Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

NASA Commercial Crew Program

Recommended Posts

Made a separate thread for discussion of NASA's Commercial Crew Program. Both programs are looking like they are going to fly in 2019; this would be the first time since 2011 an American rocket will carry crew. Exciting times.


SpaceX recently put out a fairly extensive update on the status of their program; https://imgur.com/a/CIuhH0i

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really NASA needs to be looking for people who are singularly unhappy with everything "here", and instead of looking for reasons to exclude them, looking for reasons to include them.


Pioneers are rarely a stable lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Kal
      I know its not Northrop, but it reminds me of a scaled down YF-17 with only 1 engine.  A spiritual successor to the T-38.
      Ie T38-F5-YF17-FA18-FA18F-T7A
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Put this in its own topic instead of the space thread because it deserves its own discussion, and is darkly hilarious.
      SpaceX and its low launch costs for the Falcon 9 have already been squeezing Russian launch providers and ULA out of the market. This will only get worse if the Block 5 Falcon 9 provides the advances in reusability that are promised (and if BFR lives up to Elon's dreams it will blow everything out of the water). European launch provider Arianespace has been feeling the heat too; their Ariane 5 is a reliable but dated (compared to Falcon) architecture, and the Ariane 6 is an incremental improvement at best, which lacks reusability (and uses a hydrolox/solid first stage for some reason).
      The major German publication Der Spiegel  recently interviewed Alain Charmeau, the head of Arianespace; http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau-die-amerikaner-wollen-europa-aus-dem-weltraum-kicken-a-1207322.html
      An English summary/discussion can be found here; https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/ariane-chief-seems-frustrated-with-spacex-for-driving-down-launch-costs/
      There are some choice quotes in that article;

      Still cheaper than ULA. Also, US government payloads have more oversight/stricter requirements than commercial payloads, which drives up costs.
      About two sentences later he admits that Arianespace couldn't exist without subsidies from European governments.
      Next part;

      Obviously Elon Musk thinks it is, otherwise he wouldn't be telling his for-profit business to develop reusability. Also, considering that Falcon 9 (especially Block 5) isn't an utterly ridiculous architecture like STS, it's certainly cheaper to reuse.
      Here's the real money quote;

      "My subsidized jobs program can't compete with SpaceX because they get government contracts!"
      Still better than SLS though.
      Also, Blue Origin is going to steal your identity;

  • Create New...