NASA Signs Off on SpaceX’s “Load-And-Go” Procedure for Crew Launches

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
11,653
NASA has signed off on the load-and-go procedure for crew launches that SpaceX uses with their Falcon 9 rocket to get more fuel onboard and increase rocket thrust. This is an important step in gaining final approval for the Dragon capsule and Falcon 9 rocket configuration. In the event there is a mishap while fueling the rocket the Dragon capsule will ignite it's escape engines to lift-off from the booster. Tests of the crew capsule should begin later this year.

SpaceX first space-worthy Crew Dragon vehicle, slated to fly the unpiloted Demo-1 mission in November, arrived at Cape Canaveral last month for final launch preps. The Falcon 9 launch vehicle, the first to incorporate the redesigned helium COPVs, is scheduled to depart SpaceX’s factory in Hawthorne, California, for stage testing at the company’s Central Texas test site this month, Lueders said.
 

Spire3660

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
1,032
looking forward to the day the US starts putting a reasonable amount of money into NASA again...


Private companies make all of NASA's gear anyways. The US government is one of SpaceX's biggest customers. Money going to SpaceX from US gov is money essentially going to NASA.
 

travm

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
1,846
Private companies make all of NASA's gear anyways. The US government is one of SpaceX's biggest customers. Money going to SpaceX from US gov is money essentially going to NASA.
Not really, it's money going to space x. NASA doesn't do things for profit or future gain
 

dreadcthulhu

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Messages
121
looking forward to the day the US starts putting a reasonable amount of money into NASA again...

I would rather they throw more money at Space X than NASA; look at the boondoggle that is the SLS. The SLS is estimated to cost at least $1 billion (and probably closer to $2 billion) per launch, with the block 1 versions being able to lift 95 tons to LEO. Meanwhile, the Falcon Heavy, which is flying now, can lift 64 tons to LEO for $150 million in fully expendable mode. And given the troubled state of the SLS development, I wouldn't be surprised if the BFR, with its estimated 150 ton to LEO & even lower launch costs, ends up flying before/shortly after the first SLS launch.

Granted, a good portion of that cost isn't NASA's fault; Congress requires they spread work among contractors in a sufficient number of Congresscritters' districts, which results in all sorts of inefficiency and price increases. And I guess throwing more money at SpaceX directly would probably come with these same requirements. This issue is a problem that effects a lot of government spending, but unfortunately does not have an easy solution; after all, special earmarks for other districts are gross pork spending, but special funding for one's own district is a sensible use of money.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
Granted, a good portion of that cost isn't NASA's fault; Congress requires they spread work among contractors in a sufficient number of Congresscritters' districts, which results in all sorts of inefficiency and price increases.

Problem is, if they don't throw money around there's no support for NASA in Congress. The Johnson administration put NASA facilities all over the place for that reason.

At least it's increasing under the new administration, unlike the decreases that marked the first few years of the last administration.
Source: Wikipedia, Budget of NASA

According to your source the budget was pretty flat under Obama early on, 17.78 billion in 2008, 16.86 in 2013, and then it started climbing into the 18-19 billion range. The initial decline was from the wind-down of Space Shuttle operations after the additional missions the Obama admin approved. Nice try though.

In retrospect it was probably a wise decision not to dump a bunch of money into the SLS. I don't see how NASA can compete with SpaceX at this point, and they shouldn't be tied up with launch operations anyway. They should be focusing on science and living/working in space.
 

travisty

Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
815
At least it's increasing under the new administration, unlike the decreases that marked the first few years of the last administration.
Source: Wikipedia, Budget of NASA

Oh yes let's forget that Bush left the US economy in a death spiral as mega banks were going bankrupt. Yes it's all Obama's fault that NASA funding decreased during that time :rolleyes:

Since then the economy has been growing nicely and more money is going to the government via taxes. Trump has nothing to do with the fact that there is more money for government to spend.
 
Top