15 thoughts on “Conservatives In Name Only”

  1. No names named, but good piece.

    House has voted to adjourn at COB today, so we’ll know something in the next 12 hours.

  2. I really like it when people point out that commercial crew take the shortest time to end the gap and in the mean time we have to rely on the pesky Russians.

    What I haven’t seen is a chart comparing the time lines for Ares I Orion, Falcon 9 Dragon Crew, CST-100, and Soyuz. Sometimes pictures provide a moment of clarity. Anyone seen such a chart? Plz post a link 🙂

  3. Any such chart would be highly speculative, since no commercial crew contract has been awarded. For example SpaceX hoped to be able to do it in 3 years from contract, but it might be more than that. 4-5 years seems likely.

  4. “…within three years…”

    In other words, he thinks it can happen faster. i have trouble seeing how it could take longer. I know that it could on a NASA contract, but I don’t know how SpaceX could stretch it out.

  5. Rand, I’m as big of a SpaceX fan as anybody, but they are certainly not immune to schedule slips – in fact, I’m not sure they have made any projected schedule points that have made. As the company gains experience, I’m sure they will be able to predict things better – But a pusher LAS using liquid propulsion is new ground that noone has accomplished before. In the end, I’m just trying to be a realist.

  6. No one has tried it before. It doesn’t seem intrinsically difficult to me.

    I think that a lot of their previous slips have been range issues, not hardware development per se.

  7. I agree that it would all be highly speculative but we know for sure that until commercial crew or a government option is available we have to rely on the Russians, an reality most Americans dislike.

    A chart of estimated cost per crew to LEO would also be persuasive although who knows what the CST-100 will cost? If you asked someone if they would rather pay $56 million to Russia, $88 million for Ares I Orion (assuming 4 flights with fixed costs of $1 billion and marginal costs of $138 million and 16 crew) or $8 million to an American company SpaceX, they would look at that long sentence with glazed over eyes.

    A chart would just make the argument for commercial crew more persuasive. People like pictures just like space cadets like power points.

  8. I think that a lot of their previous slips have been range issues, not hardware development per se.
    They have claimed range issues, and payload issues .. we may never know. But they ARE years behind some of their most optimistic schedules, whatever the actual causes.

    BTW, House just passed the senate bill .. so HLV it is :/

  9. Uhh.. SpaceX has never missed a deadline, and since the first Falcon 1 launch they’ve never had a scrub. It’s amazing how well people take this in stride.. no-one has had the kind of success they’ve had.

    In regards to the crew launch vehicle, they’ve already done life support. All they need is seats and the launch abort system. The original estimate was 3 years. Recently that was reduced to 2.5 years. When asked about it Elon said that they believe they could do it in 2 years but thought it wise to add 6 months of margin.

    NASA is stalling commercial crew to try to give the other competitors a chance to catch up – SpaceX knows this and they’re not taking it lying down. The more NASA stalls, the closer SpaceX gets to developing the abort system on their own.. and if they ever get flying crew without a NASA contract, it’s going to be very hard for the their competitors to convince the nation of the need for a “level playing field”.

  10. Actually, I called out all for of them by name, including the one who’s already lost his primary.

    Indeed you did. Right in a line. Alas, we got the Senate Bill with plenty of feed for the Alabama and Utah swine.

Comments are closed.