When will the first commercial orbital crew be launched from the US

[oiorionsbelt]

Voting expires June 30 2014

[Robotbeat]

This includes any crewed test flights to orbit, right?

[oiorionsbelt]

This includes any crewed test flights to orbit, right?

Yes any crewed fight that makes orbit.

[AS-503]

I thought a man-rated Delta IV was/is out of the question?
Both with the current RS-68 and structural margins being below 1.4.

[Robotbeat]

I thought a man-rated Delta IV was/is out of the question?
Both with the current RS-68 and structural margins being below 1.4.

Not out of the question. It's good enough for incredibly expensive and incredibly important national security assets (upon which millions of lives depend). We used to launch men on converted ICBMs, remember?

[oiorionsbelt]

I thought a man-rated Delta IV was/is out of the question?
Both with the current RS-68 and structural margins being below 1.4.

Not out of the question. It's good enough for incredibly expensive and incredibly important national security assets (upon which millions of lives depend). We used to launch men on converted ICBMs, remember?

Amended the last option to better reflect it's intent.

[AS-503]

I thought a man-rated Delta IV was/is out of the question?
Both with the current RS-68 and structural margins being below 1.4.

Not out of the question. It's good enough for incredibly expensive and incredibly important national security assets (upon which millions of lives depend). We used to launch men on converted ICBMs, remember?

While I agree with all of your points, sadly they are not relevant to NASA's standards for man-rated.
Historically speaking Gemini pulled about 7gs on the way up (steep trajectory) on it's converted ICBM with "black zones" almost the entire way to orbit (even including sitting on the pad). Yes, I remember, but are you really arguing for a return to this type of (non) risk-aversion?
After the two STS accidents, it is a safe assumption that all manned flights (on newly designed spacecraft) should be free of black-zones with maximum *practical* abort options.

[Robotbeat]

I thought a man-rated Delta IV was/is out of the question?
Both with the current RS-68 and structural margins being below 1.4.

Not out of the question. It's good enough for incredibly expensive and incredibly important national security assets (upon which millions of lives depend). We used to launch men on converted ICBMs, remember?

While I agree with all of your points, sadly they are not relevant to NASA's standards for man-rated.
Historically speaking Gemini pulled about 7gs on the way up (steep trajectory) on it's converted ICBM with "black zones" almost the entire way to orbit (even including sitting on the pad). Yes, I remember, but are you really arguing for a return to this type of (non) risk-aversion?
After the two STS accidents, it is a safe assumption that all manned flights (on newly designed spacecraft) should be free of black-zones with maximum *practical* abort options.

Delta IV doesn't have to have "black zones." It's a proven vehicle with a constant flight rate every year, thus I'd argue it is and will always be safer than any vehicle NASA would field.

[AS-503]

I thought a man-rated Delta IV was/is out of the question?
Both with the current RS-68 and structural margins being below 1.4.

Not out of the question. It's good enough for incredibly expensive and incredibly important national security assets (upon which millions of lives depend). We used to launch men on converted ICBMs, remember?

While I agree with all of your points, sadly they are not relevant to NASA's standards for man-rated.
Historically speaking Gemini pulled about 7gs on the way up (steep trajectory) on it's converted ICBM with "black zones" almost the entire way to orbit (even including sitting on the pad). Yes, I remember, but are you really arguing for a return to this type of (non) risk-aversion?
After the two STS accidents, it is a safe assumption that all manned flights (on newly designed spacecraft) should be free of black-zones with maximum *practical* abort options.

Delta IV doesn't have to have "black zones." It's a proven vehicle with a constant flight rate every year, thus I'd argue it is and will always be safer than any vehicle NASA would field.

Yes, you are correct. I remember, years ago on this very forum, Mike Griffin's "thumbs on the scale" version of Delta IV lofting Orion (or "not" being able to) .
While you are correct, it still is NOT relevant for this thread (I wish it was) and with respect to NASA's "manned" ratings on structural margins.

[TrevorMonty]

Spacex mentioned doing a manned flight in 2015. If dragon2 passes it's LAS test this year then 2015 maybe a possibility. Given their history of optimistic quotes I would say 2016 is more likely.

[ChefPat]

I voted 4th quarter 2015. I believe SpaceX will aggressively work Dragon 2 & make it by then.

[manboy]

I'm guessing SpaceX in early 2018.

[yg1968]

I voted 4th quarter 2016.

[butters]

I think it will be sometime in 2016, but narrowing it down to a particular quarter feels like a completely arbitrary guess. The second half of the year seems most likely. I guessed Q4 2016, but it could very well be Q3 or Q2.

[Barrie]

I'm fantasizing Q2 2016, based on the underlying fantasy that, sometime this year, they will secure a non-NASA customer for some kind of DragonRider, and accelerate the program.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I will vote when/if they unveil Dragon 2.0 before June 30th. I am sure that we will have a better idea about their progress by then.

[sdsds]

I'm betting SpaceX Q1 2016. To achieve this they will make it a priority over FH. This is what Dragon was designed for. It will give them a solid "first mover" advantage in the crew transportation market. And it will keep them visibly progressing towards their corporate Über-Goal.

[joek]

Q4 2016 for first crewed test flight.  Date will ultimately be driven by the CCtCap schedule.

[zodiacchris]

Q4 2015, I'd expect SpaceX to make a statement to show that their evolution maintains the pace they have kept in the last year, when they introduced F9 1.1 faster than many thought reasonable or possible. Remember the hand waving here about keeping a stock of 1.0 as an insurance against failure of 1.1? They are pushing hard and not looking back...

[mb199]

I'm betting SpaceX 1Q 2016. To achieve this they will make it a priority over FH. This is what Dragon was designed for. It will give them a solid "first mover" advantage in the crew transportation market. And it will keep them visibly progressing towards their corporate Über-Goal.

I disagree FH is a bigger priority there are customers for FH, but other than NASA customers for a crewed Dragon are few and far between.