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.

[Alpha Control]

I'm going with Q4 2015.  SpaceX have essentially sailed through the transition from Falcon 9 to F9 v1.1, with the first 3 flights of v1.1 all successfully reaching orbit.

That's pretty remarkable for a relatively new entrant in the launch business. They won the Bronze Medal in December 2010, when Dragon became the first commercial spacecraft to reach orbit & return to earth.  That was followed by winning the Silver Medal in May 2012, as Dragon became the first commercial spacecraft to visit the ISS.

I think that they really want to win the Gold Medal, by becoming the first commercial company to fly crew to & from earth orbit.  That would truly be historic - joining only three nations to ever to do that:  Russia, the U.S., and China.  The vision of a Dragon returning to Earth, and personnel wearing SpaceX jumpsuits emerging from the vehicle, I think will push this forward to Q4 2015.

[sdsds]

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.

I respect your disagreement. I'll just point out this notion that SpaceX is a customer-needs-driven company is not yet proven.

[Robotbeat]

The in-flight abort test is the most challenging step in this process, i think. When they've got that done, there won't be a ton standing in their way but funding. And a pad, which will be lc39a. Basically everything else challenging (other than ECLSS) is analogous to Dragon cargo.

We shall see how long it takes to build LC39A out to their purposes and ready to fly Dragon. It may take well into 2015 just for that part.

[joek]

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.

If SpaceX wins a CCtCap award they will be contractually committed to a very high profile project with cost and schedule constraints--a project SpaceX has aggressively pursued, and that has been years in the making at great effort.

[joek]

The in-flight abort test is the most challenging step in this process, i think. When they've got that done, there won't be a ton standing in their way but funding. And a pad, which will be lc39a. Basically everything else challenging (other than ECLSS) is analogous to Dragon cargo.

We shall see how long it takes to build LC39A out to their purposes and ready to fly Dragon. It may take well into 2015 just for that part.

Yes, that is one reason I voted for a late 2016 first crew test flight.  SpaceX can fly the in-flight abort test from LC-40.  Crew will require additional pad work and infrastructure, presumably at LC-39A.  I expect it will take approximately two years before they are ready to launch anything from LC-39A, and longer before they are ready to launch crew.

In any case, the schedule will be determined by CCtCap--not when SpaceX thinks they may be capable of launching crewed flights.  The first crewed test flight is most likely to occur near the end of CCtCap, which based on notional schedules previously presented, would put it late 2016 or early 2017, followed by ISS crew flights starting in late 2017.

[Jarnis]

The optimist in me says in 2015. Q3-Q4.

But the realist slides that to the right a bit, knowing that manned spaceflight requires a lot more testing and is a new thing for SpaceX. It is one thing to sign off slightly risky "...but it should work" bits for an unmanned launch and then celebrate when it all worked out. The stakes are totally different when a couple of guys are sitting on top of all that. The rocket is in good shape but the manned capsule and everything related to that is a complex problem.

So Q2 2016 and I think even that is slightly optimistic.

I would just vote "2016" if I could as there are so many steps on the road towards that and any development / testing mishaps can easily add a quarter or two to the schedule as problems are uncovered and corrected.

[sdsds]

the schedule will be determined by CCtCap--not when SpaceX thinks they may be capable

By that you're sort of saying that NASA might hold SpaceX back. Or am I reading too much into your comment?

[joek]

the schedule will be determined by CCtCap--not when SpaceX thinks they may be capable

By that you're sort of saying that NASA might hold SpaceX back. Or am I reading too much into your comment?

More that NASA may want to keep SpaceX from being overly aggressive, over-committing, and damaging themselves as well as the commercial crew program in the process.  NASA's end goal is to have a certified crew transport capability.  A crew test flight is obviously one point on that path, but achieving it at the earliest opportunity (as much as many people seem to focus on) is not necessarily required, desirable, or optimal.  I see this less as NASA holding SpaceX back and more as providing adult supervision.

[QuantumG]

NASA's end goal is to have a certified crew transport capability.

NASA isn't homogeneous.

I see this less as NASA holding SpaceX back and more as providing adult supervision.

Thankfully, no-one at NASA has so far used words to that effect.. publicly or within ear-shot of the partners.

[joek]

NASA's end goal is to have a certified crew transport capability.

NASA isn't homogeneous.

What else is new?  For the context-insensitive, I'll rephrase: NASA's commercial crew program end goal ...

[woods170]

I voted for 2018 or later. The willingness at SpaceX (and the other contenders) to do it much earlier is clearly there, but the bucks won't be. Congress wil continue it's trend of woefully underfunding commercial crew for the years to come. The impact will be (IMO) that none of the commercial crew providers that are currently in the contest (SN, Boeing and SpaceX) will make the 2017 deadline.

Call me a pessimist...

[Ben the Space Brit]

I voted "First Quarter 2016" but I want to emphasise that this is a "no later than" line for me.

This could change and radically if SpaceX fall into a major pothole but this vote is based on current apparent progress.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Congress wil continue it's trend of woefully underfunding commercial crew for the years to come. The impact will be (IMO) that none of the commercial crew providers that are currently in the contest (SN, Boeing and SpaceX) will make the 2017 deadline.

I think that while congress will do its "best" to achieve this, SpaceX is well funded enough to do it earlier anyway. Plus, they have other reasons to do it that just commercial crew. So I am hopeful to see it earlier, even if commercial crew itself will take longer.

[yg1968]

the schedule will be determined by CCtCap--not when SpaceX thinks they may be capable

By that you're sort of saying that NASA might hold SpaceX back. Or am I reading too much into your comment?

More that NASA may want to keep SpaceX from being overly aggressive, over-committing, and damaging themselves as well as the commercial crew program in the process.  NASA's end goal is to have a certified crew transport capability.  A crew test flight is obviously one point on that path, but achieving it at the earliest opportunity (as much as many people seem to focus on) is not necessarily required, desirable, or optimal.  I see this less as NASA holding SpaceX back and more as providing adult supervision.

The date of the milestones are provided by the company based on when they expect to accomplish them. If SpaceX wants to complete their program earlier than others they are free to propose earlier dates. But we'll find out what the real dates are when CCtCap is awarded. The 2015 date that SpaceX gave for the CCiCap optional milestones was based on an assumption that funding was not an issue.  But we now know that funding is an issue. It will be interesting to see how much commercial crew gets in the soon to be released Appropriation bill for FY 2014. 

[oiorionsbelt]

Just came across this article from 2011.
 19 flights seems a rather random number

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/01/21/spacex-plans-put-humans-space-19th-falcon-9-flight/

[StealerofSuns]

Congress wil continue it's trend of woefully underfunding commercial crew for the years to come. The impact will be (IMO) that none of the commercial crew providers that are currently in the contest (SN, Boeing and SpaceX) will make the 2017 deadline.

I think that while congress will do its "best" to achieve this, SpaceX is well funded enough to do it earlier anyway. Plus, they have other reasons to do it that just commercial crew. So I am hopeful to see it earlier, even if commercial crew itself will take longer.

I voted 4th quarter 2015 for more or less the reasons stated above, though 1st or second quarter 2016 wouldn't surprise me.

SpaceX really does seem to have a certain drive to get things done, and not just for Commercial Crew.

[Avron]

SpaceX really does seem to have a certain drive to get things done, and not just for Commercial Crew.

based on "SpaceX is like Special Forces… we do the missions that others think are impossible. We have goals that are absurdly ambitious by any reasonable standard, but we’re going to make them happen. We have the potential here at SpaceX to have an incredible effect on the future of humanity and life itself. — Elon Musk"

2nd quarter 2017.. funded or otherwise ..

[joek]

The date of the milestones are provided by the company based on when they expect to accomplish them. If SpaceX wants to complete their program earlier than others they are free to propose earlier dates. But we'll find out what the real dates are when CCtCap is awarded. The 2015 date that SpaceX gave for the CCiCap optional milestones was based on an assumption that funding was not an issue.  But we now know that funding is an issue. It will be interesting to see how much commercial crew gets in the soon to be released Appropriation bill for FY 2014.

Agree that dates may be proposed, but NASA reserves the right to negotiate changes in content, pricing and schedule (that was the case for CCiCap, and is also the case for CCtCap).  Also, while the CCtCap initial proposals are due Jan 22 2014, there are several steps, with "final proposal revisions" due June 2014.  There will undoubtedly be quite a bit of negotiating until then.

I also suggest SpaceX's optional milestone for a crewed test flight in 2015 was at best an aggressive token placeholder, and not something I would bet the farm on.  The dates for CCiCap optional milestones in the original proposals are not a commitment; the actual date is negotiated at the time NASA selects an optional milestone for execution.  Thus there was no risk to SpaceX being aggressive with dates for optional milestones in their original CCiCap proposal.

As you say, funding is (and as importantly has been) an issue.  In the best case SpaceX might conceivably have achieved a crewed test flight in 2015.  Unfortunately the best case left the building long ago, with the inevitable slide to the right.

[Orbiter]

My guess is a early-2016 orbital test flight paid out of pocket by SpaceX.

[yg1968]

The date of the milestones are provided by the company based on when they expect to accomplish them. If SpaceX wants to complete their program earlier than others they are free to propose earlier dates. But we'll find out what the real dates are when CCtCap is awarded. The 2015 date that SpaceX gave for the CCiCap optional milestones was based on an assumption that funding was not an issue.  But we now know that funding is an issue. It will be interesting to see how much commercial crew gets in the soon to be released Appropriation bill for FY 2014.

Agree that dates may be proposed, but NASA reserves the right to negotiate changes in content, pricing and schedule (that was the case for CCiCap, and is also the case for CCtCap).  Also, while the CCtCap initial proposals are due Jan 22 2014, there are several steps, with "final proposal revisions" due June 2014.  There will undoubtedly be quite a bit of negotiating until then.

I also suggest SpaceX's optional milestone for a crewed test flight in 2015 was at best an aggressive token placeholder, and not something I would bet the farm on.  The dates for CCiCap optional milestones in the original proposals are not a commitment; the actual date is negotiated at the time NASA selects an optional milestone for execution.  Thus there was no risk to SpaceX being aggressive with dates for optional milestones in their original CCiCap proposal.

As you say, funding is (and as importantly has been) an issue.  In the best case SpaceX might conceivably have achieved a crewed test flight in 2015.  Unfortunately the best case left the building long ago, with the inevitable slide to the right.

I agree with everything you said. That is a fair analysis. I also don't believe that NASA is trying to slow down SpaceX on purpose. The political and government process is slow but that is true for every company (not just SpaceX).

[QuantumG]

I agree with everything you said. That is a fair analysis. I also don't believe that NASA is trying to slow down SpaceX on purpose. The political and government process is slow but that is true for every company (not just SpaceX).

There's no question that some parts of NASA have been trying to slow down SpaceX "on purpose" since the very beginning.. but I guess you mean the Commercial Crew office, which have only been trying to slow down SpaceX a little less, mostly in the interest of what they call "maintaining competition", and what I call "giving Boeing enough time to catch up" (which they still haven't).

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX are doing an in-flight abort within a year or so (I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the beginning of 2015). That is a huge, expensive test, probably the most expensive test before a crewed flight (unless they do a full mission loop unmanned, but I don't think that's necessary).

I don't think it can be too much longer before they do a manned test flight. I'll probably vote 1st quarter of 2017 or something (because reality is hard and they're going to be careful and there will be unforeseen issues), but it could be as early as the end of 2015, and 2016 is definitely on the table. I will make the decision right before the poll closes because a lot could come to light about the status of crewed Dragon by then (and no, I don't think anyone will be close, though Boeing /could/ launch by 2017 if Congress funded to the full level).

ECLSS and windows and manual controls and docking port will be needed in addition to the abort ability, but ECLSS is really the only somewhat complicated part, and I don't think it's /that/ challenging. Or expensive (compared to the in-flight abort).

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
ECLSS and windows and manual controls and docking port will be needed in addition to the abort ability, but ECLSS is really the only somewhat complicated part, and I don't think it's /that/ challenging. Or expensive (compared to the in-flight abort).

A spacecraft with an ECLSS can be tested under water or in a vacuum chamber.

[douglas100]

In a vacuum chamber, of course. But under water-are you serious?

[guckyfan]

In a vacuum chamber, of course. But under water-are you serious?

Water may be the easiest way to supply the pressure needed for humans if there is a large amount of it available at one spot. People can go outside using scuba gear.

That does not mean I am convinced they will do it that way. There are plenty of disadvantages to it. At least you need nuclear energy.

Edit: No idea why this is here. I was sure I posted this is in the Mars section.

[mheney]

Thinking about it, water would provide some rad shielding as well ...


Edit - didn't notice the thread this was in when I replied - it's a bit off topic.  probably should move this elsewhere...

[TrevorMonty]

{snip}
ECLSS and windows and manual controls and docking port will be needed in addition to the abort ability, but ECLSS is really the only somewhat complicated part, and I don't think it's /that/ challenging. Or expensive (compared to the in-flight abort).

A spacecraft with an ECLSS can be tested under water or in a vacuum chamber.

Capsule has positive pressure compared to vacuum, designed to not leak air out or explode (think of a balloon)  in vacuum. Under water capsules (  eg sub) a designed not let water in or be crushed by external water pressure.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
ECLSS and windows and manual controls and docking port will be needed in addition to the abort ability, but ECLSS is really the only somewhat complicated part, and I don't think it's /that/ challenging. Or expensive (compared to the in-flight abort).

A spacecraft with an ECLSS can be tested under water or in a vacuum chamber.

Capsule has positive pressure compared to vacuum, designed to not leak air out or explode (think of a balloon)  in vacuum. Under water capsules (  eg sub) a designed not let water in or be crushed by external water pressure.

I know the differences between a spacecraft and a submarine.

Water landings mean the spacecraft have to be waterproof.  At least to their own height.

Space ECLSS have to be tested to show that they work in the absence of the Earth's atmosphere.  Swimming pools are easier to find than large vacuum chambers.  Unless it is a full integration test the test vehicle does not have to be fitted with say working RCS or radar.

[Robotbeat]

...off topic, you guys....

[AncientU]

1Q2016
Goal was summer 2015 when six months of additional testing added. 
Otherwise, on track to meet schedule.