4 ms·

There are literally only three organizations on earth capable of putting humans in orbit: 1. SpaceX 2. China 3. Russia I say "SpaceX" instead of Amer

There are literally only three organizations on earth capable of putting humans in orbit: 1. SpaceX 2. China 3. Russia I say "SpaceX" instead of America or NASA because the Axiom missions show that SpaceX can launch people independent of NASA. India may develop their own capability to put humans in orbit before Europe does, which is amazing to me. [Though admittedly that's only because Europe has different priorities--not necessarily a lack of ability.]

hammock 3y ago
NASA cannot independent of SpaceX?
- mezeek 3y ago
  They can go to Russia like they did for 10 years after the Shuttle retired.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    The sanctions make this harder surely.
    - throwawaymaths 3y ago
      Probably not as much as you'd expect. Launches are out of Kazakhstan. Russia still sends cosmonauts to fly on dragon. This remains probably the most robust point of diplomatic contact between the two countries, especially since rogozin allegedly lost his penis (not a joke -- the anti USA rhetoric of roscosmos has decreased since he departed? from his post). I wouldn't be surprised if musk is instructed to at least publically not be too pro-ukraine to preserve this line of communication (I also wouldn't be surprised if musk is just being dumb). Edit: ok this is slightly incorrect, rogozin was dismissed from roscosmos and then he got injured on the front, not the other order around
- DennisP 3y ago
  NASA hasn't been able since the Shuttle got retired in 2011. They've been relying first on Russian rockets and then on SpaceX ever since. There are several alternatives in development but nothing human-rated yet.
  - rst 3y ago
    Boeing's Starliner is now expected to have a crewed flight test in April (after two shaky uncrewed test flights, the first nearly disastrous). Of course, by the standards being applied to SpaceX here, that could be described as "relying on Boeing"...
    - jandrese 3y ago
      I definitely wouldn't volunteer to be on that first crewed flight of Starliner. Boeing has had some questionable engineering decisions in the last decade and it has shaken my confidence in the ability of their engineers to press back against management when there is an inconvenient truth.
      - robbiep 3y ago
        Boeing space flight is on delicious cost plus contracts as opposed to trying to shave it down to the bone in 737 max
        DennisP 3y ago
        Starliner is not cost-plus. It's under the same program as SpaceX. > After several rounds of competitive development contracts within the Commercial Crew Program starting in 2010, NASA selected the Boeing Starliner, along with SpaceX Crew Dragon, for the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract round. > ...While the company had received $18 million under the NASA Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) contract by 2010 for early design work, substantial Boeing private funds would be required to complete development, even with Boeing competing for additional NASA contracts. This exposed Boeing to ordinary business financial risk that had not been a large part of traditional cost-plus contracting that Boeing had previously done for work on space capsules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner
- FriedPickles 3y ago
  No, but NASA's on the cusp of regaining the ability with SLS rocket/Orion capsule/Artemis program. First crewed launch targeted for Sept 2025.
- autoexecbat 3y ago
  NASA can do so without SpaceX, they have 2 human-rated vehicles that have flown. There is the SLS/Orion and Atlas/Starliner - they just havent actually put people in them yet
- idlewords 3y ago
  They can, on SLS and Orion.
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    They could and perhaps soon will, but at time of writing, they haven't.
    - idlewords 3y ago
      The parent comment is about capability.
  - GMoromisato 3y ago
    I guess it depends on how you define "capable". I defined it (implicitly) as "have they actually put humans in orbit". That's a pretty simple and objective definition. If you want to include SLS/Orion and Starliner, you have to define the point at which a system becomes "capable". Is it when they designed it? When they approved the budget? When they tested it uncrewed? When it's less than 1 year from launching with humans? Depending on your definition, India might already be "capable" of launching astronauts now. Note also that both Orion and Starliner are working through technical problems. Are they very likely to resolve them in <1 year? Sure. But there's still a non-zero chance that they will delay for 1 year, 2 years, or even more.
    - idlewords 3y ago
      You're being a little obfuscatory here. In 2022 SLS flew a capsule around the moon that was human-rated, except that it had mannequins in the seats instead of people. Adding oxygen and some granola bars to this setup is not a big technical leap; the hard part is done. I'm not a fan of either SLS or Orion, but it's pretty clear that they will have no difficulty putting a human crew into space whenever their schedule and budgetary drama allows it.
eddywebs 3y ago
Indian human space flight mission program is already underway with launch date sometime in 2025 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Human_Spaceflight_Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Human_Spaceflight_Progr...
mattmaroon 3y ago
Well, idk about literally, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic both did it in 2021 right? Could they not do it again? NASA has plans to do it next year. In any case, were there ever more than now? I’m curious if we were regressing, or just not progressing for a couple decades.
- orls 3y ago
  Parent post said putting people into orbit. Those companies do short suborbital flights.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    You’re right I missed that.
- autoexecbat 3y ago
  BO and VG didn't go orbital, which is the real test of capability. Being able to shoot straight up and fall back down isn't anywhere near as useful or hard as orbit.
  - jandrese 3y ago
    This is why everybody who talks about space should spend a few hours with Kerbal Space Program just to get a sense of the difference in scale between a suborbital hop and actually putting something into orbit.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > Being able to shoot straight up and fall back down isn't anywhere near as useful or hard as orbit. Being able to reach space at all is the hard part: so many pieces have to be developed and work well together. Achieving orbit is more evolutionary than from going from 0 to 1. Orbit seems like a such an arbitrary line, amd I suspect once BO achieves it, the bar is going to be arbitrarily raised to "Heavy-lift rockets are the hard part, and only 2 organizations on Earth can achieve it"
mden 3y ago
Isn't having a private entity be able to do what previously required a nation a good sign for that nation? The idea that the USA cannot re-obtain that capability again seems silly to me and there are a lot of pros for having private companies pushing the state of art forward.
- itake 3y ago
  it puts the concentration of power into fewer individuals hands, which makes me nervous. The gov is slow b/c it requires sign off from hundreds of people. (For example, congress approving NASA's budget). As a private entity, maybe 20 or 50 people are required to approve or reject missions. This lets them move faster, but if a certain CEO doesn't want to provide services for a war, they can mess with the contract.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    The government is still in control. They could nationalize the project tomorrow or stop issuing launch licencees. Why taking rides to orbits should require some massive jumping threw hops doesn't really make sense to me. If the launch and landing are secured what the problem or danger with people going to LEO?
  - ChainOfFools 3y ago
    "move fast and break things" coming soon to a low earth orbit near you
    - yencabulator 3y ago
      I believe SpaceX has been moving fast and breaking things over many places, already. https://www.npr.org/2023/04/26/1172290009/spacex-is-grounded-after-rocket-explosion-caused-extensive-environmental-damage https://www.npr.org/2023/04/26/1172290009/spacex-is-grounded... https://www.space.com/spacex-debris-fall-australia-crew-1-dragon-capsule https://www.space.com/spacex-debris-fall-australia-crew-1-dr... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/spacex-rocket-debris-found-washington-state-after-streaks-night-sky-n1262954 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/spacex-rocket-debris-fo... https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/2/22364582/spacex-rocket-debris-falls-farm-washington https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/2/22364582/spacex-rocket-deb...
sangnoir 3y ago
NASA deliberately funded private space flight capability. Your slight seems misdirected.

hammock 3y ago

NASA cannot independent of SpaceX?

mezeek 3y ago
They can go to Russia like they did for 10 years after the Shuttle retired.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  The sanctions make this harder surely.
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    Probably not as much as you'd expect. Launches are out of Kazakhstan. Russia still sends cosmonauts to fly on dragon. This remains probably the most robust point of diplomatic contact between the two countries, especially since rogozin allegedly lost his penis (not a joke -- the anti USA rhetoric of roscosmos has decreased since he departed? from his post). I wouldn't be surprised if musk is instructed to at least publically not be too pro-ukraine to preserve this line of communication (I also wouldn't be surprised if musk is just being dumb). Edit: ok this is slightly incorrect, rogozin was dismissed from roscosmos and then he got injured on the front, not the other order around
DennisP 3y ago
NASA hasn't been able since the Shuttle got retired in 2011. They've been relying first on Russian rockets and then on SpaceX ever since. There are several alternatives in development but nothing human-rated yet.
- rst 3y ago
  Boeing's Starliner is now expected to have a crewed flight test in April (after two shaky uncrewed test flights, the first nearly disastrous). Of course, by the standards being applied to SpaceX here, that could be described as "relying on Boeing"...
  - jandrese 3y ago
    I definitely wouldn't volunteer to be on that first crewed flight of Starliner. Boeing has had some questionable engineering decisions in the last decade and it has shaken my confidence in the ability of their engineers to press back against management when there is an inconvenient truth.
    - robbiep 3y ago
      Boeing space flight is on delicious cost plus contracts as opposed to trying to shave it down to the bone in 737 max
      - DennisP 3y ago
        Starliner is not cost-plus. It's under the same program as SpaceX. > After several rounds of competitive development contracts within the Commercial Crew Program starting in 2010, NASA selected the Boeing Starliner, along with SpaceX Crew Dragon, for the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract round. > ...While the company had received $18 million under the NASA Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) contract by 2010 for early design work, substantial Boeing private funds would be required to complete development, even with Boeing competing for additional NASA contracts. This exposed Boeing to ordinary business financial risk that had not been a large part of traditional cost-plus contracting that Boeing had previously done for work on space capsules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner
FriedPickles 3y ago
No, but NASA's on the cusp of regaining the ability with SLS rocket/Orion capsule/Artemis program. First crewed launch targeted for Sept 2025.
autoexecbat 3y ago
NASA can do so without SpaceX, they have 2 human-rated vehicles that have flown. There is the SLS/Orion and Atlas/Starliner - they just havent actually put people in them yet
idlewords 3y ago
They can, on SLS and Orion.
- resolutebat 3y ago
  They could and perhaps soon will, but at time of writing, they haven't.
  - idlewords 3y ago
    The parent comment is about capability.
- GMoromisato 3y ago
  I guess it depends on how you define "capable". I defined it (implicitly) as "have they actually put humans in orbit". That's a pretty simple and objective definition. If you want to include SLS/Orion and Starliner, you have to define the point at which a system becomes "capable". Is it when they designed it? When they approved the budget? When they tested it uncrewed? When it's less than 1 year from launching with humans? Depending on your definition, India might already be "capable" of launching astronauts now. Note also that both Orion and Starliner are working through technical problems. Are they very likely to resolve them in <1 year? Sure. But there's still a non-zero chance that they will delay for 1 year, 2 years, or even more.
  - idlewords 3y ago
    You're being a little obfuscatory here. In 2022 SLS flew a capsule around the moon that was human-rated, except that it had mannequins in the seats instead of people. Adding oxygen and some granola bars to this setup is not a big technical leap; the hard part is done. I'm not a fan of either SLS or Orion, but it's pretty clear that they will have no difficulty putting a human crew into space whenever their schedule and budgetary drama allows it.

eddywebs 3y ago

Indian human space flight mission program is already underway with launch date sometime in 2025 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Human_Spaceflight_Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Human_Spaceflight_Progr...

mattmaroon 3y ago

Well, idk about literally, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic both did it in 2021 right? Could they not do it again? NASA has plans to do it next year. In any case, were there ever more than now? I’m curious if we were regressing, or just not progressing for a couple decades.

orls 3y ago
Parent post said putting people into orbit. Those companies do short suborbital flights.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  You’re right I missed that.
autoexecbat 3y ago
BO and VG didn't go orbital, which is the real test of capability. Being able to shoot straight up and fall back down isn't anywhere near as useful or hard as orbit.
- jandrese 3y ago
  This is why everybody who talks about space should spend a few hours with Kerbal Space Program just to get a sense of the difference in scale between a suborbital hop and actually putting something into orbit.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > Being able to shoot straight up and fall back down isn't anywhere near as useful or hard as orbit. Being able to reach space at all is the hard part: so many pieces have to be developed and work well together. Achieving orbit is more evolutionary than from going from 0 to 1. Orbit seems like a such an arbitrary line, amd I suspect once BO achieves it, the bar is going to be arbitrarily raised to "Heavy-lift rockets are the hard part, and only 2 organizations on Earth can achieve it"

mden 3y ago

Isn't having a private entity be able to do what previously required a nation a good sign for that nation? The idea that the USA cannot re-obtain that capability again seems silly to me and there are a lot of pros for having private companies pushing the state of art forward.

itake 3y ago
it puts the concentration of power into fewer individuals hands, which makes me nervous. The gov is slow b/c it requires sign off from hundreds of people. (For example, congress approving NASA's budget). As a private entity, maybe 20 or 50 people are required to approve or reject missions. This lets them move faster, but if a certain CEO doesn't want to provide services for a war, they can mess with the contract.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  The government is still in control. They could nationalize the project tomorrow or stop issuing launch licencees. Why taking rides to orbits should require some massive jumping threw hops doesn't really make sense to me. If the launch and landing are secured what the problem or danger with people going to LEO?
- ChainOfFools 3y ago
  "move fast and break things" coming soon to a low earth orbit near you
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    I believe SpaceX has been moving fast and breaking things over many places, already. https://www.npr.org/2023/04/26/1172290009/spacex-is-grounded-after-rocket-explosion-caused-extensive-environmental-damage https://www.npr.org/2023/04/26/1172290009/spacex-is-grounded... https://www.space.com/spacex-debris-fall-australia-crew-1-dragon-capsule https://www.space.com/spacex-debris-fall-australia-crew-1-dr... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/spacex-rocket-debris-found-washington-state-after-streaks-night-sky-n1262954 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/spacex-rocket-debris-fo... https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/2/22364582/spacex-rocket-debris-falls-farm-washington https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/2/22364582/spacex-rocket-deb...

sangnoir 3y ago

NASA deliberately funded private space flight capability. Your slight seems misdirected.