Elon Musk: Crew Dragon spacecraft for NASA could fly astronauts in 3 to 4 months, CNN
“SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule could be ready to fly NASA astronauts in three to four months. It would mark the first time humans have launched to orbit from US soil in almost a decade. CEO and chief engineer Elon Musk told CNN Business’ Rachel Crane that SpaceX is “going as fast as we can” to get the overdue spacecraft, which is designed to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station, ready for flight. Jim Bridenstine, NASA’s administrator, said in an interview on Monday that he is not confident in that timeline. … Bridenstine referred to Crew Dragon’s explosion as a “catastrophic failure,” and said one of the reasons he’s skeptical of the idea that Crew Dragon will be ready in the near future is because the updated emergency abort system “has not been qualified” and has not been tested.”
NASA Hands Elon Musk a Reality Check, The Atlantic
“Koren: After the big presentation on Saturday, a reporter asked Elon to respond to your tweet. Elon said, “did he say Commercial Crew or SLS?” [SLS stands for the Space Launch System, the NASA capsule and rocket that is meant to bring astronauts to the moon.] What do you make of that?
Bridenstine: Well, I don’t think that’s helpful. Commercial Crew is about getting to low-Earth orbit. We are spending $85 million every time we have to buy a Russian Soyuz seat to get to the International Space Station.”
What’s going on with Elon Musk and the head of NASA?, Quartz
“More shocking to observers of the space program is Bridenstine’s decision to call out the chief executive of a NASA contractor before a public event. Boeing, the other company building a spacecraft for the commercial crew program, is also well behind schedule on that project, as well as on the SLS rocket it is building for NASA. Bridenstine has never challenged its CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, ahead of a public appearance. Asked if Bridenstine could clarify where he saw SpaceX falling short or what problems needed to be addressed, a NASA spokesperson said no further comment would be forthcoming.”

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

31 replies on “That NASA/SpaceX Thing”

  1. Really sad with Administrator Bridenstine. Pure politics. What is so disappointing about this is that Bridenstine knows, HE KNOWS, how the Commercial Crew program has been set up for failure. As a member of the house in congress he saw, and has intimate knowledge, of the scheme of maneuver used by Lamar Smith, James Aderholt, Mo Brooks, Sandy Adams, Bill Posey, and John Culberson. He knows how certain language was added and twisted by senators Bill Nelson, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Barbara Mikulski, and Dark Lord of the Senate Launch System Richard Shelby.

    And lets be honest here, Boeing is baking the cake and eating it too. It has got money from from NASA since Apollo – they are blood sucking ticks.

    His comments only perpetuate the problem. We all see how SLS ends in a train wreck. It is like the king standing before his subjects with no clothes.

    Meanwhile – Starship is far beyond powerpoint – film at 11.

    1. Yep, really depressing interview from him. He says SpaceX is behind…and then says NASA reviews of the parachutes and the escape system are basically going to go on for an indeterminate amount of time regardless of what Musk and SpaceX does.

      Feeling even more confident in my guess that SpaceX will wrap up CC at its first opportunity and go full private launch on Starship. Because Musk and the crew are way too smart to think that this NASA will ever allow Starship to carry their astronauts.

  3. Administrator Bridenstine is probably under pressure from the Congress Critters and the Old Space contractors because they know IF Elon Musk succeeds their world is over. No more decades long cost plus contracts for projects like SLS, Orion, Gateway, JWST. NASA will basically be out of business in terms of building hardware for HSF and flagship missions.

    But what the Administrator is failing to recognize is that in terms of exploring space the new NASA will be far better, and bigger, than today’s NASA in a Starship world. Instead of 44 active astronauts, mostly test pilots, the Starship NASA will have an astronaut corps of 400-600, almost all of them scientists. Instead of Mission Control supporting a handful of astronauts on the ancient ISS, trying to keep it functioning, they will be supporting 200-300 astronauts scattered throughout the Inner Solar System on numerous space stations, moon bases, the Mars system and probably an asteroid or two. And instead of launching 2-3 robotic missions a year, NASA will be sending dozens and dozens of robotic missions throughout the Solar System. That is the potential of lowering the cost of going into space to 1-2 percent of the current cost and increasing capacity by 1,000 fold.

    And if you want a historical analogy just look at how the exploration of Antarctica changed when the transition was made from the dog sled era to the C-130/Huey era. That is the future of NASA.

    1. Years ago someone, maybe here, said that CC would never actually be allowed to fly. I never believed it. I do now.

      1. I used to say that about congress and how they would always find a road block to slow it down because once there is commercial access that congressional house of cards for NASA pork is gone.

    3. Disruptive technologies like Starship and to a lesser degree, F-9 and New Glenn, mean more work for everybody, the resistence to it, although, comes because they’re not the same jobs in the same places for all the same people for the same excessive cost. It’s not about doing more, even at the end earning more, but about changing the lucrative status quo.

    4. You’re being optimistic again. Between those two eras in Antarctica, there was an era of Snowcat tractors and R4D Dakotas. And during part of that period, VX-6, the Navy squadron flying those R4Ds had the highest accident rate of any Navy squadron.

      1. True, it may be a rough transition, or it may be an easier one like science in the American west when instead of waiting for Army expeditions to tag along on scientists could just buy train tickets for themselves and some students in order to spend a summer collecting or digging up dinosaurs. But either way a lot more exploration gets done when logistics become secondary to the science instead of restricting it.

        I suspect a base on Phobos with 20-30 astrobiologists and ready access to the Mars surface via VR driven rovers and small rockets delivering samples to them could determine fairly quickly if there is any life on the surface or near subsurface to restrict human activities.

  4. This does stink like NASA is feeling threatened by SpaceX’s success. It’s too bad, because Bridenstine seemed like he was on board for trying to get the most done with the least dollars and was very positive on SpaceX. Which is why the progress SpaceX has made, seemed so promising. The best thing for manned space flight is a world in which NASA and SpaceX work together. NASA should view SpaceX as the innovation factory, because that’s, in essence, what they are. They have changed the paradigms and taught people things that were impossible, aren’t. Landing first, and soon second stages, moving to Methane to increase efficiency, creating the most powerful rocket engine ever made, and so on. Musk dreams big, thinks way outside the box, and doesn’t let conventional wisdom of old stop him, where it has stopped everyone else.

    NASA should embrace it, not scold them when the problem has been NASA all along. SpaceX has gotten people excited about space again. There has NEVER been a period in my 42 years on this planet where there has been more grass roots excitement than there is right now. Not even close. The adult buy in, that we have right now, is not something we’ve seen since Apollo. NASA would be wise not to quash that. Bridenstine risks all of that, and all of the good that a partnership with SpaceX brings, with his snarky, unfair comments. It’s very unfortunate, and honestly, he should apologize.

    1. SpaceX has done many things, but creating the most powerful rocket engine ever made is not one of them. They are hoping to build the most powerful rocket ever made, but that’s likely a few years down the road.

      Bridenstine did have a point, but probably should have conveyed that in a private communication. It did not come across as particularly professional.

      His motivation? Who knows, but the “catastrophic failure” quote, probably has something to do with why his ire was focused on SpaceX. If he is a supporter of commercial space, which he appears to be, that incident didn’t help.

        1. Well, Mk 1 and Mk2 will be sub-orbital. Not clear about Mk 3. Musk mentioned Mk 4 or Mk 5 would have a significant weight reduction, so I’m thinking that’s when they’ll start looking at orbital, and applying the ceramic TPS.

          Note that Musk’s “schedule” estimates have a non-trivial qualifier. To get things done as quickly as he indicated, SpaceX needs to “exponentially” improve construction methods as they go.

          In any case, he doesn’t have a great record of estimating schedules. In Dec. 2018 he said Starhopper would fly in 4 weeks…

  5. I’ve already said enough on this topic…just kidding.

    Some of the administrator’s words sound off, like he’s being prompted.

    Thomas hit the nail on the head…but I will argue one point. NASA knew all along that this is where things would end up when they started spinning off space flight. Obama gave their game away, but they started this before he was a thing.
    Now it has come to it. The Space Launch System, the culmination of Congress pitiful attempt to control and profit from the direction of spaceflight, will see market forces pass it by. This is how a disrupted industry grows, and no Government space agency on Earth can compete with aggressive capitalism.
    I feel for Bridenstine, I really do. We here have known that if Congress strangled Commercial Crew long enough, it would put a strain on our ability to support the ISS. Congress hoped that by delaying it enough, they might have SLS/Orion fill that roll. Instead we are stuck between deteriorating relations with the Russians, a slowed CCDev program and an SLS that never had a chance at the ISS to begin with. In that scenario then of course competition would rise up and fill the hole.

    All it will take is one Dragon flight,, and it all comes unglued. I believe it when Elon says he’d move it along faster if he could. That flight is the hinge pin that releases a revolution of crewed New Space.

    Maybe they thought that SpaceX would turn into just another Boeing? Not before it’s IPO stagnates it to profit collection…and that won’t happen until Elon Musk is standing on the surface of Mars.

  6. Further, Elon’s snarky retort that Jim says isn’t helpful is actually a whole lot nicer than what the rest of us have been saying about Jim’s rude remark.
    Starship would not have gone nearly that fast if they had to start all over with NASA’s design review process every time they changed the design. So of course a project with NASA and SpaceX joined at the hip will go a lot slower…duh! It isn’t misguided effort on SpaceX’s part. It’s a slower process on NASA’s part.

    1. Well, pointing out the glaring hypocrisy and misdirected blame of Jim’s pre-presentation comment was very much not helpful…to Jim. There’s the question of why Jim would have expected a “helpful” response considering his own comment was clearly not intended to help…

      But yes, Musk could have blasted Bridenstine and he’d have had no defense beyond “not helpful”. Musk’s “not helpful” response did far more service to the taxpayer than Bridenstine’s bluster.

      1. And Jim’s “glaring hypocrisy and misdirected blame” as you put it damaged the partnership and spirit of cooperation, as well as the the enthusiasm of folks that love them both, in ways that WILL damage the partnership.

        The children don’t like seeing mommy and daddy fighting. 😉

  7. I forgive you, Mr Bridenstine. I know you have to appease congress and their vested interests in SLS. It does not matter what NASA Administrator says… when that shinny ship starts to fly and returns to land like a true spaceship, it will be lights out, SLS! =)

      1. I agree, unlike the other older Administrators he understands what needs to be done at NASA, he is just handicapped by a Congress that has become even more chaotic since the last election.

        1. Shelby has not become chaotic .. he is the same as he has always been protecting the alabama pork train.

          1. Yes, but sometimes the President, Congress or both do something about boondoggles that just go to far or interfere with something important. The current President did campaign on ideas about getting rid of established, political interests and slogans like like “drain the swamp.” A bit over a decade ago, we had that business about a “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska. Cutting back on government pork may be rare, but it can happen. But it usually takes some consensus and perhaps bipartisan support. A legislature which is less organized than a children’s street game isn’t likely to do that sort of thing.

  8. An interesting bit that caused my eye was at the end of the article:

    A NASA spokesperson said the schedule will not be officially updated until NASA installs a new associate administrator for human spaceflight…. Bridenstine said NASA has candidates in mind and will bring on an associate administrator “the coming weeks or months.”

    SpaceX is behind, but saying they’ll be ready for the In-Flight Abort in November. NASA has not yet even updated the launch schedule, and refuses to until they have a new AA for HSF…which they won’t be getting around to until November or even later. So, is NASA concerned about the CCDev delays…or not?

    1. All this reminds me of the statement allegedly attributed to Gen. Douglas MacArthur when told about the existence of the atomic bomb. Supposedly, an aide asked Mac, “What if it doesn’t work?” To which MacArthur is supposed to have replied, “What if it DOES?”
      According to Bridenstine, SpaceX is behind because of the Crew Dragon explosion. But, what if they catch up? And if they don’t do the MaxQ abort test by November, but slip until December or even January 2020, if they take the time and effort to get it right, will NASA refuse to certify the Crew Dragon system to launch its (NASA’s) astronauts until…Boeing catches up? Or SLS/Orion is ready? Will FAA drag its feet in clearing StarShip flights…say, until SLS is ready to fly? Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of NASA versus SpaceX…

  9. Bridenstein needs some emotional distance. He should think of SLS as the Congressional pork program that it is. NASA is not responsible for what is inherently a fiasco. He and NASA have no reason to feel embarrassed by this hugely expensive train-wreck-in-progress mandated from above.

  10. I just thought of a great question. How would passengers be able to escape from an exploding second stage if they are pretty much RIDING the second stage?

    1. Yeah the same thought occurred to me a few weeks ago… no launch abort system. Wasn’t that one of the reasons NASA went back to a capsule (easier to implement an abort system)? One could I suppose have an ejection capsule like the B-58 Hustler, but that’s obviously not going to work for 100 people. I suppose they’re banking on airliner like reliability… catastrophic failures will be bad for business.

      2. Yes. I worry about that also. SpaceX will need to develop a super-safe system, like passenger aircraft that requires no parachutes and covers several credible abort scenarios. Yeah, like that is easy. =) I have a lot more faith in Crew Dragon/Falcon 9 & Falcon Heavy technology to carry me to space, if and when I could possibly afford it. I *just* want to go to Low Earth Orbit or spend some time on the Moon. Mars is not something I look forward to. The Starship is a bit of a stretch. Even Elon conceded it would require an exponential improvement in the design and “manufacturability” for Starship to become a reality.

Comments are closed.