Also, just because the composite tank ruptured, doesn't mean they don't go with aluminum. Sure it may cut the payload capability, but it gets there.
Quote from: spacenut on 08/05/2017 02:04 pmAlso, just because the composite tank ruptured, doesn't mean they don't go with aluminum. Sure it may cut the payload capability, but it gets there. Do we actually know if that was a failure or simply a test to destruction? Haven't kept up with that.
It totally depends on the aim and scope.Getting anything of a totally new architecture flying but not yet ready for Mars by 2020 is certainly soon in my book.If they go for a reusable methane upper stage for the Falcon family they may even have a fighting chance to fly it to Mars in 2020 though still a stretch. Completely new with a methane booster somewhat less likely.Edit: A full methane ITS, like the 9m version, of any size big enough for setting up ISRU and sending crew 2022 is soon for the first cargo landing on Mars.
We have no positive proof. But many credible claimes it was not intended. I just don't see why people think this failure indicates a need to move away from composite. I expect a lot of testing going on right now. I can only repeat that NASA/Boeing did build a composite tank for LH, which is much harder due to the extremely low temperatures involved.
...I think this is tacit recognition that NASA is envisioning a COTS-like arrangement to support "continued operations in cislunar space" while developing their proposed DST in the mid/late 2020s.Bottom line: a cislunar COTS-like contract could help underwrite SpaceX's Mars ambitions ironically at the same time NASA is pursuing its humans to the Mars system goals.
Quote from: TaurusLittrow on 08/07/2017 12:22 pm...I think this is tacit recognition that NASA is envisioning a COTS-like arrangement to support "continued operations in cislunar space" while developing their proposed DST in the mid/late 2020s.Bottom line: a cislunar COTS-like contract could help underwrite SpaceX's Mars ambitions ironically at the same time NASA is pursuing its humans to the Mars system goals.Not only cislunar, Lunar surface is also an option for ITSy:"NASA preparing call for proposals for commercial lunar landers"http://spacenews.com/nasa-preparing-call-for-proposals-for-commercial-lunar-landers/
I see a No/Yes potential SpaceX response.No to their developing an upper stage for FH that enables lunar landings.Yes to use of "standard" ITSy LEO re-fueling that enables many tens of tons landed on the moon with ITSy returning to Earth. SpaceX is in the transport business with their standard vehicles.
Quote from: philw1776 on 09/10/2017 12:36 pmI see a No/Yes potential SpaceX response.No to their developing an upper stage for FH that enables lunar landings.Yes to use of "standard" ITSy LEO re-fueling that enables many tens of tons landed on the moon with ITSy returning to Earth. SpaceX is in the transport business with their standard vehicles.How close are they to being able to land something with Dragon 2.0, either on top of a F9 or an FH?
Commercial Space Travel Fails to Woo U.S. Voters, but Sector Aims Higher
Some Americans seem underwhelmed by the possibility of affordable private-sector space travel, even as the industry sets its sights on loftier goals than shepherding wealthy clients into outer space.Forty-one percent of registered voters said they were likely to travel to space if they could afford it, according to a Sept. 7-11 Morning Consult/POLITICO poll. A 48-percent plurality said they were not too likely or not at all likely to do so, even if they had the means.
There are 146 million registered voters in the USA; 41% is 60 million potential passengers; at $100k each, this is $6Trillion dollars. Since this is not a majority vote situation, a winner-take-all primary, or an electoral college decision, how many 'vote' against flying doesn't matter -- just stay home. (I think American journalists have PESD (post-election stress disorder).
Thought this was interesting:(Caution: Misleading Headline!!!)QuoteCommercial Space Travel Fails to Woo U.S. Voters, but Sector Aims HigherQuoteSome Americans seem underwhelmed by the possibility of affordable private-sector space travel, even as the industry sets its sights on loftier goals than shepherding wealthy clients into outer space.Forty-one percent of registered voters said they were likely to travel to space if they could afford it, according to a Sept. 7-11 Morning Consult/POLITICO poll. A 48-percent plurality said they were not too likely or not at all likely to do so, even if they had the means.There are 146 million registered voters in the USA; 41% is 60 million potential passengers; at $100k each, this is $6Trillion dollars. Since this is not a majority vote situation, a winner-take-all primary, or an electoral college decision, how many 'vote' against flying doesn't matter -- just stay home. (I think American journalists have PESD (post-election stress disorder).https://morningconsult.com/2017/09/18/voters-not-wooed-by-commercial-space-travel-but-industry-sees-larger-potential/
Quote from: AncientU on 09/19/2017 08:18 pmThought this was interesting:(Caution: Misleading Headline!!!)QuoteCommercial Space Travel Fails to Woo U.S. Voters, but Sector Aims HigherQuoteSome Americans seem underwhelmed by the possibility of affordable private-sector space travel, even as the industry sets its sights on loftier goals than shepherding wealthy clients into outer space.Forty-one percent of registered voters said they were likely to travel to space if they could afford it, according to a Sept. 7-11 Morning Consult/POLITICO poll. A 48-percent plurality said they were not too likely or not at all likely to do so, even if they had the means.There are 146 million registered voters in the USA; 41% is 60 million potential passengers; at $100k each, this is $6Trillion dollars. Since this is not a majority vote situation, a winner-take-all primary, or an electoral college decision, how many 'vote' against flying doesn't matter -- just stay home. (I think American journalists have PESD (post-election stress disorder).https://morningconsult.com/2017/09/18/voters-not-wooed-by-commercial-space-travel-but-industry-sees-larger-potential/41% is more than I expected. Anyways, it's too early for these answers to be representative. We have to wait until Space Tourism actually becomes a thing and real life, first-hand experiences can be shared to really see if there can be a widespread desire to go. People tend not to show much interest in currently unattainable things, do we? Also envy/emulation is what really pushes widespread demand. No one to envy/emulate, for now.
Quote from: AbuSimbel on 09/20/2017 10:38 amQuote from: AncientU on 09/19/2017 08:18 pmThought this was interesting:(Caution: Misleading Headline!!!)QuoteCommercial Space Travel Fails to Woo U.S. Voters, but Sector Aims HigherQuoteSome Americans seem underwhelmed by the possibility of affordable private-sector space travel, even as the industry sets its sights on loftier goals than shepherding wealthy clients into outer space.Forty-one percent of registered voters said they were likely to travel to space if they could afford it, according to a Sept. 7-11 Morning Consult/POLITICO poll. A 48-percent plurality said they were not too likely or not at all likely to do so, even if they had the means.There are 146 million registered voters in the USA; 41% is 60 million potential passengers; at $100k each, this is $6Trillion dollars. Since this is not a majority vote situation, a winner-take-all primary, or an electoral college decision, how many 'vote' against flying doesn't matter -- just stay home. (I think American journalists have PESD (post-election stress disorder).https://morningconsult.com/2017/09/18/voters-not-wooed-by-commercial-space-travel-but-industry-sees-larger-potential/41% is more than I expected. Anyways, it's too early for these answers to be representative. We have to wait until Space Tourism actually becomes a thing and real life, first-hand experiences can be shared to really see if there can be a widespread desire to go. People tend not to show much interest in currently unattainable things, do we? Also envy/emulation is what really pushes widespread demand. No one to envy/emulate, for now.In looking at this from a standpoint of using ITSy flights for tourism but only considering those worldwide that could easily afford the tickets, the following is indicated:Possible 700 flights to LEO / year at $50,000 per ticket (400 persons per flight packed for short flight duration to destination (1 day))Possible 50 flights to Lunar Surface at $500,000 per ticket (200 persons per flight with moderate packing for moderate duration flight to destination (1 week))Possible 10 flights to Mars at $1,000,000 per ticket (100 persons per flight with long duration flight to destination (3 months))The interesting thing here is that the profits from this much tourism would fund 13 Mars trips /year for colonists. Also the 41% that want to go would take 40 years for that group of those that can afford it to all go. In other words the rate would be nearly perpetual. For once started would continue. As prices come down the numbers increase at a greater rate than the price decrease for a net increase in revenue.