Author Topic: Polaris Program (Dragon and Starship crewed missions led by Isaacman)  (Read 153125 times)

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
The reg number N29UB returns a Mig-29UB

https://www.flightaware.com/resources/registration/N29UB

Personally I am unable to tell the difference between a Mig-29 and a SU-27. Which would be the other obvious answer.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2023 04:55 am by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
...To add, I think this is one of the Mig-29's owned by the late Paul Allen.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47512
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80382
  • Likes Given: 36361
Crosspost:

https://twitter.com/bccarcounters/status/1720584594058043497

Quote
Schedule note: This week @NASASpaceflight  Live will air on 4PM Eastern instead of 3PM, and as guests, we will have Jared Isaacman (@rookisaacman) and Tim Dodd (@Erdayastronaut) talking with @thejackbeyer!

Link for Sunday:



Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47512
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80382
  • Likes Given: 36361
Jared just said on NSF live that if he hadn't been invited to visit Starbase he doesn't think there'd be a Polaris Program. He said it was almost a religious experience visiting there.

Edit to add:

A joint SpaceX, Polaris and NASA report was submitted 5 to 6 months ago and was positive about helping Hubble.

The scope of the study was to boost Hubble and leave it healthier (i.e. repair it)
« Last Edit: 11/05/2023 08:29 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47512
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80382
  • Likes Given: 36361
Polaris III is an end-to-end Starship mission: launching on Starship, flying on Starship and landing with Starship. So not, for example, launching on Dragon and then docking to Starship.

Jared does not expect Polaris III to take precedence over Artemis, if the timing works out for an HLS mission first.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5359
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1694
Polaris III is an end-to-end Starship mission: launching on Starship, flying on Starship and landing with Starship. So not, for example, launching on Dragon and then docking to Starship.

Jared does not expect Polaris III to take precedence over Artemis, if the timing works out for an HLS mission first.
The first two Polaris flights are Dragon only. The third is Starship only, as currently described.

The three Polaris missions were promulgated on 2022, when the Crewed EDL Starship was still expected to fly by perhaps 2025. Lots of folks here think it won't get certified before about 2029 for various reasons. I know of no reason Jared and Elon cannot change the current plan and have Polaris  3 be a demo for for Starship docking in LEO. Of course, we have seen no indication from anyone that such a thing has been discussed, so it's all idle speculation.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5432
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1794
  • Likes Given: 1292
<snip>
The three Polaris missions were promulgated on 2022, when the Crewed EDL Starship was still expected to fly by perhaps 2025. Lots of folks here think it won't get certified before about 2029 for various reasons. I know of no reason Jared and Elon cannot change the current plan and have Polaris  3 be a demo for for Starship docking in LEO. Of course, we have seen no indication from anyone that such a thing has been discussed, so it's all idle speculation.
Will point out the certification is for flying NASA Astronauts not space flight participants (non-NASA Astronauts). Who can waived away liabilities with their flight like the people flying up in Spaceship Two and New Sheppard.

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Liked: 2277
  • Likes Given: 2170
Will point out the certification is for flying NASA Astronauts not space flight participants (non-NASA Astronauts). Who can waived away liabilities with their flight like the people flying up in Spaceship Two and New Sheppard.
That moratorium ended on Oct, 1st unless Congress extends the Commercial Space Launch Agreements Act, I think.
See Report recommends allowing “learning period” for commercial human spaceflight safety regulations to expire
Quote
“This is to say that we recommend that the moratorium set to expire on October 1, 2023, should expire on that date, but it will be important to ensure that the FAA is appropriately resourced to engage in these activities,”
« Last Edit: 11/06/2023 08:31 am by jpo234 »
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5993
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9165
  • Likes Given: 38
Will point out the certification is for flying NASA Astronauts not space flight participants (non-NASA Astronauts). Who can waived away liabilities with their flight like the people flying up in Spaceship Two and New Sheppard.
That moratorium ended on Oct, 1st unless Congress extends the Commercial Space Launch Agreements Act, I think.
See Report recommends allowing “learning period” for commercial human spaceflight safety regulations to expire
Quote
“This is to say that we recommend that the moratorium set to expire on October 1, 2023, should expire on that date, but it will be important to ensure that the FAA is appropriately resourced to engage in these activities,”
That's a moratorium on rulemaking, so the expiry date doesn't suddenly mean private spaceflight will immediately cease or a new set of rules to comply with will immediately pop into existence, just that that is the soonest date after which the FAA can start collaborating with private spaceflight providers on how future rules would work.
Regardless, the chances of the moratorium not being extended as it has before are very slim, and this has all discussed in more detail already in the Space Policy forum.

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1596
  • Likes Given: 50
Will point out the certification is for flying NASA Astronauts not space flight participants (non-NASA Astronauts). Who can waived away liabilities with their flight like the people flying up in Spaceship Two and New Sheppard.
That moratorium ended on Oct, 1st unless Congress extends the Commercial Space Launch Agreements Act, I think.
See Report recommends allowing “learning period” for commercial human spaceflight safety regulations to expire
Quote
“This is to say that we recommend that the moratorium set to expire on October 1, 2023, should expire on that date, but it will be important to ensure that the FAA is appropriately resourced to engage in these activities,”
That's a moratorium on rulemaking, so the expiry date doesn't suddenly mean private spaceflight will immediately cease or a new set of rules to comply with will immediately pop into existence, just that that is the soonest date after which the FAA can start collaborating with private spaceflight providers on how future rules would work.
Regardless, the chances of the moratorium not being extended as it has before are very slim, and this has all discussed in more detail already in the Space Policy forum.

Thread link for those interested in further reading:

Commercial human spaceflight regulations
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58601.0

Offline Barley

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1002
  • Liked: 669
  • Likes Given: 366
Will point out the certification is for flying NASA Astronauts not space flight participants (non-NASA Astronauts). Who can waived away liabilities with their flight like the people flying up in Spaceship Two and New Sheppard.
That moratorium ended on Oct, 1st unless Congress extends the Commercial Space Launch Agreements Act, I think.
See Report recommends allowing “learning period” for commercial human spaceflight safety regulations to expire
Quote
“This is to say that we recommend that the moratorium set to expire on October 1, 2023, should expire on that date, but it will be important to ensure that the FAA is appropriately resourced to engage in these activities,”
That's a moratorium on rulemaking, so the expiry date doesn't suddenly mean private spaceflight will immediately cease or a new set of rules to comply with will immediately pop into existence, just that that is the soonest date after which the FAA can start collaborating with private spaceflight providers on how future rules would work.
Regardless, the chances of the moratorium not being extended as it has before are very slim, and this has all discussed in more detail already in the Space Policy forum.
Pardon the interruption, but is October 1, 2023 a typo?  Unless I really messed up the end of daylight savings time we are now past that date and some of the tenses are wrong.

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1596
  • Likes Given: 50
Will point out the certification is for flying NASA Astronauts not space flight participants (non-NASA Astronauts). Who can waived away liabilities with their flight like the people flying up in Spaceship Two and New Sheppard.
That moratorium ended on Oct, 1st unless Congress extends the Commercial Space Launch Agreements Act, I think.
See Report recommends allowing “learning period” for commercial human spaceflight safety regulations to expire
Quote
“This is to say that we recommend that the moratorium set to expire on October 1, 2023, should expire on that date, but it will be important to ensure that the FAA is appropriately resourced to engage in these activities,”
That's a moratorium on rulemaking, so the expiry date doesn't suddenly mean private spaceflight will immediately cease or a new set of rules to comply with will immediately pop into existence, just that that is the soonest date after which the FAA can start collaborating with private spaceflight providers on how future rules would work.
Regardless, the chances of the moratorium not being extended as it has before are very slim, and this has all discussed in more detail already in the Space Policy forum.
Pardon the interruption, but is October 1, 2023 a typo?  Unless I really messed up the end of daylight savings time we are now past that date and some of the tenses are wrong.

Current moratorium (aka "learning period") expires January 1, 2024 (extended from the October date by H. R. 5860)
« Last Edit: 11/06/2023 03:25 pm by AnalogMan »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17220
  • Liked: 7077
  • Likes Given: 3050
One of the things mentioned by Isaacman in the NSF video posted above (at 22m of the video) is that Polaris 2 will involve a spacewalk no matter what (i.e., regardless whether NASA approves the Hubble mission). The objective is to keep improving the spacesuit for EVAs. In terms of the Polaris 2-Hubble mission, it would involve boosting it to a higher orbit and also the replacement of gyroscopes, provided that NASA approves of the mission.
« Last Edit: 11/13/2023 01:30 am by yg1968 »

Offline snotis

Jared Issacman with updates on the Polaris Down mission and the new EVA suit over on X/Twitter:

Quote
Hello Felix!
- I am at SpaceX today for EVA suit testing. This is an evolution of the dev suits.
- Suit pics will be released in advance of mission but I don't know when.
- ~April is the goal to launch & the pace of training is accelerating.
Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays.

https://x.com/rookisaacman/status/1733535996577517810

Quote
- Building and certifying new EVA suits for starters.  There is a big difference between an IVA suit that is a last line of defense in the vehicle vs. suit engineered from the start to be exposed to vacuum outside the spaceship.  That includes suit changes for mobility, life support redundancy, sun glare, some resiliency to MMOD.
- Similarly, the vehicle was designed to go to vacuum only in an emergency.  There are changes to software and ECLSS hardware to make an EVA a nominal operation.
- Laser-based communication over the Starlink constellation is not an easy task either.  Its not just turning the router switch to the ON position.   Every draco firing could break a link.
- We are flying higher and closer to the Van Allen belts than anyone has gone since Apollo 17.  The radiation exposure during those orbits over a few days is the equivalent to months on the ISS.  Avionics don't like radiation which means there is a lot to analyze and sim to get right.

SpaceX engineers are doing an outstanding job tackling big problems very quickly.

https://x.com/rookisaacman/status/1733618196769284432

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2808
  • Liked: 1062
  • Likes Given: 32
At this point should we assume no Hubble mission, considering the launch is fast approaching and no leaks of relevant training at NASA?

Offline Michael S

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 85
 I think it is safe to say that the Hubbell raising mission is not happening with the early Polaris missions. But I would not say that it is not happening at all. Let's be Frank. SpaceX has definitely earned reputation points and Isaacman is beginning to gain them as well, BUT the Hubbell telescope is a science program of the highest order. I do think that NASA will get on board with the basic proposal but i think there will be a NASA astronaut on board and it will include parts replacement too. 
  The alternative is that it is captured and brought back down for the Smithsonian.

I don't know, it's my 2 cents.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39255
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25206
  • Likes Given: 12104
At this point should we assume no Hubble mission, considering the launch is fast approaching and no leaks of relevant training at NASA?
They weren’t going to ever fix it on the first mission. The first mission is just testing the suit via EVA plus doing high altitude.

Why make this assumption at all? It ain’t over for the second mission until the second mission actually launches, which may not happen for years.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2023 02:33 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17220
  • Liked: 7077
  • Likes Given: 3050
« Last Edit: 02/01/2024 04:01 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17220
  • Liked: 7077
  • Likes Given: 3050

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17220
  • Liked: 7077
  • Likes Given: 3050
I think that this has been mentioned before but Isaacman says at 26 minutes of the video (linked in the post directly above this one) that the goal of the lower cost SpaceX spacesuits is that they will eventually be used by hundreds or thousands of astronauts that will walk on the Moon and Mars.

At 37-38m, Isaacman says that it is ridiculous that Artemis is flying every 3 years when the Apollo program lasted 3 years (he is probably thinking from 1969 to 1972 but it actually started earlier than that).

At 39m, he talks about the fact that the first lunar landings will be with SLS and HLS. He thinks that these lunar landings will be further delayed. He doesn't think that SpaceX will be the delay.

At 45m, he talks about the importance of having a permanent presence on the Moon. He says that the Moon is important but adds that what will test us is going to Mars. Mars will be the breakthrough moment.

At 58m, Isaacman is asked if he would like to go to Mars. He says that if he can contribute to it in some way, he would certainly be interested.

At 1h11m, he says that it will probably take 100 years before a Mars settlement is self-sustaining (i.e., when it doesn't have to rely on ships coming from Earth). 
« Last Edit: 02/03/2024 04:53 pm by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0