As far as pilot/commander actions during landing it would be more like the commander/pilot tapping a finger on a location on the screen telling the BFS to "land here" overriding the automated system's choice for landing location. A manual control of such a large vehicle will never be a fully manual capability. It will always require a significant amount of computer and IMU support.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/06/2016 05:40 pmAs far as pilot/commander actions during landing it would be more like the commander/pilot tapping a finger on a location on the screen telling the BFS to "land here" overriding the automated system's choice for landing location. A manual control of such a large vehicle will never be a fully manual capability. It will always require a significant amount of computer and IMU support.The crew would have little to no opportunity to review the quality of the landing site prior to the final approach. If any last-minute change to the landing site is required, it's will probably be initiated by the ground. There's just no need for crew control.
Even something as "simple" as going to the ISS will require two demo flights: one unmanned demo and one manned demo. So you can bet NASA will require a manned test flight first, i.e. no paid customers, no foreigners, no scientists, just enough astronauts and engineers to do a viable mission, # of people is probably 4 to 6 given past mission designs. And they won't stay on Mars for long if an immediate return is at all possible, just a quick look around, plant a flag, then back. The intention is to verify the whole system works with people in it, the other stuff can be left to later missions.
The crew would have little to no opportunity to review the quality of the landing site prior to the final approach. If any last-minute change to the landing site is required, it's will probably be initiated by the ground. There's just no need for crew control.
Quote from: su27k on 07/07/2016 02:57 amEven something as "simple" as going to the ISS will require two demo flights: one unmanned demo and one manned demo. So you can bet NASA will require a manned test flight first, i.e. no paid customers, no foreigners, no scientists, just enough astronauts and engineers to do a viable mission, # of people is probably 4 to 6 given past mission designs. And they won't stay on Mars for long if an immediate return is at all possible, just a quick look around, plant a flag, then back. The intention is to verify the whole system works with people in it, the other stuff can be left to later missions.Sure there will be such missions. But such tests will be done in cislunar space, probably LEO. Once the vehicle is tested out that way, they can send the first crew and it would not be a 4 person flight. If for no other reason then for psychological ones. A 4 person crew would need to be selected with NASA missions for compatibility and stress resistance. Meaning they would be NASA astronaut types. A larger group is much less likely to have these stress factors and can be selected to other criteria.
I love this thread!I think Heinlein had it right, specialization is for insects, and as with SiaSL, each crew member needs to be trained in EVERYTHING. There will be accidents, deaths, temporary disasters, etc with the crew possibly divided, temporarily stranded, etc, and the truck factor[1] needs to be very high. We have the internet and compact storage and comms, so it makes sense to take the sum of human knowledge with us, and have experts on tap back on Earth, but in an emergency (for at least certain classes of emergency) you do not have time to consult the manual, you need at least basic familiarity with the equipment that is reflexive.I like the OP list of skills but everyone needs everything at least a little. (I do agree with others upthread that piloting the MCT itself may not be AS important, but I think there will be a lot of piloting to do, if only UAVs or hoppers, or etc... 1 - IT joke, look at the skills needed for your project. If someone is the only person with a given skill, you are at truck factor one. One truck hitting one person and your project is dead in the water....
Heinlein did not have a clue about how societies and expeditions work. Yes, people will be multi-skilled and cross trained, but they will still be specialists.
I think 10 is a bit much.
...I think we should send James Cameron.
Quote from: Bynaus on 07/06/2016 01:56 pmFor the very first flight, which is a technology demonstrator and shakedown mission, you are not going to need geologists, geneticists, etc.I strongly disagree with this. The technology demonstrator is the unmanned flight that comes before the manned mission.The crew will probably spend at least a full synodic cycle on Mars. Simply waiting for the ISRU plant to make enough fuel for the flight back will take a long time. I'm sure they will do prospecting, scouting and research.
For the very first flight, which is a technology demonstrator and shakedown mission, you are not going to need geologists, geneticists, etc.
Quote from: jpo234 on 07/06/2016 11:34 amWhat crew would SpaceX send on the first manned mission?Diverse with respect to gender, race and possibly sexuality. Not disability though. Mostly American, but other nationalities if some nations are willing to cough up the cash. Telegenic and articulate (yes, professionally competent in a relevant skill, but the two are not incompatible and PR will be a relevant skill).
What crew would SpaceX send on the first manned mission?
2) They would have less time left to develop cancer from radiation damage.2) seems to be solid. So: Average age of the crew around 50?
I don't see where pilots will be useful.SX knows where the MCT will land. This is not 1969 electronics.
Pilots did not take over and fly the Space Shuttle during critical, precise Earth re-entry.
I once asked a member of the crew on one of those recreations of a 16th century square-rigged sailing ship why they carried (in the old days) such large crews of a couple hundred men, when these days they could sail the ship with a crew of under 20.. The answer was, "for spares". People fall overboard, and a square-rigged ship can't turn around to pick you up.
This is not 1969 electronics.
Quote from: philw1776 on 07/06/2016 04:36 pmI don't see where pilots will be useful.SX knows where the MCT will land. This is not 1969 electronics. I think the motto of the mission will be: Expect the unexpected. While I agree that the landing will be beyond a human to handle, is there really no contingency where a manual override could be necessary to save the mission?Quote from: philw1776 on 07/06/2016 04:36 pmPilots did not take over and fly the Space Shuttle during critical, precise Earth re-entry. Wrong. All Shuttle landings where manual. In fact, the first and only test of the autoland system during STS-3 was a debacle and commander Jack R. Lousma had to take over.
I think you missed the bit about 'precise Earth re-rentry', which AIUI was computer controlled.He wasn't talking about the landing - although the tech for that is solved for airliners, and therefore for shuttle, should it fly again!
Almost the entire Space Shuttle re-entry procedure, except for lowering the landing gear and deploying the air data probes, was normally performed under computer control. However, the re-entry could be flown entirely manually if an emergency arose. The approach and landing phase could be controlled by the autopilot, but was usually hand flown.
Quote from: guckyfan on 07/07/2016 03:42 amQuote from: su27k on 07/07/2016 02:57 amEven something as "simple" as going to the ISS will require two demo flights: one unmanned demo and one manned demo. So you can bet NASA will require a manned test flight first, i.e. no paid customers, no foreigners, no scientists, just enough astronauts and engineers to do a viable mission, # of people is probably 4 to 6 given past mission designs. And they won't stay on Mars for long if an immediate return is at all possible, just a quick look around, plant a flag, then back. The intention is to verify the whole system works with people in it, the other stuff can be left to later missions.Sure there will be such missions. But such tests will be done in cislunar space, probably LEO. Once the vehicle is tested out that way, they can send the first crew and it would not be a 4 person flight. If for no other reason then for psychological ones. A 4 person crew would need to be selected with NASA missions for compatibility and stress resistance. Meaning they would be NASA astronaut types. A larger group is much less likely to have these stress factors and can be selected to other criteria.I would also reiterate that this is not a NASA mission, and as such NASA won't have any real say-so as to what kind of precursor flights are required before people leave for Mars.If NASA and SpaceX agree that NASA will send some of their astronauts as crew, then NASA has the right to say whether or not they will let their people fly. But that's really it.As we've discussed, I certainly expect that the first SpaceX expedition to Mars will likely carry some NASA astronauts. But it won't be a NASA mission, and as such will not be under the command of NASA flight control. At farther than cislunar distances, command and control functions will devolve completely to onboard systems and personnel regardless, so it won't really matter, but still...
2. Less people also means less consumable to bring alone. I don't know the exact tonnage but I expect it would be significant, especially if you run part of the ECLSS in open loop.
A crew of four on a three-year martian mission eating only three meals each day would need to carry more than 24,000 pounds (10,886 kilograms) of food.