What is the chance SpaceX will be flying crew to station on Dragon before CEV IOC?

[mars.is.wet]

What is the chance SpaceX will be flying crew to station on Dragon before CEV IOC?

[stockman]

Not so sure on this only because I have seen nothing released anywhere on where they sit with testing/building this thing. Right now it is just a drawing on their web site.

[koraldon]

At the current rate - nil
Falcon 1 was delayed by four years (or maybe three?)  and has a 0% success rate.
So no reason to expect that Falcon 9 will be really ready this year, and will work. So if they get falcon 9 working by 2010, it is good.
however, it will take some more flights to get a good feel on the launcher, before going manned.
And than, they still have to develop Dragon from scratch, and get funding for it (COTS is for cargo only atm).

If CEV fails, or is delayed big time, maybe than you will see that NASA allocates budget to private carrier to "save its skin".

[ShuttleDiscovery]

I believe they will almost certainly have the cargo version up and running by this time, but a crewed capsule, although it sounds like a good idea, it will be a big leap for SPACEX being such a new and small company. In terms of preparation and budget, we aren't going to see a crewed SPACEX capsule going to the ISS before the CEV.

[ShuttleDiscovery]

koraldon - 21/6/2007  7:40 PM

At the current rate - nil
Falcon 1 was delayed by four years (or maybe three?)  and has a 0% success rate.

It's not a 0% success rate. I know for sure that the second flight (not sure on the first) was declared a success but there was problems. I havent come accross an exact success figure for the Falcon 1, but 0% usually means the entire vehicle gets destroyed...

[Nate_Trost]

Well, I think the real question is "Will SpaceX make it, or collapse before 2016?"

First off, given current trends, is anybody really expecting the first manned CEV/CLV flight to occur before say, 2016?

If SpaceX gets the Falcon 9 to work, they'll stay in business. If not, they won't, making the question moot. While I'll be gobsmacked if they manage a first Falcon 9 flight attempt in 2008, I think it is a pretty good bet that they'll manage one by the end of 2009.

At that point, even if it takes five years to work the kinks out and build up enough of an unmanned flight record, it's still only the end of 2014/beginning of 2015. I sure don't see the crewed Dragon module variant as ever being a technical constraint, it's my understanding that SpaceX is using experienced subcontractors for aspects like the life support system design.

I guess we'll see how much they've learned in the past five years, and how well they can absorb the inevitable schedule slips of the first Falcon 9 launches.

[ShuttleDiscovery]

Nate_Trost - 21/6/2007  8:01 PM

Well, I think the real question is "Will SpaceX make it, or collapse before 2016?"

First off, given current trends, is anybody really expecting the first manned CEV/CLV flight to occur before say, 2016?

If SpaceX gets the Falcon 9 to work, they'll stay in business. If not, they won't, making the question moot. While I'll be gobsmacked if they manage a first Falcon 9 flight attempt in 2008, I think it is a pretty good bet that they'll manage one by the end of 2009.

At that point, even if it takes five years to work the kinks out and build up enough of an unmanned flight record, it's still only the end of 2014/beginning of 2015. I sure don't see the crewed Dragon module variant as ever being a technical constraint, it's my understanding that SpaceX is using experienced subcontractors for aspects like the life support system design.

I guess we'll see how much they've learned in the past five years, and how well they can absorb the inevitable schedule slips of the first Falcon 9 launches.

I totally agree. But really, before they start focusing on Falcon 9, they need to really establish a good flight record of the Falcon 1 and if that dosen't go to plan, it means less money for Falcon 9 and Dragon and a delayed schedule...

[mars.is.wet]

ShuttleDiscovery - 21/6/2007  2:43 PM

koraldon - 21/6/2007  7:40 PM

At the current rate - nil
Falcon 1 was delayed by four years (or maybe three?)  and has a 0% success rate.

It's not a 0% success rate. I know for sure that the second flight (not sure on the first) was declared a success but there was problems. I havent come accross an exact success figure for the Falcon 1, but 0% usually means the entire vehicle gets destroyed...

The rocket and payload fell in the ocean.  Is this a success or a failure?

I guess it depends on if you are trying to attract customers and investors.  

http://www.youngeagles.org/news/archive/2007%20-%2003_22%20-%20SpaceX%20Launch%20a%20Success.asp

It was successful at testing their design to find problems.  In that sense ... it was a success.

[William Graham]

Unlikey given SpaceX's track record, but there again, I don't trust Ares.

[ShuttleDiscovery]

Here is SPACEXs official manifest:

http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

[Antares]

mars.is.wet - 21/6/2007  2:27 PM
What is the chance SpaceX will be flying crew to station on Dragon before CEV IOC?

Let's decompose:
will be flying Dragon before CEV IOC? 75%, determined by money / corporate survival
flying crew on Dragon before CEV IOC? 33%, determined by initial flight successes
flying crew to Station on Dragon before CEV IOC? 5%, determined by politics of visiting vehicle requirements.

I hope they decouple Dragon from Falcon 9.  Both are viable, but should not be in each other's critical path.

[josh_simonson]

The basic Atlas V outlifts the Falcon 9 by a couple tons, so it aught to fit in a pinch.  Dragon isn't suspiciously slightly over-sized unlike some other vehicles...

[Kayla]

I think that the real question is will either Orion/Ares I or Dragon/Falcon 9 ever fly.  Sadly (ok, not so sadly for Ares) I think that the answer is quite likely no.  NASA's has an extremely predictable track record of not following through.  I think that SpaceX has under estimated the difficulty of A) getting Falcon 1 succesful and B) transitioning to Falcon 9 and C) keeping investor intrest during the troubling transition.

[Bill White]

Kayla - 21/6/2007  9:59 PM

I think that the real question is will either Orion/Ares I or Dragon/Falcon 9 ever fly.  Sadly (ok, not so sadly for Ares) I think that the answer is quite likely no.  NASA's has an extremely predictable track record of not following through.  I think that SpaceX has under estimated the difficulty of A) getting Falcon 1 succesful and B) transitioning to Falcon 9 and C) keeping investor intrest during the troubling transition.

I didn't think SpaceX had any investors except Elon Musk.


 

[Antares]

Bill White - 21/6/2007  12:00 AM
I didn't think SpaceX had any investors except Elon Musk.

Look at their financial milestones in their COTS Space Act Agreement.  The link is on here somewhere.

[mars.is.wet]

Bill White - 21/6/2007  12:00 AM

Kayla - 21/6/2007  9:59 PM

I think that the real question is will either Orion/Ares I or Dragon/Falcon 9 ever fly.  Sadly (ok, not so sadly for Ares) I think that the answer is quite likely no.  NASA's has an extremely predictable track record of not following through.  I think that SpaceX has under estimated the difficulty of A) getting Falcon 1 succesful and B) transitioning to Falcon 9 and C) keeping investor intrest during the troubling transition.

I didn't think SpaceX had any investors except Elon Musk.

Seems to be true, and if so, indicates that either he has all the money he needs to finish or none of the "smart money" of venture capital (folks that invest in all sorts of nutty things) are with him (on his terms).  Given that he is trying to develop at least 4 products (F1, F9, Dragon, COTS), I'd be surprised if it was the former.

[Kayla]

mars.is.wet - 22/6/2007  7:33 AM
Given that he is trying to develop at least 4 products (F1, F9, Dragon, COTS), I'd be surprised if it was the former.

What is the difference between Dragon and COTS?  

I agree with your statement, this is a lot for a small company to bite off.  If Elon were to focus in the near term on Dragon, team with a current LV provider such as Atlas, he could meet his COTS 1 commitment with a lot less risk.  Keep developing/perfecting F1, and save F9 for after F1 has proven itself.

[Nate_Trost]

SpaceX will be soliciting private investment next year. Elon doesn't have $350-$400 million lying around, and that's SpaceX's share of the COTS investment (re: Gwynne Shotwell's comments on the funding percentages).

[William Barton]

I think the answer to this question has more to do with the fate of Ares 1/Orion than SpaceX. And that has more to do with who controls the White House and Congress come January 2009. SpaceX has two big benchmarks to meet before I'd start placing bets on how Dragon will do: Getting the next Falcon 1 payload to orbit, and getting Falcon 9 off the ground within two years. If they accomplish the first, the second will start to look more likely. And, of course, if the first Ares 1 test launch explodes in the same time frame, I wouldn't be surprised to see a sudden expansion of COTS money.

[NotGncDude]

Kayla - 22/6/2007  9:54 AM

mars.is.wet - 22/6/2007  7:33 AM
Given that he is trying to develop at least 4 products (F1, F9, Dragon, COTS), I'd be surprised if it was the former.

... team with a current LV provider such as Atlas, ...

Wouldn't you like that  

[Danderman]

Nate_Trost - 22/6/2007  7:53 AM  SpaceX will be soliciting private investment next year. Elon doesn't have $350-$400 million lying around, and that's SpaceX's share of the COTS investment (re: Gwynne Shotwell's comments on the funding percentages).

Do the COTS milestones require that SpaceX generate certain private investments by next year? I thought that the investment milestones had already been met earlier this year.

 

[Svetoslav]

I think that Elon doesn't have much chance ( technically ). The new Falcon 9 has not yet concluded a test flight and we don't know yet whether it will prove itself to be stable. We already saw how difficult was to launch Falcon 1 ( you remember the first sttage engine issue with the pressure ), but Falcon 9 will be much more complex. As for Ares 1, I'm pretty sure there won't be problems during test flights ( they have enough experience with segmented SRBs and we can be confident they'll make the new SRB as expected ).

[coach]

The year 2009 is big for aerospace.  This seems to be the year when lots of "promises" from alt.space are to follow through.  Also, 2009 is the year that a new president could be a hurdle to NASA's funding.  I am more confident in the ambitions of entrepeneurs than the ebb and flow of the political winds and money from congress.  I voted for Dragon even if they encounter many delays, simply because I don't trust our government to follow through with the necessary funding to make the CEV work in time.


Coach

[Jim]

coach - 22/6/2007  11:45 AM

 I voted for Dragon even if they encounter many delays, simply because I don't trust our government to follow through with the necessary funding to make the CEV work in time.

Coach

Then what makes you think Dragon is going to get its gov't funding?

[William Barton]

I think this goes exactly to the heart of my earlier comments. What insurmountable technical challenges does SpaceX face? I think the second "demo launch" shows how relatively easy it is to launch Falcon 1. They pulled the trigger, the engine lit, the health monitoring system did its job, they fixed the issue, recycled the count, and launched. The fact that other issues came up that caused LOM, doesn't alter the fact that it was a fairly close thing. In the end, they're just tackling technical challenges that were solved 50 years ago. Falcon 1 is analogous to Juno II (Jupiter IRBM + upper stage) and Falcon 9 is analogous to Saturn 1 (cluster of eight Jupter engines in the first stage). I think the real dangers to the success of SpaceX are political (the govt could pull the rug out from under COTS by directing its supercontractor ULA/BoLockMart to build an "Orion, Jr." and launch it on an EELV), financial (Musk may run ouit of cash before he succeeds), and even from a COTS competitor (what if, against all odds, K-1 makes it to the pad and succeeds brilliantly on the first try?).

Svetoslav - 22/6/2007  11:32 AM

I think that Elon doesn't have much chance ( technically ). The new Falcon 9 has not yet concluded a test flight and we don't know yet whether it will prove itself to be stable. We already saw how difficult was to launch Falcon 1 ( you remember the first sttage engine issue with the pressure ), but Falcon 9 will be much more complex. As for Ares 1, I'm pretty sure there won't be problems during test flights ( they have enough experience with segmented SRBs and we can be confident they'll make the new SRB as expected ).

[Danderman]

Jim - 22/6/2007  9:01 AM  

coach - 22/6/2007  11:45 AM   I voted for Dragon even if they encounter many delays, simply because I don't trust our government to follow through with the necessary funding to make the CEV work in time.  Coach

 Then what makes you think Dragon is going to get its gov't funding?

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that Dragon is already funded by COTS. If the assertion is that operational flights of Dragon may not be funded, I find it unlikely that successful flights of Dragon under COTS in 2008-09 would be followed by no operational contracts, and with the prospect of a multi-year "gap" in US spaceflight after 2010, that Dragon would be left to sit in a hangar.

Not that I am saying that Dragon WILL work, mind you. 

[Danderman]

coach - 22/6/2007  8:45 AM  The year 2009 is big for aerospace.  This seems to be the year when lots of "promises" from alt.space are to follow through.

 

What promises?

 

[Antares]

Danderman - 22/6/2007  11:26 AM
Do the COTS milestones require that SpaceX generate certain private investments by next year? I thought that the investment milestones had already been met earlier this year.

The SpaceX SAA has a financial milestone each March.

[NotGncDude]

William Barton - 22/6/2007 12:15 PM

I think this goes exactly to the heart of my earlier comments. What insurmountable technical challenges does SpaceX face? I think the second "demo launch" shows how relatively easy it is to launch Falcon 1. They pulled the trigger, the engine lit, the health monitoring system did its job, they fixed the issue, recycled the count, and launched. The fact that other issues came up that caused LOM, doesn't alter the fact that it was a fairly close thing. In the end, they're just tackling technical challenges that were solved 50 years ago. Falcon 1 is analogous to Juno II (Jupiter IRBM + upper stage) and Falcon 9 is analogous to Saturn 1 (cluster of eight Jupter engines in the first stage). I think the real dangers to the success of SpaceX are political (the govt could pull the rug out from under COTS by directing its supercontractor ULA/BoLockMart to build an "Orion, Jr." and launch it on an EELV), financial (Musk may run ouit of cash before he succeeds), and even from a COTS competitor (what if, against all odds, K-1 makes it to the pad and succeeds brilliantly on the first try?).

Svetoslav - 22/6/2007 11:32 AM

. . .

YES!

_{(Although, ... real quiet here where nobody can hear... those nine engines might be a bit tricky. I hope they learned from the slosh mishap to be more careful modeling the dynamics)}

 

[William Barton]

GncDude - 22/6/2007  2:32 PM

William Barton - 22/6/2007 12:15 PM

I think this goes exactly to the heart of my earlier comments. What insurmountable technical challenges does SpaceX face? I think the second "demo launch" shows how relatively easy it is to launch Falcon 1. They pulled the trigger, the engine lit, the health monitoring system did its job, they fixed the issue, recycled the count, and launched. The fact that other issues came up that caused LOM, doesn't alter the fact that it was a fairly close thing. In the end, they're just tackling technical challenges that were solved 50 years ago. Falcon 1 is analogous to Juno II (Jupiter IRBM + upper stage) and Falcon 9 is analogous to Saturn 1 (cluster of eight Jupter engines in the first stage). I think the real dangers to the success of SpaceX are political (the govt could pull the rug out from under COTS by directing its supercontractor ULA/BoLockMart to build an "Orion, Jr." and launch it on an EELV), financial (Musk may run ouit of cash before he succeeds), and even from a COTS competitor (what if, against all odds, K-1 makes it to the pad and succeeds brilliantly on the first try?).

Svetoslav - 22/6/2007 11:32 AM

. . .

YES!

_{(Although, ... real quiet here where nobody can hear... those nine engines might be a bit tricky. I hope they learned from the slosh mishap to be more careful modeling the dynamics)}

 

One hopes. I'm not a superstar like the PayPal guy, but in my software design practice, the most common thing I say after running a test is, "Oops."

[mars.is.wet]

William Barton - 22/6/2007  3:00 PM

one hopes. I'm not a superstar like the PayPal guy, but in my software design practice, the most common thing I say after running a test is, "Oops."

My point exactly.  Your oops costs you an hour or a day or maybe a week.

Hardware "oops" and you lose a rocket, a payload, a test stand, something physical.  Maybe a one of a kind item.  

That's why powerpoint engineers don't make good testers or operators.

[spacedreams]

SpaceX's probability of success may increase over the next year as people from Delta go job hunting

[Antares]

spacedreams - 22/6/2007  3:28 PM
SpaceX's probability of success may increase over the next year as people from Delta go job hunting

You're right: several already have.  The first to leave a sinking ship aren't the rats.  It's the ones that can swim to another ship.

[spacedreams]

Actually, if Musk wouldn't have been as condecending as he was towards the "competition" in the first place he would be a lot better off today. I know some of those guys took his insults very personally and as a result would rather work satellite jobs and such than take a crack at an emerging vehicle that could really use some experience base. That is saying a lot too because pretty much every engineer likes new toys but they also don't take kindly to insults.

[mars.is.wet]

Antares - 22/6/2007  3:31 PM

spacedreams - 22/6/2007  3:28 PM
SpaceX's probability of success may increase over the next year as people from Delta go job hunting

You're right: several already have.  The first to leave a sinking ship aren't the rats.  It's the ones that can swim to another ship.

nothing to do with rats, but ...

March 2006, Jim Maser joins SpaceX as COO
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19291

November 2006, Maser leaves SpaceX for top job at Rocketdyne
http://dev.space.com/spacenews/launchindustry/Maser_112806.html

sounds like insider selling

[coach]

Jim, you may be right.  COTS may get cut as well, but maybe not.  Who knows?  That's my whole point.  I voted for Dragon by default.  I just don't believe that Ares 1 and the CEV will be developed anywhere near on schedule due to politics and budgets.  I hope it does, however.  Dragon's ace in the hole may be Bigelow Aerospace's future contracts to their stations.  We can't forget that BA has as much long term potential financial reward for SpaceX as does NASA and the ISS.  SpaceX has an incentive to develop Dragon with or without COTS.


Coach

[coach]

Danderman,

Some of those promises are off topic for this thread such as the operation of Virgin Galactic's Spaceship Two.  There are many space tourism companies making such promises for the 2009/2010 time frame.  The Falcon 9 is scheduled for 3 NASA demo flights in '08/'09.  With a track record of delays, this very well could turn into '09/'10.  

Notice I quoted the word "promises."  I'm not making such claims but it does seem that Armadillo, Masten, Blue Origin and maybe others that have some working hardware could meet their deadlines.  We'll see.  We also cannot forget about SpaceDev and Benson Aerospace.  Jim B. claims he will have a working sub - orbital craft before Branson and Rutan.  Again, lots of promises.  It would be very cool to see the majority of these "promises" come to fruition essentially on time and in competition.  


Coach

[gladiator1332]

I think a lot of it comes down to who wins the election in 2008. Hell, maybe even who is nominated in the primaries. Right now Musk is doing a lot with very little. He is trying to get the F1 up and running, the F9 going, as well as build a manned spacecraft. Two rockets and a spacecraft by 2009 on a small budget is not easy.
The reason I say the winner of the election is this. If the Dems win, many of Bush's appointees (including Griffin) will go, as well as many of the programs Bush put into place. Now I don't think all of the Dems will kill the VSE, but it will surely change. If Hillary, Obama, or Edwards wins, say goodbye to the Moon for another 30 years or so.
What Musk has to hope for is Richardson to be nominated by the Dems and win. The guy supports private space industry...he's building a spaceport in New Mexico. By the way he supports private spaceflight in his home state, I think COTS will become more of a priority, and not some small program in the background. The VSE will change completely and with Richardson in the White House, say goodbye to Ares and hello to Atlas.

[Antares]

mars.is.wet - 22/6/2007  3:48 PM
March 2006, Jim Maser joins SpaceX as COO
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19291

November 2006, Maser leaves SpaceX for top job at Rocketdyne
http://dev.space.com/spacenews/launchindustry/Maser_112806.html

sounds like insider selling

That could best be described, in this forum, as new.space vs old.space philosophical differences.

[simonbp]

josh_simonson - 21/6/2007  6:14 PM

Dragon isn't suspiciously slightly over-sized unlike some other vehicles...

That's because Dragon isn't suspiciously going to the moon, and thus doesn't have a suspiciously large service module, in order to do a suspicious Trans-Earth Injection burn. Suspiciously.

Simon

[gladiator1332]

The Moon is a long way off. It is great that Musk seems to have an infinite horizon, however, for now he really should stay focused on LEO and the ISS.

[Danny Dot]

Can someone point me to a link that gives a technical discription of Dragon?  Does it have an ascent abort system?

[savuporo]

simonbp - 26/6/2007  6:48 PM
That's because Dragon isn't suspiciously going to the moon, and thus doesn't have a suspiciously large service module, in order to do a suspicious Trans-Earth Injection burn. Suspiciously.

They can launch and dock a  separate module to Dragon, that will do the suspicious TEI burn for it, cant they ?
Supiciously enough, they could even launch it in couple of pieces and do a fuel transfer if needed. That could work out to suspiciously close to manned lunar capability.

[Jorge]

savuporo - 27/6/2007  12:17 PM

simonbp - 26/6/2007  6:48 PM
That's because Dragon isn't suspiciously going to the moon, and thus doesn't have a suspiciously large service module, in order to do a suspicious Trans-Earth Injection burn. Suspiciously.

They can launch and dock a  separate module to Dragon, that will do the suspicious TEI burn for it, cant they ?

Maybe a suspicious Dragon Block II could do that. Dragon Block I no-can-dockee, only berthee.

[kraisee]

I would like to know much work has already gone in to the Falcon design to make it suitable for manned flight?

For example, is/has the Merlin 2 been designed with the appropriate in-flight shutdown systems and redundant backups to make it suitable for man-rating?   Or are those assumed to be included for a later phase once they have an unmanned system already flying?

Also, are SpaceX aiming to meet NASA's man rating requirements, or do they plan to develop their own?

All of this will be critical factors affecting the timings and costs for getting a Dragon to fly on a Falcon.

Ross.

[reubenb]

gladiator1332 - 26/6/2007  2:21 PM
If Hillary, Obama, or Edwards wins, say goodbye to the Moon for another 30 years or so.
What Musk has to hope for is Richardson to be nominated by the Dems and win. The guy supports private space industry...he's building a spaceport in New Mexico. By the way he supports private spaceflight in his home state, I think COTS will become more of a priority, and not some small program in the background. The VSE will change completely and with Richardson in the White House, say goodbye to Ares and hello to Atlas.

Well, there's no way Richardson is getting the nomination, though you might expect to see him in a cabinet position if the dems win.
Why do you think that Clinton, Obama, or Edwards would kill VSE? I haven't really heard any candidate say anything about the program one way or the other.

[SpacemanSpiff]

I would like to know much work has already gone in to the Falcon design to make it suitable for manned flight?

The plan for Falcon (not necessarily for F1) is to get humans to another planet affordably, so I assume there is a plan for human rating the Falcon program, though they have not shared it.


For example, is/has the Merlin 2 been designed with the appropriate in-flight shutdown systems and redundant backups to make it suitable for man-rating? Or are those assumed to be included for a later phase once they have an unmanned system already flying?

I think that would come in the Falcon 9 design or in a human rated variant?


Also, are SpaceX aiming to meet NASA's man rating requirements, or do they plan to develop their own?

From what I have heard, they would have their own human rating program, as NASA's is overkill$$$; this would be worked out with the FAA/AST. They would make sure that all requirements needed to dock to the ISS are met though, or develop an agreement on that with NASA.

[Avron]

SpacemanSpiff - 27/6/2007  4:30 PM



Also, are SpaceX aiming to meet NASA's man rating requirements, or do they plan to develop their own?

From what I have heard, they would have their own human rating program, as NASA's is overkill$$$; this would be worked out with the FAA/AST. They would make sure that all requirements needed to dock to the ISS are met though, or develop an agreement on that with NASA.

or  have an agreement with the other partners.. ISS is not NASA...
I agree they do need to get orbital and I am sure that they will do it.. One step at a time, but what I like is the vision put out and backed up with real hardware and test with very real launches.. I don't expect 100% all the time, even LMT/BA cannot get that right with all the years of experience.. if you said that CEV will be ready in 2012 then I would say that Spacex would have a tough chance at catching up.. but with CEV having a program slip rate of 100% now before any real tests, SpaceX will be given the time needed to get to the ISS first...

If anyone has any news on stock options in Spacex.. I would love to hear more.. just based on the Poll figures .. a sure bet on public positive reaction to the company (and its shares.. if there where any)

[Antares]

NASA is their customer, currently.  IIRC, COTS requires meeting the NASA Human Rating Requirements, i.e. NASA Standard 3000.  Ergo, that's what they're designing to, F9 and Dragon both.

[Jim]

Avron - 27/6/2007  11:23 PM
or  have an agreement with the other partners.. ISS is not NASA...
)

They are docking to the USOS, therefore NASA rules

[Avron]

Jim - 28/6/2007  6:45 AM

Avron - 27/6/2007  11:23 PM
or  have an agreement with the other partners.. ISS is not NASA...
)

They are docking to the USOS, therefore NASA rules

At this time.. yes but there is allways the option of docking to the other end of the stack.. nothing that a docking adapter cannot solve... I really do hope it does not come to this.. USOS docking would be best.. and that would also mean that they have met all COTS requirement, thus get some well earned cash.  I was looking at the Columbus module and the Module from Japan.. also no other docking options on these two .. or did I miss some other docking port option?

[Jim]

Only the nodes can support berthing, which COTS can only do.  The RSOS docking ports are full of ATV, Soyuz and progress.   Anyways the only way they would come to the station, is via COTS.  And the US would still have some say in use of the RSOS docking ports

[markbike528cbx]

Topic Answer/TL;Dr    --  SpaceX 100% probability.

I've been browsing old topics to see how good prognostications were/are.

This question was posed (and the thread died) PRIOR to a Falcon 1 success.

The suggested timelines for both SpaceX and CEV (Orion early version) were both ballsy (or in 2021-speak, "Aspirational" ).

Even SpaceX proponents noted that " you have to walk before you run or fly".
CEV proponents noted that as a government program, it was dependent on continuing funds over several administrations, which in fact dried up later. 

Sorry for the necro-post, but the discussions sound a lot like current prognostications. Good logic, mostly timing issues defeating the guesses from coming true.  Some of the same posters are still on the boards here.

Orion has not flown manned yet (unmanned test of development version 2014).  GAO estimated cost of 11-12 Billion USD
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-306.pdf or 18 Billion USD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft).

Edit:  Just for "fun" https://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0808/11constellation/

NASA's internal planning date for the first manned launch of the new Orion spacecraft that will replace the space shuttle after the winged orbiters are retired in 2010 has slipped one year, from September 2013 to September 2014.
......"We are adhering to our commitment date of March 2015 for initial operating capability,"

Per the GAO report 2021 SpaceX was 3 years behind "baseline" schedule and cost 2.5-2.7 Billion USD. But at least it has flown manned (ok, personned) 4 times.

[EE Scott]

Sometimes necro-posts are just plain fun!  Thanks for resurrecting - I get a kick out of remembering where we were and what our expectations were at certain points in time. It's been a long, slow road, but recent progress is gradually providing some optimism, at least for me.

[xyv]

Have to agree.  I would never have ever found this thread as it ended in 2007.  Really amazing to see the same arguments about schedule, government funding, politics and old vs new space.  A good reminder that sometimes the new guy does succeed and survive despite (or because of) crazy audacious ideas and irrational exuberance.   

[Comga]

Ditto
It's pretty funny in hindsight how many people had suggestions for how Musk could improve himself.
Perhaps our advice helped him to become the face of New Space and electric cars and the richest person on the planet.