cold war and now look at both countries the past 15 year and very much so 10 years is like living in hell.

The US space program and Russian space program is going no where . All the cool programs in the 80's and 90's got cut.

Now if you talking about space probes and search for other earth like planets and understanding the universe that is other story .The search for other earth like planets are going by leaps and bounds in past 5 years that probably in 10 yaers from now will find living life forms in space.

All the different rocket propulsion of the 80's and 90's got cut like al the x-programs  , laser propulsion ,ion propulsion  ,plasma propulsion and electric magnet propulsion so on that this only tip of the iceberg of programs in the 80's and 90's that got cut do to lack of money.

[beancounter]

They will hopefully do multiple trips to ISS as a cargo ship this year.

Humans are a whole other story...

So everyone else is going for 2015/2016 and SpaceX and virgin galactic is going for 2013?

You're mixing up sub-orbital (VG) with orbital (SpaceX).  VG is people and SpaceX is cargo via COTS-C.
For heaven's sake do some research.  It's not that hard.  If you can write this well surely you can read better.

Wrt SLS/MPCV v's Commercial Crew, the dollars are billions off.  Commercial crew is getting a 'maybe' $850 million max.  MPVC has had what 3 maybe 4 billion, that's right, billion dollars spent to date with no flight hardward built or tested. 

SLS/MPCV are both governement controlled and funded.  FAR contracts.

Of the commercial crew, Blue Origin have had a couple of sub-orbital test flights (and lost a vehicle) while SpaceX has launched to leo and return their Dragon Cargo spacecraft on which they're basing their Dragon Crew spacecraft.  Neither Boeing or XCOR have tested any hardware in flight.

[Robotbeat]

XCOR has tested their small, manned (subsonic) rocket racer, though, so they do have recent experience with building, testing, and operating a manned rocket-propelled vehicle a lot like the Lynx (but much less performance) with several flights in a day. They will probably get airborne with Lynx this year.

[happyflower]

As my frustration with Congress builds sometimes late at night when I am tired of political B.S. I think to myself, what if Elon just closes shop in the US, takes all of his engineers and goes to Brazil and start commercial space program there.

Bypass this insane Congress completely. Let them dump as many billions they want into the Senate Launch System and play the violin as Rome burns down.

But then as the Sun rises the next morning I take a deep breath and hope that things will change for the better here. What can I say I am an optimist.

[pippin]

Who's going to pay Elon's engineers down in Brazil, who so far live exclusively off US gov business?

[happyflower]

Who's going to pay Elon's engineers down in Brazil, who so far live exclusively off US gov business?

Well it seems to me that US gov. doesn't really want to do business with SpaceX (at least if Congress keeps cutting funding for SpaceX and other commercial launch companies) it seems that they dont want to do business with them. So I am not sure SpaceX will be getting that much more money from US Gov. if Congress has its way.

On the other hand Brazil has one of the hottest economies in the world right now, they are flush with cash, and the government of Brazil is hot and heavy to join the exclusive launch club.

So I guess the simple answer to your questions is: The Brazilian Government.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX has a cargo services contract with NASA. And a huge list of largely American customers on their manifest.

[nec207]

As my frustration with Congress builds sometimes late at night when I am tired of political B.S. I think to myself, what if Elon just closes shop in the US, takes all of his engineers and goes to Brazil and start commercial space program there.

Bypass this insane Congress completely. Let them dump as many billions they want into the Senate Launch System and play the violin as Rome burns down.

But then as the Sun rises the next morning I take a deep breath and hope that things will change for the better here. What can I say I am an optimist.

What does the governemnt have to do with private space flight they are suppose to come up with their on money for private space to work?

We just pay them to take people or cargo to where we want.

[QuantumG]

What does the governemnt have to do with private space flight?

Preferably nothing, but we don't live in a preferable world. Every "private" entity today suffers under the burden of government, private spaceflight companies just a little moreso.

[nec207]

What does the governemnt have to do with private space flight?

Preferably nothing, but we don't live in a preferable world. Every "private" entity today suffers under the burden of government, private spaceflight companies just a little moreso.

What do you mean?

[happyflower]

What does the governemnt have to do with private space flight they are suppose to come up with their on money for private space to work?

We just pay them to take people or cargo to where we want.

Well NASA did solicit SAAs for developing human space flight. So the government did ask for companies (such as SpaceX) to give them a proposal about how they will deliver astronauts to the ISS in CCDEV2. NASA also came up with how much money they would give said company(s) to stimulate the private industry to develop human space flight. And through this act spur economic growth as new capabilities on human space flight are created. This has the added benefit of flying US astronauts on US rockets and capsules to the ISS instead of paying a foreign government our tax money.

So why is it that NASA engineers and SpaceX engineers can agree how to proceed but Congress who is a political body decides to cut that funding in half (for less than solid reasons)? I mean Congress who has no problem dropping several Billion dollars on Constellation without getting a rocket for that money, has reservations about 800 million suddenly to fly astronauts to the ISS cheaper? Against the judgment of their own engineers?

This by the way is not something new. The commercial airline industry pretty much started the same way with another branch of the federal government (US Post) paying them to get them started. By the way US Post wanted pretty much the same thing as NASA, which is cargo (mail) delivery. What they got was the current airline industry that employs a lot of people. Would you now begrudge that tax money spent to stimulate airline industry back then?

What the current government has to do with this is apparently to get in the way.

[Patchouli]

CCDev is one of those things you'd be stupid to not fund.
I can't think of any government program that gives more bang for the buck.
Fully funded you get maybe three separate transportation systems and help kick start a new industry.

It's also absolutely necessary for NASA to be able to explore new places.
We will still need a space station in LEO or L1 for research and testing new technologies to mitigate the effects of microgravity.

Private companies can handle mundane things like resupply and crew transport.
Aurthur C Clarke got that right in 2001.