Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   As SpaceX and Boeing's progress towards an American (wo)manned space capsule is not moving fast enough, NASA is going to have buy a few more seats on Russian Soyuz rockets launching from Kazakhstan   (arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Sad, International Space Station, NASA's commercial crew program, US crew members, Crew Dragon, first test flight of SpaceX, agency's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, Soyuz seats, commercial crew program  
•       •       •

384 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Feb 2019 at 5:52 PM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2019-02-16 04:53:43 PM  
Pretty sure the years of gutting NASAs space program funding is the real reason.
 
2019-02-16 05:59:50 PM  

lindalouwho: Pretty sure the years of gutting NASAs space program funding is the real reason.


But the Free Market! ....Still hasn't caught up to where NASA was half a century ago.
 
2019-02-16 06:15:24 PM  
many of the delays are -because- of NASA
 
2019-02-16 06:19:57 PM  
As SpaceX and Boeing's progress towards an American (wo)manned......
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-02-16 06:22:34 PM  
NASA has not had its own crew transport since the space shuttle retired in 2011.

Embarrassing
 
2019-02-16 06:38:23 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: NASA has not had its own crew transport since the space shuttle retired in 2011.

Embarrassing


I got into a fairly serious (for us) argument with my step-father about this back when it happened.  Granted at the time I didn't really have his hatred for the Russians but man he did not like how happy I was that we retired that farking Deathtrap
 
2019-02-16 06:38:35 PM  
There is no need to add an s onto the word toward. Knock it off.
 
2019-02-16 06:53:28 PM  

LordJiro: lindalouwho: Pretty sure the years of gutting NASAs space program funding is the real reason.

But the Free Market! ....Still hasn't caught up to where NASA was half a century ago.


There's no real private market for space travel yet. Only government entities can pay government rates.

A big part of why nasa guys seats from russia is to support their space program, keeping it available in emergencies and keeping thier space workers from toddling off to join other nations space or military programs. Better to use their engines on our payloads than to hand them over to someone like Iran.

So the problem now is that a private market may be evolving but it does things differently to how nasa wants. It likes leaner programs and doesn't build rockets without purpose. The rockets offered don't always fit the role nasa envisions (why go to the lunar gateway if it's easier just to land on the moon, for example).
So nasa wants legacy capability as a stopgap because they do things a certain way and they want to support a certain customer.
Even if we had a space airliner ready now, we'd probably have bought those seats anyway.
 
2019-02-16 06:54:18 PM  

LordJiro: lindalouwho: Pretty sure the years of gutting NASAs space program funding is the real reason.

But the Free Market! ....Still hasn't caught up to where NASA was half a century ago.


Why should it?  No profit to it yet.  Once they figure out how to make money at it (if they ever do), they'll do shiat that makes what NASA has done look weak.

That's kind of how private NCC-1701 works.
 
2019-02-16 06:55:27 PM  
More Trump collusion and kickbacks to Putin
 
2019-02-16 06:57:27 PM  

baxterdog: There is no need to add an s onto the word toward. Knock it off.


I look forward towardz a future where no one does that anymore.
 
2019-02-16 06:59:27 PM  

Saiga410: More Trump collusion and kickbacks to Putin


Yeah, because Trump has been secretly in charge of NASA behind the scenes for the last 8 years...
 
2019-02-16 07:05:13 PM  
The gender-neutral replacement for "manned" is "crewed."
 
2019-02-16 07:29:30 PM  

dittybopper: LordJiro: lindalouwho: Pretty sure the years of gutting NASAs space program funding is the real reason.

But the Free Market! ....Still hasn't caught up to where NASA was half a century ago.

Why should it?  No profit to it yet.  Once they figure out how to make money at it (if they ever do), they'll do shiat that makes what NASA has done look weak.

That's kind of how private NCC-1701 works.


Because the overall betterment of humanity is worth nothing if you can't make a buck.
 
2019-02-16 07:31:05 PM  

iron de havilland: dittybopper: LordJiro: lindalouwho: Pretty sure the years of gutting NASAs space program funding is the real reason.

But the Free Market! ....Still hasn't caught up to where NASA was half a century ago.

Why should it?  No profit to it yet.  Once they figure out how to make money at it (if they ever do), they'll do shiat that makes what NASA has done look weak.

That's kind of how private NCC-1701 works.

Because the overall betterment of humanity is worth nothing if you can't make a buck.


To a corporation? Yes.
 
2019-02-16 09:09:48 PM  

The Bestest: many of the delays are -because- of NASA


I worked on Space Station and wholly agree.  NASA has about 10 administrators per engineer and none of the administrators ever make decisions unless forced to.  SpaceX could have had the Dragon in operation three years ago, except NASA nixed the rocket landing on land because they couldn't figure out a way to certify it.  So, SpaceX had to redesign the system using parachutes and a water landing.
 
2019-02-16 10:18:18 PM  

natazha: I worked on Space Station and wholly agree. NASA has about 10 administrators per engineer and none of the administrators ever make decisions unless forced to. SpaceX could have had the Dragon in operation three years ago, except NASA nixed the rocket landing on land because they couldn't figure out a way to certify it. So, SpaceX had to redesign the system using parachutes and a water landing.


That sounds like the most NASA farking thing ever. I've been sort of surprised that SpaceX has gotten as far as it has with them as given their history, they typically perform studies or field designs from people with a winner (usually the friend of a higher-up) already in mind. Apollo was done in such a fashion.
 
2019-02-16 10:50:48 PM  

natazha: except NASA nixed the rocket landing on land because they couldn't figure out a way to certify it.  So, SpaceX had to redesign the system using parachutes and a water landing.


It already had to be designed for parachutes, as a backup to the rocket landing.  Water landing hurts the refurbishment, though.  I suspect SpaceX would prefer to land them on land.
 
2019-02-17 12:04:52 AM  

natazha: The Bestest: many of the delays are -because- of NASA

I worked on Space Station and wholly agree.  NASA has about 10 administrators per engineer and none of the administrators ever make decisions unless forced to.  SpaceX could have had the Dragon in operation three years ago, except NASA nixed the rocket landing on land because they couldn't figure out a way to certify it.  So, SpaceX had to redesign the system using parachutes and a water landing.


What would SpaceX have to redesign?  Dragon already knows how to land on water.
 
2019-02-17 03:31:39 AM  

Fursecution: natazha: except NASA nixed the rocket landing on land because they couldn't figure out a way to certify it.  So, SpaceX had to redesign the system using parachutes and a water landing.

It already had to be designed for parachutes, as a backup to the rocket landing.  Water landing hurts the refurbishment, though.  I suspect SpaceX would prefer to land them on land.


Given that Crew Dragon is just a stopgap until BFR / Super Heavy + Starship is ready, land versus water landings for Crew Dragon are not a big deal.

I remember when they were floating ideas like recovering the Falcon's second stage, and cross-piping fuel from the Falcon Heavy's outboard cores to the center core.  The designs apparently evolved fast enough (and they gained flight experience fast enough) to obsolete those approaches and move on to more elegant solutions like Super Heavy and Starship.

Why invest scarce R&D money and valuable engineer hours in polishing technologies that will soon be obsolete, if they aren't already?  The big launcher is going to be challenging enough as it is, without distractions.  I really want to see that thing fly, and the test firings of the Raptor engine look fairly promising.
 
2019-02-17 03:41:03 PM  
Recovering anything from orbit takes one heck of a heat shield.
 
2019-02-17 05:38:21 PM  
Kazakhstan?

Very nice!
 
2019-02-17 10:04:52 PM  

dittybopper: LordJiro: lindalouwho: Pretty sure the years of gutting NASAs space program funding is the real reason.

But the Free Market! ....Still hasn't caught up to where NASA was half a century ago.

Why should it?  No profit to it yet.  Once they figure out how to make money at it (if they ever do), they'll do shiat that makes what NASA has done look weak.

That's kind of how private NCC-1701 works.


You open the way for profit by easing regulations - for example enabling civilian nuclear power. Solar doesn't cut it for energy intensive operations - like climbing out of most gravity wells. Right now chemical energy is the best way to do that - ion drives are find for small vehicles that want to accelerate over long periods gently, but only nuclear power is truly viable for long term human travel, habitation and heavy industry.
 
2019-02-17 10:06:29 PM  
Automobiles and airplanes wouldn't have been profitable if you used today's standards at the beginning. So if we can get government even more out of the way and stop treating space as a giant national park we might make some different choices or at least be able to make those choices more or less freely.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report