Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2017 06:42 pm
NSF Articles for Crewed Circumlunar Mission :
Booster Prep: SpaceX to fly two private individuals on a Dragon 2 lunar mission (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/spacex-two-citizens-dragon-2-lunar-mission/)
Livestream never worked...anyway this is the post-announcement thread.
Ah ha, a link:
http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year
Our article:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/spacex-two-citizens-dragon-2-lunar-mission/
Post by: Rebel44 on 02/27/2017 08:29 pm
Elon Musk announces SpaceX will launch a Dragon spacecraft with 2 people on board on a Falcon Heavy for a circumlunar mission in late 2018.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/836326945059180544
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/27/2017 08:31 pm
Quote
SpaceX/Update: Musk said the cost would be similar to what it would take for a private citizen to visit the space station
https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/836327448002330624 (https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/836327448002330624)
Post by: gongora on 02/27/2017 08:32 pm
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/27/2017 08:33 pm
Quote
Musk declined to identify the two individuals who would fly, beyond they know each other; they have paid a despite on the undisclosed price.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/836327349998202882 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/836327349998202882)
Post by: Marslauncher on 02/27/2017 08:33 pm
Quote
We are excited to announce that SpaceX has been approached to fly two private citizens on a trip around the moon late next year. They have already paid a significant deposit to do a moon mission. Like the Apollo astronauts before them, these individuals will travel into space carrying the hopes and dreams of all humankind, driven by the universal human spirit of exploration. We expect to conduct health and fitness tests, as well as begin initial training later this year. Other flight teams have also expressed strong interest and we expect more to follow. Additional information will be released about the flight teams, contingent upon their approval and confirmation of the health and fitness test results.
Most importantly, we would like to thank NASA, without whom this would not be possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, which provided most of the funding for Dragon 2 development, is a key enabler for this mission. In addition, this will make use of the Falcon Heavy rocket, which was developed with internal SpaceX funding. Falcon Heavy is due to launch its first test flight this summer and, once successful, will be the most powerful vehicle to reach orbit after the Saturn V moon rocket. At 5 million pounds of liftoff thrust, Falcon Heavy is two-thirds the thrust of Saturn V and more than double the thrust of the next largest launch vehicle currently flying.
Later this year, as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, we will launch our Crew Dragon (Dragon Version 2) spacecraft to the International Space Station. This first demonstration mission will be in automatic mode, without people on board. A subsequent mission with crew is expected to fly in the second quarter of 2018. SpaceX is currently contracted to perform an average of four Dragon 2 missions to the ISS per year, three carrying cargo and one carrying crew. By also flying privately crewed missions, which NASA has encouraged, long-term costs to the government decline and more flight reliability history is gained, benefiting both government and private missions.
Once operational Crew Dragon missions are underway for NASA, SpaceX will launch the private mission on a journey to circumnavigate the moon and return to Earth. Lift-off will be from Kennedy Space Center’s historic Pad 39A near Cape Canaveral – the same launch pad used by the Apollo program for its lunar missions. This presents an opportunity for humans to return to deep space for the first time in 45 years and they will travel faster and further into the Solar System than any before them.
Designed from the beginning to carry humans, the Dragon spacecraft already has a long flight heritage. These missions will build upon that heritage, extending it to deep space mission operations, an important milestone as we work towards our ultimate goal of transporting humans to Mars.
Post by: symbios on 02/27/2017 08:33 pm
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/27/14754404/spacex-moon-mission-2018-elon-musk-announces-private-citizen-passengers
"The company expects to fly an uncrewed Dragon 2 with Falcon 9 to ISS by the end of this year. There will be another mission six months later with a NASA crew. Six months after that, if all goes as planned, is when the two people would fly around the Moon.
If NASA decides they want to do the first lunar mission, NASA would have priority. For its part, SpaceX expects to do more than one Moon mission. “Next year is going to be the big year for carrying people,” says Musk. Other flight teams have already expressed interest in going on future trips."
Post by: Star One on 02/27/2017 08:34 pm
Post by: andrewsdanj on 02/27/2017 08:34 pm
Post by: shooter6947 on 02/27/2017 08:35 pm
Post by: CraigLieb on 02/27/2017 08:36 pm
Post by: First Mate Rummey on 02/27/2017 08:36 pm
Post by: clongton on 02/27/2017 08:37 pm
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/27/2017 08:39 pm
Quote
Here is @elonmusk's full quote when asked the implications of this flight with regard to first SLS/Orion crewed mission. Interesting.
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/836329155973230592 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/836329155973230592)
Post by: clongton on 02/27/2017 08:40 pm
Apollo 8!!! so much for the suits!
Not quite. Apollo 8 actually entered lunar orbit. This mission would not do that but swing around the far side of the moon on a free return trajectory without entering lunar orbit.
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/27/2017 08:41 pm
Matthew
Post by: DaveS on 02/27/2017 08:42 pm
Apollo 8!!! so much for the suits!Apollo 8 was lunar-orbital, not circumlunar. Think Apollo 13 instead and the Soviet Zond missions.
Post by: jpo234 on 02/27/2017 08:42 pm
Apollo 13 then, hopefully without the drama.Apollo 8!!! so much for the suits!
Not quite. Apollo 8 actually entered lunar orbit. This mission would not do that but swing around the far side of the moon on a free return trajectory without entering lunar orbit.
Post by: Jet Black on 02/27/2017 08:42 pm
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 02/27/2017 08:44 pm
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.It provides them with 'deep' space tracking and control experience, long-ish term ECLSS experience, BEO reentry experience and brings in hard cash. Can't see how this is anything but a win-win-win-win situation.
Matthew
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2017 08:44 pm
Post by: toruonu on 02/27/2017 08:44 pm
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.It provides them with 'deep' space tracking and control experience, long-ish term ECLSS experience, BEO reentry experience and brings in hard cash. Can't see how this is anything but a win-win-win-win situation.
Matthew
Well the Lose part comes when they somehow manage to die on the mission :)
Post by: Basto on 02/27/2017 08:44 pm
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
Matthew
So if a government pays for it, it's serious?
Post by: pb2000 on 02/27/2017 08:45 pm
Sounds like a free-return trajectory, presumably, without a SM for a lunar orbit insertion burn and later trans-Earth injection?The dragon trunk could possibly be modified to hold more fuel, it would just a be a question of if the existing (super) draco engines could perform the required burns.
Post by: Alpha Control on 02/27/2017 08:45 pm
Post by: KDH on 02/27/2017 08:46 pm
Post by: andrewsdanj on 02/27/2017 08:46 pm
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
Matthew
And what will the Mars colonists be? They'll be paying large sums of money in return for a rather long trip to Muskville.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/27/2017 08:46 pm
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
I think it's important to separate adventurism from tourism. Adventurers take risks that can't be fully calculated, whereas tourist take few risks.
For instance, Dick Rutan and Jeana Yeager were not tourists when they flew around the world without landing, but adventurers.
Adventurers pave the way for not only tourism, but commerce too.
Post by: neoforce on 02/27/2017 08:47 pm
If I was the paying customer, I would feel more comfortable that they are certified by NASA for commercial crew AND they successfully demonstrated the Circumlunar flight path
Post by: meekGee on 02/27/2017 08:47 pm
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.Nah. Never has there been a more far looking company.
Matthew
But.
Use opportunity to practice deep space ops, high velocity return? Why not?
It's as near-sighted as flying supply missions to the ISS, or wasting time launching comsats....
Post by: Mongo62 on 02/27/2017 08:48 pm
Sounds like a free-return trajectory, presumably, without a SM for a lunar orbit insertion burn and later trans-Earth injection?The dragon trunk could possibly be modified to hold more fuel, it would just a be a question of if the existing (super) draco engines could perform the required burns.
I wouldn't use Superdracos, since ordinary Dracos apparently have much better Isp. The burn would take longer for a given delta V, but use less propellant, and in the trajectory apparently being considered, the longer burn time does not really matter.
Post by: eric z on 02/27/2017 08:48 pm
Post by: Star One on 02/27/2017 08:48 pm
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
Matthew
No this is how commercial space should be done. This is exactly the kind of fully private initiative I want to see from them that also drives interest in space exploration, especially if the two passengers are celebrities.
Post by: clongton on 02/27/2017 08:49 pm
Post by: Space Opera on 02/27/2017 08:51 pm
Any speculation if they will do an unmanned dry run?This is not "speculation", this is clearly explained it will be the case in the official statement.
Post by: yg1968 on 02/27/2017 08:51 pm
Post by: Lars-J on 02/27/2017 08:51 pm
Post by: jpo234 on 02/27/2017 08:52 pm
Gesendet von meinem SM-T800 mit Tapatalk
Post by: blasphemer on 02/27/2017 08:52 pm
Post by: envy887 on 02/27/2017 08:52 pm
Apollo 8!!! so much for the suits!
Not quite. Apollo 8 actually entered lunar orbit. This mission would not do that but swing around the far side of the moon on a free return trajectory without entering lunar orbit.
Dragon 2 could probably use its landing fuel and RCS Dracos to insert into DRO for an orbit or two, then return under chutes. I doubt they will to that on this mission, but it's a possibility.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2017 08:53 pm
Bezos is doing a business meant for rapid repeated flights. He wants volume to build a reliable business.
Musk wants to enable his Mars adventurism market by bootstrapping it with a lunar adventurism market. He doesn't need volume, he just needs to prove its market existence with a few missions.
That said, he's clearly frozen Bezos balls.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/27/2017 08:53 pm
Am I alone in this?
Post by: geza on 02/27/2017 08:53 pm
Apollo 8 was the first shot of the Saturn-V sending anything toward the moon.
Yes, but there was a unmanned test of the high-speed reentry by the Apollo capsule.
Post by: Toast on 02/27/2017 08:53 pm
Post by: Confusador on 02/27/2017 08:53 pm
Any speculation if they will do an unmanned dry run?This is not "speculation", this is clearly explained it will be the case in the official statement.
The dry run mentioned is to the ISS, it does not appear they're going to do a lunar dry run.
Post by: gospacex on 02/27/2017 08:54 pm
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
This is after many threads which struggle to find a way to make $$$ on spaceflight. Now someone does make $$$ on spaceflight.
Post by: robert_d on 02/27/2017 08:54 pm
Any speculation if they will do an unmanned dry run? Maybe with the Falcon Heavy demo?That becomes a great idea now - send a used Dragon 1 around the Moon to test Comm and Heat Shield. If enough weight margin, drop a commsat at EML-2.
If I was the paying customer, I would feel more comfortable that they are certified by NASA for commercial crew AND they successfully demonstrated the Circumlunar flight path
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 02/27/2017 08:54 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).I see your point, but what science could be done? It's a free return flyby, presumably with tight payload margins. It will mostly likely be entirely automated anyway.
Am I alone in this?
Post by: Bynaus on 02/27/2017 08:55 pm
PS: I don't think it says so in the announcement. The unmanned mission mentioned there is DM-1 (to the ISS).
Post by: envy887 on 02/27/2017 08:56 pm
Can we do a back of the envelope calculation of the price? My gu is about $500 million...
NASA buys CRS missions for ~$125 million. This basically just adds 2 (reusable) side boosters which are ~$40 million each new, so I'd say the cost is unlikely to be more than $200 million and could be much less.
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/27/2017 08:56 pm
Now, you can say it, I was right... ;)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42319.0
Post by: Star One on 02/27/2017 08:56 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
This is very much in line of where companies like Space X are going to make their money. This is what commercial space should be outside of government.
Post by: jsgirald on 02/27/2017 08:57 pm
Post by: Eagandale4114 on 02/27/2017 08:58 pm
No mention of a crew, only 2 passengers?
No crew. Just the passengers.
Post by: jpo234 on 02/27/2017 08:58 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).I think the importance is that these are the very first baby steps to a cislunar economy. Tourism is one of the biggest industries on earth.
Am I alone in this?
Post by: Craftyatom on 02/27/2017 08:58 pm
Post by: alang on 02/27/2017 08:59 pm
However, the end of 2019 seems more likely and I hope doesn't mangle red dragon plans.
Also, the first time SpaceX kills people will be a significant psychological moment for the company, I hope they take their time.
Post by: Bynaus on 02/27/2017 08:59 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
Would you rather have these wealthy individuals spend their money on overpriced wines, cars, and yachts? They are investing it in SpaceX instead, a company that will bring us to Mars one day!
Post by: yg1968 on 02/27/2017 08:59 pm
Can we do a back of the envelope calculation of the price? My gu is about $500 million...
The Russians were offering a similar mission for $150 million for each spaceflight participant. So I am guessing something closer to that amount.
Post by: LM13 on 02/27/2017 09:00 pm
Can we do a back of the envelope calculation of the price? My gu is about $500 million...
Gesendet von meinem SM-T800 mit Tapatalk
SpaceX said in 2012 that their aim is $160 M per Dragon 2 flight. Minus $60 million for F9, that's $100 M per Dragon 2. Plus $100 M for FH, and we can estimate a price of slightly over $200 M (with some extra for mission-specific costs like communications).
Post by: geza on 02/27/2017 09:00 pm
No mention of a crew, only 2 passengers?People, who are going to spend so much money, are probaly ready to learn to push the abort button in case...
Post by: Jakusb on 02/27/2017 09:00 pm
What are the odds that Trumps want to own that show and demands NASA to either get there first or put NASA astronauts in the MoonDragon?
Post by: docmordrid on 02/27/2017 09:00 pm
(Garrett Reisman)
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/27/2017 09:00 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).Once they prove the concept, perhaps they could increase the future crews by 1x person. I would love it if each 'wealthy individual' who got a seat had to nominate a young science or engineering student to either accompany them or take the next flight in the series! Or perhaps Elon and a commercial entity could start a scholarship fund to get young folk in on this venture. In less than a generation, it could substantially reduce the proliferation of 'Hoaxtard' thinking.
Am I alone in this?
Post by: bob the martian on 02/27/2017 09:00 pm
SpaceX is stepping on some pretty big toes with this announcement. We knew it was going to happen eventually, though.
Having said all that...whoa. Talk about a test under fire. Guidance, comms, ECLSS, hot return, plus the very real risk of death. If anyone can pull it off SpaceX can, but...woof.
Post by: envy887 on 02/27/2017 09:00 pm
This makes me nervous the same way a crewed EM-1 mission does. On the other hand, Falcon Heavy and Dragon should have a few flights under their belts by then, which retires the risk substantially. Other than the Falcon Heavy demo mission, though, do we have any idea how many FH launches we'll see by next year? Seems high risk--if stuff goes south, SpaceX could have a PR disaster on their hands that could jeopardize their long-term goals.
STP-2 should fly shortly after the demo. The boosters for that flight are already built, per russianhalo.
Post by: Machdiamond on 02/27/2017 09:01 pm
"[Elon Musk] said the passengers will be paying roughly the same amount as previous tourists have spent to visit the space station. That would be somewhere between $50 million and $80 million."
Looking forward to the full transcript of that telcon.
Post by: HailColumbia on 02/27/2017 09:01 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
meh... only two tourists, I'm sure there will be one or two Space X crew / astronauts on board as well. I doubt they are going to go fully automated.
Post by: Lars-J on 02/27/2017 09:01 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
I understand your concern, but think - Is it magically better if it is government employees rather than tourists? We need to get out of the state of mind that only a few NASA employees a year can go to space. If all this does is break that mold, then it is not necessarily a bad thing.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2017 09:01 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
"I'm happy and sad for you" - Real Genius
You're sad that a screwed up superpower and its politics conspired to waste decades to explore space because they couldn't collectively get its act together to marshal a follow on to Shuttle that could build a national security "soft power" response as a country.
You should be glad that there's a commercial means to do so that has eventually gotten into a position that it can be done as a service. Granted, only billionaires can afford it, but still, its a service.
Who knows, perhaps both will learn something from each other, and perhaps there might be sustainable engineering reasons for the costs to come down, and for economic return to be bootstrapped, such that both might do better.
I think that public/private is a great way to go.
Post by: Lars-J on 02/27/2017 09:02 pm
This makes me nervous the same way a crewed EM-1 mission does. On the other hand, Falcon Heavy and Dragon should have a few flights under their belts by then, which retires the risk substantially. Other than the Falcon Heavy demo mission, though, do we have any idea how many FH launches we'll see by next year? Seems high risk--if stuff goes south, SpaceX could have a PR disaster on their hands that could jeopardize their long-term goals.
If SpaceX is serious about this, I would expect an unmanned lunar flight first.
Post by: pb2000 on 02/27/2017 09:02 pm
No mention of a crew, only 2 passengers?
From SpaceX news post:
"Other flight teams have also expressed strong interest and we expect more to follow. Additional information will be released about the flight teams, contingent upon their approval and confirmation of the health and fitness test results."
Suggests to me that the other seats are for sale, but the existing two are willing to pay for the whole show themselves if nobody else steps up.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/27/2017 09:02 pm
Yes - and they've been talking about this for donkey's years and done zilch about it!! Sadly, a bit typical! Putin could have ordered a demo flight years ago of a lunar Soyuz, but didn't.Can we do a back of the envelope calculation of the price? My gu is about $500 million...
The Russians were offering a similar mission for $150 million for each spaceflight participant. So I am guessing something closer to that amount.
Post by: yg1968 on 02/27/2017 09:03 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
That's what NASA astronauts are for. They each have their merit.
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/27/2017 09:03 pm
Post by: Eric Hedman on 02/27/2017 09:03 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/27/elon-musks-spacex-plans-to-fly-two-private-citizens-around-the-moon-by-late-next-year/?utm_term=.92382e2b6b7d (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/27/elon-musks-spacex-plans-to-fly-two-private-citizens-around-the-moon-by-late-next-year/?utm_term=.92382e2b6b7d)
Post by: as58 on 02/27/2017 09:04 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
meh... only two tourists, I'm sure there will be one or two Space X crew / astronauts on board as well. I doubt they are going to go fully automated.
Quotes from the media call like https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/836327385016434690 seem to be quite clear that this is not the case.
Post by: nacnud on 02/27/2017 09:04 pm
Totally open for discussion, but posting "wow" is not worth people's finger scrolling. So make a point. :)
Guilty as charge, I just woke up and read this, hadn't kicked my thinking brain into gear. So...
Wow
But moving on this is what commercial spaceflight should be, riding on government coattails will only get you so far. Now where are all the nerdy details to geek over? ;D ;D
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/27/2017 09:04 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
Would you rather have these wealthy individuals spend their money on overpriced wines, cars, and yachts? They are investing it in SpaceX instead, a company that will bring us to Mars one day!
Do you begrudge wealthy people their Tesla Roadsters and Model Ss that enable development of the Model 3? Wealthy people tend to be the ones that open up all sorts of new markets (eg mobile phones in the 1980s). We know where government space programmes get us; time to open things up I say.
Post by: Jakusb on 02/27/2017 09:04 pm
I personally have Tesla stock, not for the potential to earn big, but simply to support the Tesla Dream! Unfortunately not enough to get something like this in return.
Post by: jsgirald on 02/27/2017 09:04 pm
No mention of a crew, only 2 passengers?People, who are going to spend so much money, are probaly ready to learn to push the abort button in case...
But think of a solvable problem, not nearly Apollo 13 leves of bad, wouldn't they like to have a pro who knows what to do and stay calm?
Post by: HighlandRay on 02/27/2017 09:05 pm
Post by: Star One on 02/27/2017 09:05 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
Would you rather have these wealthy individuals spend their money on overpriced wines, cars, and yachts? They are investing it in SpaceX instead, a company that will bring us to Mars one day!
Absolutely spot on. Better they drive space exploration that other less palatable options.
Post by: JamesH65 on 02/27/2017 09:05 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
If I had enough money to do this, would I spend it on someone else doing it?
No, no I wouldn't. I'd damn well go myself. If you have money, why can't you spend it on yourself?
On the even brighter side, this will fund a huge amount of development that previous SpaceX would have to fund themselves.
Post by: Jarnis on 02/27/2017 09:06 pm
No mention of a crew, only 2 passengers?
Autopilot is the crew :)
Dragon 2 is designed to be fully automatic anyway. Just self-loading cargo.
Now obviously whoever is paying for the trip gets trained for all foreseeable emergencies, just like astronauts would be, but during nominal mission they would not need to do anything except observe.
Respect to whoever is forking out quite the sum for a seat on this historic adventure.
Post by: Orbiter on 02/27/2017 09:06 pm
Post by: jpo234 on 02/27/2017 09:06 pm
Surely this refers to a different flight. They can't stuff more than 3 people into a dragon for a full week.No mention of a crew, only 2 passengers?
From SpaceX news post:
"Other flight teams have also expressed strong interest and we expect more to follow. Additional information will be released about the flight teams, contingent upon their approval and confirmation of the health and fitness test results."
Suggests to me that the other seats are for sale, but the existing two are willing to pay for the whole show themselves if nobody else steps up.
Post by: georgegassaway on 02/27/2017 09:07 pm
I was wondering about a retro-burn shortly before re-entry to reduce velocity a bit, but have no idea if there would likely be enough fuel left (If needed, if the current heat shield is only good for LEO re-entry velocities).
Side note, please be careful about political garbage, I could see that get out of hand real quick.
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/27/2017 09:07 pm
So, coincidence that just when Trump seems to start pushing NASA to go for the moon first, Elon might beat them too it...?!Not going to happen, he could care less... However; he'll still take credit for it when it happens during his term knowing him...
What are the odds that Trumps want to own that show and demands NASA to either get there first or put NASA astronauts in the MoonDragon?
Post by: Star One on 02/27/2017 09:07 pm
I love the name MoonDragon. His is what we have all been waiting for and more than justifies the funding of commercial flights to ISS. Well done Elon and all at SpaceX
Doesn't that name infringe a Marvel copyrighted character.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moondragon
Post by: gospacex on 02/27/2017 09:07 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?.
The problem with it is ... ?
Quote
This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life.
I am angry when, say, rich people manage to circumvent the law with their money. Here, I don't see a slightest problem: they spend their money for a fleeting moment of fame - and to help SpaceX finance R&D. Fine with me.
Quote
I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
You are free to become a billionaire and then do that.
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 02/27/2017 09:07 pm
No mention of a crew, only 2 passengers?
No crew. Just the passengers.
Goes to show you how completely automated SpaceX D2 will be.....No "pilot" needed..even to a trip around the moon !!
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/27/2017 09:08 pm
That being said, will definitely be delayed into 2019, and 2020 and even -21 aren't beyond the scope of delay (this is SpaceX after all)
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 02/27/2017 09:08 pm
Is it certain that the existing Dragon heat shield can withstand the faster re-entry from returning back from the moon?Dragon heatshield has always been said to be ok for BEO. And that's current Dragon.
I was wondering about a retro-burn shortly before re-entry to reduce velocity a bit, but have no idea if there would likely be enough fuel left (If needed, if the current heat shield is only good for LEO re-entry velocities)
Post by: Oli on 02/27/2017 09:09 pm
2018 sounds super optimistic to me though as usual. First the FH and Dragon 2 must prove themselves before flying tourists around the Moon. Unless this is meant to be a political statement...
Post by: Jakusb on 02/27/2017 09:09 pm
I love the name MoonDragon. His is what we have all been waiting for and more than justifies the funding of commercial flights to ISS. Well done Elon and all at SpaceX
Doesn't that name infringe a Marvel copyrighted character.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moondragon
Play it smart and both companies might love the usage.
Post by: jpo234 on 02/27/2017 09:09 pm
Once the dragon is underway, there is little that can be done. There is no engine to do fancy maneuvers.No mention of a crew, only 2 passengers?People, who are going to spend so much money, are probaly ready to learn to push the abort button in case...
But think of a solvable problem, not nearly Apollo 13 leves of bad, wouldn't they like to have a pro who knows what to do and stay calm?
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/27/2017 09:11 pm
Post by: envy887 on 02/27/2017 09:12 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
If NASA wants to send scientists of Dragon 2, they can:
Quote
"If NASA decides they want to do the first lunar orbit mission, obviously we would give them priority," Musk said.
Post by: gospacex on 02/27/2017 09:13 pm
Those that aren't happy, just think of how many SpaceX lunar missions could have been funded with what has been already spent on CxP/SLS/Orion thus far... The waste...
Some $20B and counting?
Post by: cebri on 02/27/2017 09:13 pm
On the other hand, i'm quite intriged about the process here. Not really liking that this is something that hasn't come out of SpaceX but from this two people that have asked for this flight. As some other people have pointed out, this mission could put SpaceX at the lead of the race for going back beyond LEO, but a LOC could be very damaging to their reputation.
Also, whatever elon says, NASA will surely take this as a direct attack on SLS.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2017 09:14 pm
Those that aren't happy, just think of how many SpaceX lunar missions could have been funded with what has been already spent on CxP/SLS/Orion thus far... The waste...
Don't think of it that way.
Think of it as a "pivot". To survive, they have to leverage all that work. So now they have "motivation".
If they don't do it, someone else will. Before it was a insane boast. Now its real.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/27/2017 09:16 pm
But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry.
Tourists take calculated risks for things that have been done before.
If something hasn't been done before (i.e. the risks can't fully be calculated), then those doing it are adventurers.
Quote
People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life.
Charles Lindbergh would not have been able to fly from New York City to Paris without the backing of rich investors, but also many adventurers self-fund themselves. Do we really care how much money of their own money they are spending?
Quote
I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
It's a ride inside an aluminum can. And it looks to be a pretty boring one until they approach the Moon, or are approaching Earth. But otherwise it looks to be a lot of "hey, the Moon/Earth is getting closer" type observations. Plus it's likely to be rather odorous as the flight goes on...
Quote
Am I alone in this?
Apparently not.
My view though is that this will help to breakdown the barriers to sending more people into space that are not government employees or rich people. And that is the goal that SpaceX is working towards, certainly for colonizing Mars.
So this does fit into Musk's long-term plans. And it should be pretty inspiring, regardless what their bank accounts look like...
My $0.02
Post by: Eric Hedman on 02/27/2017 09:16 pm
Post by: gin455res on 02/27/2017 09:16 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
Would you rather have these wealthy individuals spend their money on overpriced wines, cars, and yachts? They are investing it in SpaceX instead, a company that will bring us to Mars one day!
MoonOne reality show to find the passengers, anyone?
Post by: jsgirald on 02/27/2017 09:16 pm
Once the dragon is underway, there is little that can be done. There is no engine to do fancy maneuvers.No mention of a crew, only 2 passengers?People, who are going to spend so much money, are probaly ready to learn to push the abort button in case...
But think of a solvable problem, not nearly Apollo 13 leves of bad, wouldn't they like to have a pro who knows what to do and stay calm?
Yes, no need for fancy maneuvers, but still something critical might break (say ECLSS).
I re-watched Apollo 13 just yesterday, those guys had years of training, first as pilots and engineers and later as astronauts. I don't think an amateur can reach that level in a couple of years.
Post by: bdub217 on 02/27/2017 09:17 pm
Quote
Later this year, as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, we will launch our Crew Dragon (Dragon Version 2) spacecraft to the International Space Station.
Currently slated for November 2017. This launch is scheduled behind: 5 commercial launches from KSC, 3 Dragon CRS missions from KSC, 3 commercial launches from VAFB, and 2 Falcon Heavy launches. Anybody want to bet a buck that they are not quite ready for 13 launches in 8 months? So lets be generous and say Dragon2 maiden flight happens a year from now, March 2018.
Quote
This first demonstration mission will be in automatic mode, without people on board. A subsequent mission with crew is expected to fly in the second quarter of 2018.
Lets be generous again and say the first commercial crew flight slides to the end of 3Q or September 2018.
Quote
SpaceX is currently contracted to perform an average of four Dragon 2 missions to the ISS per year, three carrying cargo and one carrying crew. . . .
Once operational Crew Dragon missions are underway for NASA, SpaceX will launch the private mission on a journey to circumnavigate the moon and return to Earth.
Very fuzzy wording here. Again, to be generous, lets say this means he’d want to see two more commercial crew flights to the ISS, or 1 per quarter before the moon shot. Lets be generous again and say that’s once every 5 months, so that’s 10 months after the first commercial crew, or July 2019. Add a generous two month turnaround and that gets us to September 2019.
Realistically, I don’t see this happening before 2Q of 2020. But hey, “sometime next year” sounds a lot more sexy.
Post by: guckyfan on 02/27/2017 09:18 pm
But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry.
...................
Am I alone in this?
It isreally not NASAs fault. They have to do what they are told to.
Or who are you angry at?
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 02/27/2017 09:18 pm
If NASA wants to send scientists of Dragon 2, they can:Quote"If NASA decides they want to do the first lunar orbit mission, obviously we would give them priority," Musk said.
I have to admit that while I feel incredibly excited about this announcement I was a little miffed that the first flight would go to tourists. I am not against space tourism at all. I just want the first people to return to the moon in 45 yrs to be representatives of the whole country, not tourists. After hearing what Musk said above I feel much better.
Even if the private crew goes first I will still be very excited and supportive of this amazing mission!
Post by: Semmel on 02/27/2017 09:19 pm
So my glass ball is full of tea leaves, but it predicts a D2 going around the moon for the FH demo test flight.
Post by: launchwatcher on 02/27/2017 09:21 pm
I'm not an intellectual property lawyer but my understanding is that names are a matter for trademarks, not copyrights, and trademarks are scoped to particular domains. As a trademark, Apple the computer doesn't conflict with Apple the fruit or Apple the record company.I love the name MoonDragon. His is what we have all been waiting for and more than justifies the funding of commercial flights to ISS. Well done Elon and all at SpaceX
Doesn't that name infringe a Marvel copyrighted character.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moondragon
As comic book characters don't directly compete with lunar space tourism...
Post by: craigcocca on 02/27/2017 09:22 pm
Once the dragon is underway, there is little that can be done. There is no engine to do fancy maneuvers.No mention of a crew, only 2 passengers?People, who are going to spend so much money, are probaly ready to learn to push the abort button in case...
But think of a solvable problem, not nearly Apollo 13 leves of bad, wouldn't they like to have a pro who knows what to do and stay calm?
Yes, no need for fancy maneuvers, but still something critical might break (say ECLSS).
I re-watched Apollo 13 just yesterday, those guys had years of training, first as pilots and engineers and later as astronauts. I don't think an amateur can reach that level in a couple of years.
Granted, some training for our two unnamed tourist-astronauts would be a good idea. But also remember that we've gone from flying to the moon with a computer that is as powerful as a scientific pocket calculator (1969-1972) to a world where we have cars that are better drivers than humans (Tesla, as demonstrated by the 40% reduction in Tesla crashes since Autopilot launched). With that in mind, the two tourists are probably just along for the ride and won't have much to do. And, as long as they are on a free return trajectory, then the only two things that have to work on Dragon post launch are life support and the landing system (parachutes or Super Dracos)...everything else is controlled by Sir Isaac Newton.
Post by: wannamoonbase on 02/27/2017 09:23 pm
Perhaps more sadly... :(Those that aren't happy, just think of how many SpaceX lunar missions could have been funded with what has been already spent on CxP/SLS/Orion thus far... The waste...
Some $20B and counting?
At $200 million for MoonDragon there would be 100 lunar flyby missions for $20B.
Too bad congress dictates how NASA builds rockets.
I'm excited about this, very excited, but this isn't a slam dunk or some new level for SpaceX until those passengers are back on the ground.
Also, anyone care to speculate on whether they will need FAA approval for Dragon 2 to fly paying passengers? This doesn't seem like something that can be ignored.
Edit: hard to see how there won't be a test flight. Navigation, autopilot, re-entry. Not something you want to do the first time with live cargo.
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/27/2017 09:24 pm
Post by: craigcocca on 02/27/2017 09:24 pm
If NASA wants to send scientists of Dragon 2, they can:Quote"If NASA decides they want to do the first lunar orbit mission, obviously we would give them priority," Musk said.
I have to admit that while I feel incredibly excited about this announcement I was a little miffed that the first flight would go to tourists. I am not against space tourism at all. I just want the first people to return to the moon in 45 yrs to be representatives of the whole country, not tourists. After hearing what Musk said above I feel much better.
Even if the private crew goes first I will still be very excited and supportive of this amazing mission!
Wouldn't it be a trip if one of the tourists is Elon?
EDIT: Even better....Sir Richard Branson and Elon <ducks>
Post by: JamesH65 on 02/27/2017 09:24 pm
Once the dragon is underway, there is little that can be done. There is no engine to do fancy maneuvers.No mention of a crew, only 2 passengers?People, who are going to spend so much money, are probaly ready to learn to push the abort button in case...
But think of a solvable problem, not nearly Apollo 13 leves of bad, wouldn't they like to have a pro who knows what to do and stay calm?
Yes, no need for fancy maneuvers, but still something critical might break (say ECLSS).
I re-watched Apollo 13 just yesterday, those guys had years of training, first as pilots and engineers and later as astronauts. I don't think an amateur can reach that level in a couple of years.
I dunno. There are some pretty smart people out there - you generally don't acquire large amounts of cash without some level of intelligence (unless you inherit it - Trump?). Did the training the Apollo guys get enable them to duct tape containers together? Or is that something any intelligent person could do. Of course, there are lots of switches in Apollo to learn - that's not the case in Dragon where everything is automated, or computer controlled.
Post by: jpo234 on 02/27/2017 09:24 pm
So my glass ball is full of tea leaves, but it predicts a D2 going around the moon for the FH demo test flight.
Would there be a Dragon in time for the demo flight? I very much doubt this...
Post by: Jdeshetler on 02/27/2017 09:25 pm
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/27/2017 09:25 pm
But the very most I might be able to afford would be a Branson or Bezos sub-orbital flight :( :)
...I find it interesting that in some of the threads I've participated in, the ideas for 'Lunar Dragon' missions have been batted to-and-fro, with greater or lesser detail and agreements. Now, it seems that an idea I had for doing Lunar orbital and/or basic landing missions with dual Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy launches are much closer to credible:
Launch a 20-22 ton spacecraft capable of inserting itself into Lunar orbit on a Falcon 9. Then, launch a Falcon Heavy a day or so later with an Earth Departure Stage (Falcon upper stage). The spacecraft docks with the EDS and TLI to the Moon, Alice! This would be a slimmed-down version of the Constellation paradigm, but done with cheaper Commercial launchers and spacecraft. Moon Dragon could have a 'propulsion pallet' mounted in it's Trunk - either a cluster of standard Dracos to slow it into Lunar orbit, or a modified Super Draco with an extension nozzle for better Specific Impulse.
In other threads, the mighty Space Ghost1962, myself and others have speculated on a Lunar landing Dragon - no weighty Earth entry heatshield or parachutes, and either a 'crasher stage' for most of the descent, drop tanks or 'saddle bag' tanks for propellant supplies to and from the Lunar surface. Or better and more likely yet: adapt the Space X engines to an all-new, purpose-built craft for 2x person descent and ascent.
The sky literally is, the limit...
Post by: wannamoonbase on 02/27/2017 09:26 pm
So my glass ball is full of tea leaves, but it predicts a D2 going around the moon for the FH demo test flight.
Would there be a Dragon in time for the demo flight? I very much doubt this...
But maybe not if they started on that a year ago and strip out some things that weren't critical. And if it can be refurbished maybe not that expensively either.
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/27/2017 09:27 pm
Or even a lunar base with mining operations....Perhaps more sadly... :(Those that aren't happy, just think of how many SpaceX lunar missions could have been funded with what has been already spent on CxP/SLS/Orion thus far... The waste...
Some $20B and counting?
At $200 million for MoonDragon there would be 100 lunar flyby missions for $20B.
Too bad congress dictates how NASA builds rockets.
Post by: JamesH65 on 02/27/2017 09:28 pm
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2017 09:28 pm
Now develop a service module with some kick and if NASA builds and launches their deep space habitatUnlikely.
Quote
and you have commercial crew to the Moon.Likely.
Where you get them interacting is in the vehicles and flight frequency. Because there is more qualified capability that becomes cheaper with repeated use.
Likely CC role expands here, in providing "point capabilities" needed, while private absorbs incrementally greater scope.
So after you do some free returns, then they'll move up to a week in lunar orbit, and then to surface access.
If govt ups its game, it wil be to do sorties to the surface, where CC derivatives could advance landers. That's why I did the thread on them.
Post by: jsgirald on 02/27/2017 09:28 pm
Once the dragon is underway, there is little that can be done. There is no engine to do fancy maneuvers.No mention of a crew, only 2 passengers?People, who are going to spend so much money, are probaly ready to learn to push the abort button in case...
But think of a solvable problem, not nearly Apollo 13 leves of bad, wouldn't they like to have a pro who knows what to do and stay calm?
Yes, no need for fancy maneuvers, but still something critical might break (say ECLSS).
I re-watched Apollo 13 just yesterday, those guys had years of training, first as pilots and engineers and later as astronauts. I don't think an amateur can reach that level in a couple of years.
Granted, some training for our two unnamed tourist-astronauts would be a good idea. But also remember that we've gone from flying to the moon with a computer that is as powerful as a scientific pocket calculator (1969-1972) to a world where we have cars that are better drivers than humans (Tesla, as demonstrated by the 40% reduction in Tesla crashes since Autopilot launched). With that in mind, the two tourists are probably just along for the ride and won't have much to do. And, as long as they are on a free return trajectory, then the only two things that have to work on Dragon post launch are life support and the landing system (parachutes or Super Dracos)...everything else is controlled by Sir Isaac Newton.
Well, plenty of spare parts and tools to pack then. I expect the new spacesuits will have extra reinforcement in the diapers department, just in case ... :P
Post by: Bynaus on 02/27/2017 09:28 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
Would you rather have these wealthy individuals spend their money on overpriced wines, cars, and yachts? They are investing it in SpaceX instead, a company that will bring us to Mars one day!
Do you begrudge wealthy people their Tesla Roadsters and Model Ss that enable development of the Model 3? Wealthy people tend to be the ones that open up all sorts of new markets (eg mobile phones in the 1980s). We know where government space programmes get us; time to open things up I say.
Absolutely not! I would class investments in Teslas to be at the same level as circumlunar tourist flights. With "overpriced cars" I was more thinking of that classic rich-guy garage collection of Ferraris, Bentleys, Lamborghinis, etc. Like you say, rich people who invest in new (and still pricey) things are very beneficial to society. There is just no point in begrudging them - that was, actually, the point I was trying to make.
Post by: Pasander on 02/27/2017 09:31 pm
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2017 09:32 pm
If NASA wants to send scientists of Dragon 2, they can:Quote"If NASA decides they want to do the first lunar orbit mission, obviously we would give them priority," Musk said.
I have to admit that while I feel incredibly excited about this announcement I was a little miffed that the first flight would go to tourists. I am not against space tourism at all. I just want the first people to return to the moon in 45 yrs to be representatives of the whole country, not tourists. After hearing what Musk said above I feel much better.
Even if the private crew goes first I will still be very excited and supportive of this amazing mission!
Wouldn't it be a trip if one of the tourists is Elon?
EDIT: Even better....Sir Richard Branson and Elon <ducks>
A Musk, a Bezos, and a Branson step into a Dragon and are launched around the Moon. ::)
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/27/2017 09:32 pm
Post by: DecoLV on 02/27/2017 09:34 pm
Post by: wannamoonbase on 02/27/2017 09:34 pm
Or even a lunar base with mining operations....
Now you're just teasing me.
Surface operations, 3D printed radiation shielding, Lunar Oxygen for fuel, metals for 3D printing, development of a closed loop life support system.
There is so much to do on the moon and it's 1 light second away.
But first, baby steps.
Even if this slips 2 years I have no problems. I've been waiting 20+ years for people to leave earth orbit.
Post by: anonymousgerbil on 02/27/2017 09:35 pm
Also, the first time SpaceX kills people will be a significant psychological moment for the company, I hope they take their time.
Nah, quick and painless is how you want to go ;)
Post by: jsgirald on 02/27/2017 09:36 pm
I dunno. There are some pretty smart people out there - you generally don't acquire large amounts of cash without some level of intelligence (unless you inherit it - Trump?). Did the training the Apollo guys get enable them to duct tape containers together? Or is that something any intelligent person could do. Of course, there are lots of switches in Apollo to learn - that's not the case in Dragon where everything is automated, or computer controlled.
Well, it's not about duct taping things, it's more about not panicking and keeping focus on the situation.
As a D-day veteran put it: 'Training is what makes you do the correct things when people are shooting at you'
Post by: gin455res on 02/27/2017 09:38 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?.
The problem with it is ... ?QuoteThis hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life.
I am angry when, say, rich people manage to circumvent the law with their money. Here, I don't see a slightest problem: they spend their money for a fleeting moment of fame - and to help SpaceX finance R&D. Fine with me.QuoteI would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
You are free to become a billionaire and then do that.
Hearts and Minds. Sure it's a free country, let's hope too many others don't think it is in poor taste.
Potential alternatives:
small space telescopes
small space probes
kickstarting either a) a sustainable self-financing 'pilot' for a reality tv show format with space trips to reward successful young engin-preneurs (with a covert agenda to get the public visualising a future time when space tourism is more attainable); or b) a space-lottery
Post by: obi-wan on 02/27/2017 09:38 pm
Post by: Gordon Widera on 02/27/2017 09:39 pm
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/27/2017 09:39 pm
It was 1972... So 45 years for me...Or even a lunar base with mining operations....
Now you're just teasing me.
Surface operations, 3D printed radiation shielding, Lunar Oxygen for fuel, metals for 3D printing, development of a closed loop life support system.
There is so much to do on the moon and it's 1 light second away.
But first, baby steps.
Even if this slips 2 years I have no problems. I've been waiting 20+ years for people to leave earth orbit.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/27/2017 09:41 pm
(Rough Example) Launch 1: Atlas V with a stretched, 'triple barrel' Cygnus-derived Habitat. Launch 2: Falcon 9 with Dragon 2 and crew of two - they dock with Cygnus. Launch 3: Falcon Heavy with Earth Departure Stage...
...Or adapt the above idea to having a deep space Space Station in either Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit or Lunar Lagrange point 2; for those who think I might be off-topic ;)
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2017 09:42 pm
To misquote Han Solo, "Doing a hypervelocity entry ain't like dusting crops, boy!" Entry heating rate goes like the cube of velocity, so an entry from a lunar free return trajectory (which is all they could do with a single FH) would be about three times as much heat as an orbital entry. There is no way they should do a crewed mission without a test flight which replicates the same entry conditions. (Also, there's the whole thing about navigation to maintain the free return trajectory with mid-course corrections and to hit the allowable entry corridor, use of the lift vector for heat and g-level modulation, and accuracy of the landing targeting.) So, unless they're planning to eat the cost of another FH launch, I would expect them to retarget the upcoming FH demo for a heat shield demo (probably with a used cargo Dragon?)
They could do a variation on ETF-1 with a reused booster. Lighten Dragon, come down on chutes only no escape props. Use excess F9US performance for an elliptical orbit and accelerate up to lunar reentry velocity.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/27/2017 09:43 pm
Please stop calling them tourists. They are not. I'd call them adventurers, explorers, something like that. Not tourists. They are not going to turn up and go, like a tourist would.I partly agree - 'Space Tourist' will become a pejorative when used by tabloids or sniffy editorials when the subject is going to be discussed in the future. :(
Post by: jpo234 on 02/27/2017 09:43 pm
Post by: wannamoonbase on 02/27/2017 09:46 pm
It was 1972... So 45 years for me...Or even a lunar base with mining operations....
Now you're just teasing me.
Surface operations, 3D printed radiation shielding, Lunar Oxygen for fuel, metals for 3D printing, development of a closed loop life support system.
There is so much to do on the moon and it's 1 light second away.
But first, baby steps.
Even if this slips 2 years I have no problems. I've been waiting 20+ years for people to leave earth orbit.
I am aware. I meant me personally, the length of time I've been obsessed with returning to the moon.
This is most exciting and will be a big indicator, one way or the other, on how capable commercial space is.
Maybe in 10 years Boeing and SpaceX will be taking people to Lunar orbit every quarter before they descend to the lunar surface.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2017 09:47 pm
I would love to see NASA grab one of those seats; especially with a flown veteran. That would set a great example for the future private-public partnerships. I know Chris and the gang will be busy the next few hours! ;D
The NASA astros should be pi---d.
Why? They may not be the first ones to visit cislunar space, but the odds that they'll make it to the lunar surface in their professional lifetimes just went up 100x!
Things just got better for them.
Now, for the Orion/SLS guys ... lets see how they rise to the game of upping the ante.
I think its great because its likely the cost of space will drop with these moves, flight frequency will improve, and all my friends in aerospace and west/east ranges/pads will be doing great for another 50 years or more ...
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/27/2017 09:47 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20311.360
Post by: BGR Kolbeck on 02/27/2017 09:52 pm
Madness.
Post by: turbopumpfeedback2 on 02/27/2017 09:53 pm
With time dilatation factor this gives 6 years, meaning 2023.
Still very exciting!
Post by: cebri on 02/27/2017 09:53 pm
Question: Is the Falcon Heavy human rated? Would the FAA allow this flight?
This seems key too. If Falcon 9 is approved for human space flight, would it be hard to get FH human rated given they use the exact same hardware?
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 02/27/2017 09:54 pm
No mention of a crew, only 2 passengers?People, who are going to spend so much money, are probaly ready to learn to push the abort button in case...
But think of a solvable problem, not nearly Apollo 13 leves of bad, wouldn't they like to have a pro who knows what to do and stay calm?
Such 'pros' are the the flight computers backed up by the people in mission control. Ways of doing things in the Apollo or even Shuttle era are a poor guide to how to do things with modern computer and control technology. (Though, one or both of these crew may be a highly qualified engineer!)
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 02/27/2017 09:54 pm
Question: Is the Falcon Heavy human rated? Would the FAA allow this flight?
That's actually an interesting question but worth noting that the applicable FAA regulations make a distinction between spaceflight activity PARTICIPANTS (e.g., the passengers) and the general public.
Participants are allowed to waive the risks of their participation; the general public is the group of people the FAA are charged with protecting.
Post by: vapour_nudge on 02/27/2017 09:58 pm
Then I woke up this morning to read about this. Great news. It's great to see this is actually being put in place, not another paper proposal. Someone PAID a significant deposit. So I'm much more confident it's going to happen
Post by: robert_d on 02/27/2017 10:01 pm
Post by: Pasander on 02/27/2017 10:02 pm
This can mean only one thing: SPACE SEX! (And that would be science, wouldn't it??)
Yes, the 400000 km club ...
Heheh yes, but I was actually semi-serious. If they manage to conceive a child right after TLI, how many rounds of cell divisions does the embryo go through before they're back to 1G? Does the baby develop normally?
If these people don't do it, eventually some other people will. I'm sure the results will be of scientific interest.
Post by: Jdeshetler on 02/27/2017 10:03 pm
Matt Damon and Jimmy Kimmel? :o
Post by: raketa on 02/27/2017 10:04 pm
To misquote Han Solo, "Doing a hypervelocity entry ain't like dusting crops, boy!" Entry heating rate goes like the cube of velocity, so an entry from a lunar free return trajectory (which is all they could do with a single FH) would be about three times as much heat as an orbital entry. There is no way they should do a crewed mission without a test flight which replicates the same entry conditions. (Also, there's the whole thing about navigation to maintain the free return trajectory with mid-course corrections and to hit the allowable entry corridor, use of the lift vector for heat and g-level modulation, and accuracy of the landing targeting.) So, unless they're planning to eat the cost of another FH launch, I would expect them to retarget the upcoming FH demo for a heat shield demo (probably with a used cargo Dragon?)
Years ago I was suggesting test initial F9H with Dragon fly it around Moon, to test shield.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2017 10:04 pm
Wonder if this will torpedo Russia's lunar tourism program:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20311.360
Short answer - if they really can do it, they will accelerate and do it.
If they can't, they'll be some noise, and it'll gradually vanish.
These guys have always been able to reach the moon, for more than 40 years. Ask yourself why they don't bring off what clearly they are capable of doing. The answer has always been "not now".
Just like with NASA post Apollo/Saturn. "Not now".
So ... "now"?
Post by: Wicky on 02/27/2017 10:05 pm
Quote
It's a ride inside an aluminum can.... Plus it's likely to be rather odorous as the flight goes on...
Artist's impression of the spacecraft with sponsor's logo...
(http://cl.ly/1W3H141s3a1P/Lynx-Deep-Space-Anti-Perspirant.jpg)
Post by: HighlandRay on 02/27/2017 10:05 pm
Post by: jsgirald on 02/27/2017 10:06 pm
"The passengers were “nobody from Hollywood”, Musk said."
Matt Damon and Jimmy Kimmel?
Seriously, I think few people would benefit more (professionally speaking) from something like this than an actor.
Post by: vapour_nudge on 02/27/2017 10:06 pm
Time for Chris Bergin to create another predictions thread regarding "who are the two customers?"
Post by: AS-503 on 02/27/2017 10:07 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW5ozq4Tqew
Post by: Craftyatom on 02/27/2017 10:09 pm
I love the name MoonDragon. His is what we have all been waiting for and more than justifies the funding of commercial flights to ISS. Well done Elon and all at SpaceXI've always preferred "Silver Dragon" - fits with the convention set by Red Dragon (not that SpaceX has ever made themselves beholden to naming conventions), and sounds somewhat like "Selenic" (synonym for "Lunar"). But it's their spaceship and they can call it what they want.
This can mean only one thing: SPACE SEX! (And that would be science, wouldn't it??)If you really want that, it's best to keep to LEO, in order to keep costs down - that is, unless you need a good shot with the Earth in one of the windows. Point is, if that isn't happening on ho-hum LEO flights right now, it's not gonna happen on the first manned flight to the moon in over 4 decades.
Anyways, regarding test flights, there are really only 4 "new" things about this mission (compared to the manned ISS demo): Dv2 riding on FH, BLEO navigation, van Allen Belts, and Re-entry heat. SpaceX has already shown good rad tolerance on Dragon, so I don't think that's something to be worried about. BLEO navigation will be new, but also shouldn't be a major challenge. Dv2 riding on FH will require testing, but it's testing they were already doing for Red Dragon, and it won't be too different from riding on F9 - if it does cause problems, though, they'll be during ascent, when powered abort is possible.
This leaves re-entry heating. I know they'll be running all the CFD they can, and watching the demo missions to make sure those heat shields perform as expected, but still... This is the one issue that seems to me like it really would require an unmanned shakedown. Everything else is relatively low-risk, or can be tested during demo missions, but for this reason alone, an extra test mission up front might be important. Plus, it might send a message to NASA about crewed firsts, though the circumstances are quite different.
Post by: CJ on 02/27/2017 10:12 pm
I'm even more excited by the nature of the funding; private passengers. That is truly wonderful, because paying passengers (Space tourism) are a potential huge driver of space infrastructure.
Is there a market for manned lunar landings too? If so, this is the gateway to it - and if there is a market, we'll see the capability created - which will then be available, at comparatively cheap cost, for other purposes as well.
As a side benefit, I have a hunch that a potential market like this might speed up the development of Dragon 2 and FH.
Post by: QuantumG on 02/27/2017 10:13 pm
Post by: raketa on 02/27/2017 10:13 pm
Wonder if this will torpedo Russia's lunar tourism program:No private person will fly on SLS or Atlas V, if they could achieve the same trip for 10 times less. When there was a plan to use Soyuz, price was around 200 million. This trip will be around 20-30 milion, this is a big difference.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20311.360
SLS will cost at least billion and with Atlas V at least 500 million. To see private person flight this hardware is pipe dream. The only, who could afforded, will be NASA astronauts sucking 1/3 of NASA yearly budget. I am hoping Trump will stop such waste.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/27/2017 10:16 pm
Post by: eric z on 02/27/2017 10:22 pm
Post by: raketa on 02/27/2017 10:22 pm
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.It provides them with 'deep' space tracking and control experience, long-ish term ECLSS experience, BEO reentry experience and brings in hard cash. Can't see how this is anything but a win-win-win-win situation.
Matthew
Well the Lose part comes when they somehow manage to die on the mission :)
1/Launch failure will cover by escape system.
2/Failing to enter free moon return trajectory will be very low, it is not so difficult, they showing ability with every launch to control this part very precisely
3/Provide air for 1 week of trip sounds trivial
4/Landing they are able to control right now Dragon with offset point center gravity pretty preciously, I didn't see it as big deal. Their heat shield looks very robust.
5/Parachute landing was demonstrated without any issue.
6/The only new piece is F9H
Post by: jpo234 on 02/27/2017 10:23 pm
Perhaps some wealthy Sheikhs from Saudi Arabia or UAEThe announcement says "two private citizens", which probably means US citizens.
Time for Chris Bergin to create another predictions thread regarding "who are the two customers?"
Post by: mme on 02/27/2017 10:27 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).It's SpaceX. They will absolutely find ways to use this flight to add to their knowledge of HSF beyond LEO. I don't begrudge the lucky billionaires funding the flight.
Am I alone in this?
Post by: DOCinCT on 02/27/2017 10:28 pm
How did you arrive at the 20-30million? Seems the operative figure was something inline with a crewed ISS mission. Best estimate would be that of the Red Dragon figures floated last year ($300 million).Wonder if this will torpedo Russia's lunar tourism program:No private person will fly on SLS or Atlas V, if they could achieve the same trip for 10 times less. When there was a plan to use Soyuz, price was around 200 million. This trip will be around 20-30 milion, this is a big difference.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20311.360
Post by: NWade on 02/27/2017 10:28 pm
This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life.
I've seen some other responses on this thread and I just want to point out that there are people in this world who have gotten rich by being smart and working hard. Yes, there are people who cheat the system or have gained success by being cruel to others; but let's not brand them all with the same label. Having money carries some benefits in our current society, and you can argue that they are perhaps outsized or unfairly applied... But having money does not make one evil (or lazy or stupid or anti-science).
Until we know who is paying for this, it could be anyone. And that means that it could be people who are smart and wealthy engineering-types or big science buffs or promoters of advanced technology who simply want an experience in return for "investing" a couple-hundred-million $ into SpaceX.
--Noel
Post by: Kansan52 on 02/27/2017 10:29 pm
I am neither mad nor sad. Not mad because this isn't instead of something that someone without money would have. This wouldn't happen without people paying their own costs.
Well, maybe a little sad that it took so long and it won't be me.
There is still a chance that the people going have a scientific background and can accomplish some science on the way. Because without something to do it will be a long road trip locked in a van with latrine smells.
change spelling
Post by: montyrmanley on 02/27/2017 10:30 pm
Also, if SpaceX succeeds in this effort, there'll be so much investor money flowing into NewSpace (not just SpaceX) that it'll be mind-boggling. BO, ULA, and Boeing can only benefit from this.
Elon is already rich, but if this works he'll be so rich that he'll be able to burn money just to keep his other money warm.
Post by: philw1776 on 02/27/2017 10:34 pm
I dunno. There are some pretty smart people out there - you generally don't acquire large amounts of cash without some level of intelligence (unless you inherit it - Trump?). Did the training the Apollo guys get enable them to duct tape containers together? Or is that something any intelligent person could do. Of course, there are lots of switches in Apollo to learn - that's not the case in Dragon where everything is automated, or computer controlled.
Well, it's not about duct taping things, it's more about not panicking and keeping focus on the situation.
As a D-day veteran put it: 'Training is what makes you do the correct things when people are shooting at you'
In space, no one can hear you scream
Post by: RobW1 on 02/27/2017 10:35 pm
"The passengers were “nobody from Hollywood”, Musk said."
Matt Damon and Jimmy Kimmel?
You do NOT send Matt Damon. He needed rescuing in "The Martian"; he needed rescuing in "Interstellar". Putting him on a real mission around the Moon is just asking for trouble. You only even begin to think of sending him after you have built Pad 39C and have a Rescue Dragon standing by, all checked out and ready to go.
Post by: Kansan52 on 02/27/2017 10:37 pm
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/27/2017 10:42 pm
Quote
Alan Boyle @b0yle 2m2 minutes ago
.@SpaceAdventures has an intriguing comment on @SpaceX's circumlunar mission, saying it can't comment on its clients' plans prematurely.
https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/836359916730245120 (https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/836359916730245120)
Post by: Darkseraph on 02/27/2017 10:42 pm
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/27/2017 10:42 pm
This mission honestly could have been done years ago - they even had financial incentive from interested parties, apparently. Never mind - the time is finally here for a similar alternative, I suppose.
Post by: jongoff on 02/27/2017 10:43 pm
My guess, full reuse of the the FH. ISS trip now $35 mill (if memory serves). So $35 million US times 2 so $70 million.
I'm skeptical they can do a FH + DV2 flight for $70M. I haven't seen the original quote so far, but I find the interpretation that it's similar to the cost of an ISS mission (ie ~$140M divided by 2 passengers, so $70M *each*) to be more realistic. It would still be an awesome price point, and one that's likely to get several takers.
~Jon
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/27/2017 10:45 pm
Looking forward to hear those words again... "You are GO for TLI"... 8)
This brings tears to my eyes.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/27/2017 10:45 pm
If and when this is successful - I really hope that a Pad 39C is deemed necessary at last and sees the light of day! Launching dual Falcon 9s and Falcon Heavies from Pads 39A & C could do Lunar landing missions, with the right spacecraft and departure stage combinations."The passengers were “nobody from Hollywood”, Musk said."
Matt Damon and Jimmy Kimmel?
You do NOT send Matt Damon. He needed rescuing in "The Martian"; he needed rescuing in "Interstellar". Putting him on a real mission around the Moon is just asking for trouble. You only even begin to think of sending him after you have built Pad 39C and have a Rescue Dragon standing by, all checked out and ready to go.
Post by: raketa on 02/27/2017 10:45 pm
Now develop a service module with some kick and if NASA builds and launches their deep space habitat and you have commercial crew to the Moon.ITS could land on Moon and come back. Already in development.
Post by: TomH on 02/27/2017 10:46 pm
Wouldn't it be a trip if one of the tourists is Elon?
Absolutely not. He is too important to risk. Without his leadership, I fear that SpaceX would lose its way. Churchill wanted to visit Normandy on D-Day+1. The king had to forbade it as his loss would have been a crushing blow to Britain.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/27/2017 10:47 pm
...And it will for me as well. I'm looking forward to seeing live 1080p or even 4k UHD camera views from the spacecraft as it approaches and rounds the Moon... :')Looking forward to hear those words again... "You are GO for TLI"... 8)
This brings tears to my eyes.
Post by: Nomadd on 02/27/2017 10:51 pm
Post by: Arcas on 02/27/2017 10:52 pm
Post by: TomH on 02/27/2017 10:52 pm
To misquote Han Solo, "Doing a hypervelocity entry ain't like dusting crops, boy!" Entry heating rate goes like the cube of velocity...
I believe RobotBeat once said to the eighth power according to a complex formula. That's far more than cubed.
Post by: launchwatcher on 02/27/2017 10:54 pm
If they manage to conceive a child right after TLI, how many rounds of cell divisions does the embryo go through before they're back to 1G?Data points along the curve:
2-4 cells after 2 days
7-10 after 3 days
200-300 after 5 days.
Implantation starts around day 6 or 7.
Post by: manoweb on 02/27/2017 10:55 pm
Post by: Darkseraph on 02/27/2017 10:55 pm
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/27/2017 10:56 pm
In a clear minority here, but I have similar reservations about this idea that I had about the recent idea to put a crew on EM1: It's a dangerous stunt that superficially demonstrates progress in BLEO flight. A fatal accident on such a flight wouldn't just be tragic to the passengers and their families, it could set back SpaceX by years or worse.By that line of thinking, they shouldn't do LEO either....
Post by: joek on 02/27/2017 10:57 pm
Question: Is the Falcon Heavy human rated? Would the FAA allow this flight?
No, FH is not human rated. The flight as described would require an FAA license because: (a) it is not a USG acquired launch and spacecraft/payload; (b) SpaceX is being paid (for-profit); and (c) individuals on the flight include persons who do not qualify as "crew".[1]
[1] Crew has a very specific meaning: (a) employed by the provider (SpaceX) and qualified to perform crew functions; or (b) in the special case of commercial crew, designated USG personnel qualified to perform crew functions; and (c) not a "spaceflight participant" (i.e., anyone other than "crew"). Not sure how they're going to get away without a "crew", but maybe the exception made for commercial crew is being expanded.
Post by: Bubbinski on 02/27/2017 10:58 pm
I was 2 years old when Apollo 17 launched, much too young to remember that. This would be the first flight of people back to the Moon that I and countless others world wide would be able to follow. I guarantee you that this mission will be widely discussed and looked forward to before it launches. If it succeeds I believe a new "space race" back to the Moon and beyond by commercial companies and national space agencies will follow. People will see that profit can be made, and that the US and the world would still have the "right stuff".
It doesn't matter to me if this flight is "just" an Apollo 13/Zond lunar pass not even orbiting the Moon. I will be counting down the days till launch. And even fly out to Florida for the launch.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/27/2017 10:58 pm
Quote
NASA Statement About SpaceX Private Moon Venture Announcement
The following is a statement on SpaceX’s announcement Monday about a private space mission around the moon:
“NASA commends its industry partners for reaching higher.
“We will work closely with SpaceX to ensure it safely meets the contractual obligations to return the launch of astronauts to U.S. soil and continue to successfully deliver supplies to the International Space Station.
“For more than a decade, NASA has invested in private industry to develop capabilities for the American people and seed commercial innovation to advance humanity's future in space.
“NASA is changing the way it does business through its commercial partnerships to help build a strong American space economy and free the agency to focus on developing the next-generation rocket, spacecraft and systems to go beyond the moon and sustain deep space exploration.”
-end-
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-statement-about-spacex-private-moon-venture-announcement (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-statement-about-spacex-private-moon-venture-announcement)
Post by: gospacex on 02/27/2017 11:00 pm
In a clear minority here, but I have similar reservations about this idea that I had about the recent idea to put a crew on EM1: It's a dangerous stunt that superficially demonstrates progress in BLEO flight. A fatal accident on such a flight wouldn't just be tragic to the passengers and their families, it could set back SpaceX by years or worse.
SpaceX is aware of the need to manage this risk. They not only know that it's impossible to guarantee 99%+ success rate on such missions - they recently had two mission failures. They know the risk is real.
SpaceX will survive even if this mission ends with a LOC.
Post by: Oli on 02/27/2017 11:00 pm
In a clear minority here, but I have similar reservations about this idea that I had about the recent idea to put a crew on EM1: It's a dangerous stunt that superficially demonstrates progress in BLEO flight. A fatal accident on such a flight wouldn't just be tragic to the passengers and their families, it could set back SpaceX by years or worse.
For NASA it might be a dangerous stunt with little value, but in this case billionaires are paying for some great sightseeing and an entry in the history books.
Post by: DOCinCT on 02/27/2017 11:02 pm
I think more as there is a possibility that the FH will be partially expendable (equivalent to Red Dragon).My guess, full reuse of the the FH. ISS trip now $35 mill (if memory serves). So $35 million US times 2 so $70 million.I'm skeptical they can do a FH + DV2 flight for $70M. I haven't seen the original quote so far, but I find the interpretation that it's similar to the cost of an ISS mission (ie ~$140M divided by 2 passengers, so $70M *each*) to be more realistic. It would still be an awesome price point, and one that's likely to get several takers.
~Jon
Post by: Lars-J on 02/27/2017 11:02 pm
In a clear minority here, but I have similar reservations about this idea that I had about the recent idea to put a crew on EM1: It's a dangerous stunt that superficially demonstrates progress in BLEO flight. A fatal accident on such a flight wouldn't just be tragic to the passengers and their families, it could set back SpaceX by years or worse.
Even if they do not attempt an unmanned lunar FH/Dragon flight, this will still be better than a crewed EM-1 flight:
- Not first FH flight (will already have at least two flights, probably more)
- Not the first crew Dragon flight (will already have gone to ISS)
But I do a agree that a lunar return and 7 day flight past the moon would be best demonstrated first in an unmanned test.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2017 11:03 pm
An adaptation of the the most basic Lunar Soyuz mission paradigm once touted: a slightly modified Soyuz is launched on a Soyuz 2 booster (has slightly more payload capability over the previous version).My read is that they are running behind in needed payload capability.
Quote
Soyuz has a high-gain antenna, a thicker 'Zond' type heatshield and 1x extra propellant and 1x extra oxidizer tanks.Zond and LOK never completed successful missions to trust a crew on. They would be running behind on this as well, and need to play "catch up". Dragon 1, of course, also hasn't qualified yet on these items.
Quote
Second launch is a Proton - or Angara A5 - with a Blok-DM upperstage with a second, spherical Soyuz Orbital module-based Hab module mounted on it - albeit one with a couple large 'picture' windows. The Soyuz docks with the Blok-DM & Hab stage and departs on a low energy, free return trip around the Moon...
This is where it economically loses. Once you have the dependence on multiple launch, on the lifetime of a Blok DM ... well, too much gambling, not enough benefit from so much risk.
Quote
This mission honestly could have been done years ago - they even had financial incentive from interested parties, apparently. Never mind - the time is finally here for a similar alternative, I suppose."Sh*t or get off the pot".
The only way it economically makes sense, is as a financial cost recovery scheme for a Russian moon program. Which they aren't in a position to do.
Nor, for that matter is China. This move gives China the biggest "hot foot". Musk just stuck a bunch of matches in Li Keqiang's foot and lit them off! I'm sure he's still hopping around right now. To be upstaged by a mere corporation, not even a multinational, and not for the first time (e.g. stage recovery).
My read too.My guess, full reuse of the the FH. ISS trip now $35 mill (if memory serves). So $35 million US times 2 so $70 million.
I'm skeptical they can do a FH + DV2 flight for $70M. I haven't seen the original quote so far, but I find the interpretation that it's similar to the cost of an ISS mission (ie ~$140M divided by 2 passengers, so $70M *each*) to be more realistic.
Quote
It would still be an awesome price point, and one that's likely to get several takers.That's the whole point.
It's not for a revenue stream. It's for the ability to raise funds for ITS.
Post by: TomH on 02/27/2017 11:03 pm
Question: Would it be two passengers sent alone, or two passengers plus a pilot, or one passenger plus a pilot? I can't imagine sending customers without a professional SpaceX pilot on board.
If this is a couple, they may have signed up on the condition of privacy. Imagine being with your significant other, completely weightless, Luna passing by in the window. Welcome to the Heavenly Honeymoon Hotel!
Post by: Lars-J on 02/27/2017 11:06 pm
Wonder if this will torpedo Russia's lunar tourism program:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20311.360
Short answer - if they really can do it, they will accelerate and do it.
If they can't, they'll be some noise, and it'll gradually vanish.
These guys have always been able to reach the moon, for more than 40 years. Ask yourself why they don't bring off what clearly they are capable of doing. The answer has always been "not now".
Just like with NASA post Apollo/Saturn. "Not now".
So ... "now"?
It would be incorrect to state that the Russians would have been able to reach the moon anytime in the past 40 years if they wanted to. It would have (and still) would require a LOT of time and budget for them to re-develop a technology they barely had in the first place. The current Soyuz is not designed for lunar flights.
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/27/2017 11:06 pm
Post by: WulfTheSaxon on 02/27/2017 11:07 pm
SLS program managers can not be happy about this. This will only up the pressure for a crewed EM-1 mission.
SpaceX is stepping on some pretty big toes with this announcement. We knew it was going to happen eventually, though.
Having said all that...whoa. Talk about a test under fire. Guidance, comms, ECLSS, hot return, plus the very real risk of death. If anyone can pull it off SpaceX can, but...woof.
I’m thinking this will actually reduce the pressure for a crewed EM-1…
Post by: Darkseraph on 02/27/2017 11:08 pm
It probably would have been better if this was tourists to LEO, after several operational flights of the Dragon 2 on Block 5 F9. The backlash from an accident in that case would be a lot less than what they're planning to do here. I'm hoping there is at least going to be an ummanned test of this mission between now and whenever it really flies.In a clear minority here, but I have similar reservations about this idea that I had about the recent idea to put a crew on EM1: It's a dangerous stunt that superficially demonstrates progress in BLEO flight. A fatal accident on such a flight wouldn't just be tragic to the passengers and their families, it could set back SpaceX by years or worse.By that line of thinking, they shouldn't do LEO either....
Post by: butters on 02/27/2017 11:10 pm
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/27/2017 11:11 pm
I think I'd give even money on Cameron being behind this. He's already been deeper than anybody else. Time the mission right and he'll have been higher than anybody else. (Not counting Jefferson Airplane parties)
I thought so too but Elon is quoted as saying that the two people are not Hollywood people. I think Steve Jurvetson is possible as one of the two.
Post by: Stan-1967 on 02/27/2017 11:11 pm
I wonder about the gender and ethnicity of these two people. Although I'm happy to see someone, anyone, go back to the Moon (it's been a long wait, especially if you've lived through it! :) ), I'd like to see some diversity, since all of the 24 people who've been to the Moon have been white men.
SpaceX say the two crew know each other, so perhaps they're a (mixed-gender) couple? They're probably rich tech people though, and they're overwhelmingly white male (at least among US citizens, which I'm assuming they are). If they are both white men, I anticipate public pressure on NASA via Congress to send its own astronauts to ensure one of the first people to return to the Moon is a woman and one is from an ethnic minority (SpaceX has the defences of 'we'll take anyone willing to pay' and 'first come, first served').
The suggestion that the skin color of these adventurer's has any relevance to celebrating achievements in space is depressing. Even more depressing is the loathesome thought that NASA would need to select from its astronauts corps based on countering too much "whiteness" on a SpaceX mission. If such was the case, humanity should abandon space altogether.
When I watched SpaceX's first successful RTLS on the live webcast, I saw young & old, men & women, & many different races & religions celebrating together for what they worked so hard for. I think they represent the future quite well, without any need for the interjection of racial politics.
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/27/2017 11:17 pm
Loss of crew is, a loss of crew... If it happened on a ISS mission in LEO, think of the backlash of contracting flights to the commercial side. These would be private individuals doing what they want with their spare time and cash... I fly and race cars as much as I please and can afford. I take the calculated risks and no one stops me from doing so as long as I don't endanger the general public...It probably would have been better if this was tourists to LEO, after several operational flights of the Dragon 2 on Block 5 F9. The backlash from an accident in that case would be a lot less than what they're planning to do here. I'm hoping there is at least going to be an ummanned test of this mission between now and whenever it really flies.In a clear minority here, but I have similar reservations about this idea that I had about the recent idea to put a crew on EM1: It's a dangerous stunt that superficially demonstrates progress in BLEO flight. A fatal accident on such a flight wouldn't just be tragic to the passengers and their families, it could set back SpaceX by years or worse.By that line of thinking, they shouldn't do LEO either....
As some on NSF already know, back in 2002 I took a calculated risk when I applied to the Astronaut office and months later we lost another crew. It has happened on the ground and going to and from orbit. BEO adds a few more failure modes and all one can do is to remember the phrase "do good work"... Words to live by...
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2017 11:19 pm
SLS program managers can not be happy about this. This will only up the pressure for a crewed EM-1 mission.
SpaceX is stepping on some pretty big toes with this announcement. We knew it was going to happen eventually, though.
Having said all that...whoa. Talk about a test under fire. Guidance, comms, ECLSS, hot return, plus the very real risk of death. If anyone can pull it off SpaceX can, but...woof.
I’m thinking this will actually reduce the pressure for a crewed EM-1…
It changes the landscape. You're right - the pressure comes off because it will seem to compete with commercial efforts.
However, they now have to justify themselves as a program with scope.
Both EM-1/2 have always been extremely expensive "joke" missions. But that's what the politics around SLS have wanted, not NASA.
So its the Congress that really bites it in the rear if EM 1/2 are exposed as the bad jokes they have always been.
And Congress hasn't been overly fond of Musk either. So if he brings it off, there will be a lot of "WTF" directed at them.
They are then well and truly screwed.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/27/2017 11:20 pm
I think I'd give even money on Cameron being behind this. He's already been deeper than anybody else. Time the mission right and he'll have been higher than anybody else. (Not counting Jefferson Airplane parties)People keep forgetting - Cameron now lives in New Zealand; not all that far from me, as it happens - and is spending the next five years making an 'Avatar' sequel trilogy here, largely in New Zealand. The cameras roll very soon - I find it nearly impossible to believe that he'll drop all that to go train for the next 6 or 12 months for this Lunar mission. He might do it after the films, for his 70th birthday or something, still...
Post by: montyrmanley on 02/27/2017 11:22 pm
SLS program managers can not be happy about this. This will only up the pressure for a crewed EM-1 mission.
SpaceX is stepping on some pretty big toes with this announcement. We knew it was going to happen eventually, though.
Having said all that...whoa. Talk about a test under fire. Guidance, comms, ECLSS, hot return, plus the very real risk of death. If anyone can pull it off SpaceX can, but...woof.
I’m thinking this will actually reduce the pressure for a crewed EM-1…
That's my read as well. The only reason for a crewed EM-1 is to prove America can still get humans into space on "home grown" rockets. If SpaceX can accomplish this mission successfully, there's no reason to duplicate the mission with SLS. (Though that will then force NASA to come up with an actual mission for SLS....)
All the same, I'm wary of getting too keyed up about this. Let's remember that the FH hasn't even flown once yet, in any configuration; nor has the Dragon 2 (except in a pad-abort and hover test). A lot -- A LOT -- of stuff has to happen between now and the end of 2018 if this adventure is actually going to take place. Applying the usual multiplier to "Elon time", I think a more reasonable timeframe for this mission is probably going to be 2019 or 2020 (which still puts it ahead of the realistic SLS timeline).
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/27/2017 11:25 pm
SLS/Orion's only hope now is for dual-launch of Block 1B's, doing heavy-spacecraft Lunar landing missions lasting 2 or 3 weeks each. Or maybe a variation of the 'Inspiration Mars' flyby mission in 2021... But since a big funding boost is unlikely, then... :( However, don't expect much to happen until if and when the Moon Dragon mission flies successfully. If it does, the countdown to true SLS cancellation will start.SLS program managers can not be happy about this. This will only up the pressure for a crewed EM-1 mission.
SpaceX is stepping on some pretty big toes with this announcement. We knew it was going to happen eventually, though.
Having said all that...whoa. Talk about a test under fire. Guidance, comms, ECLSS, hot return, plus the very real risk of death. If anyone can pull it off SpaceX can, but...woof.
I’m thinking this will actually reduce the pressure for a crewed EM-1…
It changes the landscape. You're right - the pressure comes off because it will seem to compete with commercial efforts.
However, they now have to justify themselves as a program with scope.
Both EM-1/2 have always been extremely expensive "joke" missions. But that's what the politics around SLS have wanted, not NASA.
So its the Congress that really bites it in the rear if EM 1/2 are exposed as the bad jokes they have always been.
And Congress hasn't been overly fond of Musk either. So if he brings it off, there will be a lot of "WTF" directed at them.
They are then well and truly screwed.
Post by: obi-wan on 02/27/2017 11:25 pm
To misquote Han Solo, "Doing a hypervelocity entry ain't like dusting crops, boy!" Entry heating rate goes like the cube of velocity...
I believe RobotBeat once said to the eighth power according to a complex formula. That's far more than cubed.
If you're talking about stagnation point heating rate that would not be correct (there are some heuristics for laminar flow that have V^3.15), but there may be some disconnect on the exact equation and parameter of interest.
Post by: RobW1 on 02/27/2017 11:28 pm
If and when this is successful - I really hope that a Pad 39C is deemed necessary at last and sees the light of day! Launching dual Falcon 9s and Falcon Heavies from Pads 39A & C could do Lunar landing missions, with the right spacecraft and departure stage combinations."The passengers were “nobody from Hollywood”, Musk said."
Matt Damon and Jimmy Kimmel?
You do NOT send Matt Damon. He needed rescuing in "The Martian"; he needed rescuing in "Interstellar". Putting him on a real mission around the Moon is just asking for trouble. You only even begin to think of sending him after you have built Pad 39C and have a Rescue Dragon standing by, all checked out and ready to go.
I agree. I could never understand NASA's rationale for leasing out 39A when they're planning on a dual launch architecture for their future deep space crewed missions, when the single pad they're left with would require six months of repair and refurbishment between launches. That to me is like giving the first spacecraft an extra six months for things to start going wrong up there before you launch a crew to fly it. Having the capability to do a quick one-two launch, as in the Gemini rendezvous and docking missions, just seemed to make much more sense.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see where SpaceX takes this before their interplanetary spacecraft is up and running. How often will they fly? Will they build a lunar orbit and then landing capability if the demand is there, or will they see it as detracting from their Mars vision? I'm guessing sufficient demand = yes, but what would I know?
Post by: yg1968 on 02/27/2017 11:31 pm
The NASA response reads a bit like: we'll do everything we can to ensure that SpaceX checks all the contractual boxes before we'll let them launch our astronauts, but we can't hold them back from launching private individuals.
It's more than that. It indicates that this is the kind of stuff that private companies should be focusing on while NASA focuses on "beyond the Moon" destinations (i.e. Mars).
Post by: mme on 02/27/2017 11:32 pm
Question: Is the Falcon Heavy human rated? Would the FAA allow this flight?
No, FH is not human rated. The flight as described would require an FAA license because: (a) it is not a USG acquired launch and spacecraft/payload; (b) SpaceX is being paid (for-profit); and (c) individuals on the flight include persons who do not qualify as "crew".[1]
[1] Crew has a very specific meaning: (a) employed by the provider (SpaceX) and qualified to perform crew functions; or (b) in the special case of commercial crew, designated USG personnel qualified to perform crew functions; and (c) not a "spaceflight participant" (i.e., anyone other than "crew"). Not sure how they're going to get away without a "crew", but maybe the exception made for commercial crew is being expanded.
My reading on it is that Commercial Space has a lot of leeway on these matters as long as the "space flight participant" has appropriate training, passed medical, does NOT pilot the craft and has been sufficiently informed that that the U.S. Government has not certified the launch vehicle as safe.
They explicitly allow non-certified launch vehicles.
See:
New Regulations Govern Private Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/human_space_flight_reqs/)
PDF attached.
Post by: craigcocca on 02/27/2017 11:32 pm
My take is that of this flight goes well, a commercial lunar landing won't be too far behind...
Don't forget that the delta-V to brake into lunar orbit and for TEI for the return, plus the delta-V to land and ascend from the moon will not be part of the proposed 2018 mission.
Essentially the 2018 mission is doing something that SpaceX has done before a few times, which is putting a massive payload into a highly elliptical orbit...one that just so happens to intersect the moon's position at apogee. Beyond that, there is a long way to go to get from there to a lunar landing which will probably require a couple of additional missions (perhaps one to go into lunar orbit and then return to Earth, and then another with an unmanned Dragon 2 landing on the lunar surface).
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2017 11:34 pm
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/spacex-two-citizens-dragon-2-lunar-mission/
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2017 11:36 pm
Logistics chain for SLS/Orion does not support that, and it would take 2-5 years to change. It can't launch at that cadence.SLS program managers can not be happy about this. This will only up the pressure for a crewed EM-1 mission.
SpaceX is stepping on some pretty big toes with this announcement. We knew it was going to happen eventually, though.
Having said all that...whoa. Talk about a test under fire. Guidance, comms, ECLSS, hot return, plus the very real risk of death. If anyone can pull it off SpaceX can, but...woof.
I’m thinking this will actually reduce the pressure for a crewed EM-1…
It changes the landscape. You're right - the pressure comes off because it will seem to compete with commercial efforts.
However, they now have to justify themselves as a program with scope.
Both EM-1/2 have always been extremely expensive "joke" missions. But that's what the politics around SLS have wanted, not NASA.
So its the Congress that really bites it in the rear if EM 1/2 are exposed as the bad jokes they have always been.
And Congress hasn't been overly fond of Musk either. So if he brings it off, there will be a lot of "WTF" directed at them.
They are then well and truly screwed.
SLS/Orion's only hope now is for dual-launch of Block 1B's, doing heavy-spacecraft Lunar landing missions lasting 2 or 3 weeks each.
But you are right about mission duration - Orion is designed for more duration, and SLS payload is underutilized.
However, neither Dragon or Orion have duration down yet. Dragon has been on the ISS for extended time, so its in the lead.
Quote
Or maybe a variation of the 'Inspiration Mars' flyby mission in 2021...That will take years to get the needed ECLSS proof before flying.
Quote
But since a big funding boost is unlikely, then... :( However, don't expect much to happen until if and when the Moon Dragon mission flies successfully. If it does, the countdown to true SLS cancellation will start.Think it will "bumble along" in the mean time.
Again, what SLS/Orion needs is a lander on short notice. What Congress does not yet know is that they need it even worse, so they can declare SLS/Orion a victory in returning to the lunar surface and move on ...
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/27/2017 11:36 pm
I was actually thinking that some other entity my be doing a lander, not necessarily SpaceX. Think the "Golden Spike" lander...My take is that of this flight goes well, a commercial lunar landing won't be too far behind...
Don't forget that the delta-V to brake into lunar orbit and for TEI for the return, plus the delta-V to land and ascend from the moon will not be part of the proposed 2018 mission.
Essentially the 2018 mission is doing something that SpaceX has done before a few times, which is putting a massive payload into a highly elliptical orbit...one that just so happens to intersect the moon's position at apogee. Beyond that, there is a long way to go to get from there to a lunar landing which will probably require a couple of additional missions (perhaps one to go into lunar orbit and then return to Earth, and then another with an unmanned Dragon 2 landing on the lunar surface).
Post by: obi-wan on 02/27/2017 11:39 pm
To misquote Han Solo, "Doing a hypervelocity entry ain't like dusting crops, boy!" Entry heating rate goes like the cube of velocity...
I believe RobotBeat once said to the eighth power according to a complex formula. That's far more than cubed.
If you're talking about stagnation point heating rate that would not be correct (there are some heuristics for laminar flow that have V^3.15), but there may be some disconnect on the exact equation and parameter of interest.
Actually, in thinking about it I did remember an equation with a large exponent, so I checked my notes - there is a heuristic for stagnation point radiative hearing that has V^8.5 (Martin's formulation), whereas I was quoting convective heating. Radiative heating doesn't kick in until you get to real hypervelocity entries - at lunar return velocity, it's measurable but still dominated by convective heating. It does go up really rapidly after that, but SpaceX won't have to contend with that until they do direct entry from Mars.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2017 11:42 pm
My article on this all:Good read. Especially liked the last part with Lightfoot and the WH "Landing team" heh!
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/spacex-two-citizens-dragon-2-lunar-mission/
Post by: MattMason on 02/27/2017 11:47 pm
That said, my first reaction was: This was not Musk's style. He's been serious about developing tools to explore Mars. If Jeff Bezos proposed this, I wouldn't have bat one eyelash.
But I continued to read here and began thinking in the long-term. It's all about financing. Musk cannot guarantee much with NASA beyond 2024 beyond perhaps a satellite launch or two, and some comsat flights. He'll need a new revenue stream.
I wouldn't be the first to sign up, and he'd be a fool not to make a test flight, but this is certainly a 9.5 on the amazing people Pucker Factor meter.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/27/2017 11:50 pm
Quote
Lori Garver @Lori_Garver 3m3 minutes ago
Lori Garver Retweeted Elon Musk
My comment to WaPost reporter: "optimistic schedule, but even doing it by 2020 would be wonderful. The plan to open new markets is working!"
https://twitter.com/Lori_Garver/status/836376848103768064 (https://twitter.com/Lori_Garver/status/836376848103768064)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/27/2017 11:51 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-statement-about-spacex-private-moon-venture-announcement
Post by: joek on 02/27/2017 11:54 pm
They explicitly allow non-certified launch vehicles.
Understood. However:
- All such missions still require an FAA launch license; use of non-certified vehicles does not mean "no FAA license required".
- As there is no definition of "certification" for commercial space vehicles at this time (outside of USG CCtCap), so requiring such at this point is effectively moot.
Post by: speedevil on 02/27/2017 11:58 pm
<snip>I have not worked out anything in detail - but Apollo 13s free return trajectory was at 250km altitude.
I see your point, but what science could be done? It's a free return flyby, presumably with tight payload margins. It will mostly likely be entirely automated anyway.
Lunar reconnisance orbiter is constantly orbiting a little lower than this, and has gone as low as 50km.
LRO was designed in 2006, so any instruments would be ~11 years younger, and perhaps somewhat more capable.
But - half an orbit versus continual. LRO payload was 100kg.
'Deep impact' type measurements come to mind.
Perhaps something useful could be done with a payload which separates out into multiple small impactors.
LRO does not have a spectrometer, so that impact measurements would either need to be done from existing satellites in earth orbit, earth and DSCOVR (which only has 10 band imager), or an onboard imager.
DSCOVR is very unlikely to produce much, as the resolution is too low.
Flying through the plumes of impacts is in principle possible, but 250km is quite high up, and impact velocities are quite low, meaning generation of a plume may be limited.
Post by: punder on 02/27/2017 11:59 pm
NASA's reacted:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-statement-about-spacex-private-moon-venture-announcement
I bet a lot of NASA employees are quite excited by this. But "official" NASA definitely is not. It reads almost passive-aggressive.
Post by: montyrmanley on 02/27/2017 11:59 pm
NASA's reacted:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-statement-about-spacex-private-moon-venture-announcement
It's likely that the folks at JSC and KSC are happy to hear about SpaceX's plans; the folks at Marshall and Stennis, less so.
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/28/2017 12:00 am
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/28/2017 12:04 am
Perhaps not, but I do like their lightweight lander concept. The problem was going to an old space company and expecting a lander for a reasonable cost...I was actually thinking that some other entity my be doing a lander, not necessarily SpaceX. Think the "Golden Spike" lander...My take is that of this flight goes well, a commercial lunar landing won't be too far behind...Beyond that, there is a long way to go to get from there to a lunar landing which will probably require a couple of additional missions (perhaps one to go into lunar orbit and then return to Earth, and then another with an unmanned Dragon 2 landing on the lunar surface).
Consider the economics for a moment. Neither Golden Spike nor Northrup Grumman nor NASA have the budget to qualify a lander right now. Easily in the billions and decade.
The only way I can see it is to take an existing vehicle where most of that work has been done, and adapt it to the purpose.
At most there are five vehicles you can do that with on earth right now. Two are prime candidates for the role.
Golden Spike doesn't even come close ATM. Perhaps with a billion or two. Have you got that in your wallet for them , hmm?
Post by: mme on 02/28/2017 12:05 am
Right, I misread your original response as a "No" to the second half of the question "would the FAA allow it." Tired brain.They explicitly allow non-certified launch vehicles.
Understood. However:
- All such missions still require an FAA launch license; use of non-certified vehicles does not mean "no FAA license required".
- As there is no definition of "certification" for commercial space vehicles at this time (outside of USG CCtCap), so requiring such at this point is effectively moot.
Post by: punder on 02/28/2017 12:06 am
Post by: Ads on 02/28/2017 12:09 am
Post by: robert_d on 02/28/2017 12:09 am
Could NASA offer use of the DSN and TDRSS networks, etc in return for a seat? As long as the flight is not bogged down with even more bureaucracy-addled requirements than CC? Maybe offer Jack Schmidt a slot as capcom as they slide around the moon? ;D
Harrison "Jack" Schmitt (not Schmidt)
Post by: DragonRider on 02/28/2017 12:11 am
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/28/2017 12:11 am
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
Matthew
So if a government pays for it, it's serious?
It does not matter who pays for it IMO, it is not science, it is not pushing back a frontier, providing a service like satellites, it is a joy ride/ ego trip. Looks bad if you ask me.
Matthew
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/28/2017 12:13 am
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
Matthew
So if a government pays for it, it's serious?
It does not matter who pays for it IMO, it is not science, it is not pushing back a frontier, providing a service like satellites, it is a joy ride/ ego trip. Looks bad if you ask me.
And EM 1/2 ... are ... better?????
Post by: punder on 02/28/2017 12:16 am
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
Matthew
So if a government pays for it, it's serious?
It does not matter who pays for it IMO, it is not science, it is not pushing back a frontier, providing a service like satellites, it is a joy ride/ ego trip. Looks bad if you ask me.
Matthew
You are correct. We must stamp out all forms of joy rides and ego trips, especially when they are done by rich people using their own money.
By the way, did he really name it MoonDragon? Shouldn't he have named it Alice?
Post by: montyrmanley on 02/28/2017 12:16 am
It does not matter who pays for it IMO, it is not science, it is not pushing back a frontier, providing a service like satellites, it is a joy ride/ ego trip. Looks bad if you ask me.
Matthew
Science didn't drive oceangoing vessels or railroads; commerce and adventure did. Science is not the end-all and be-all of human activity -- in fact, science is a lamprey, glomming onto a bigger fish to catch a ride. Thinking that spaceflight must *necessarily* have science is the primary goal is both limiting and silly. If science is all you want out of spaceflight, there's no reason to send people out there at all -- robots can do the job much more safely and at far less expense.
Post by: DragonRider on 02/28/2017 12:20 am
I just feel like in a strange way Trump will end up being the best thing to happen to Space in a long time and Elon is smart enough to stay close to him.Drove past Tesla factory yesterday. All the electronic ad boards cycled through ads, and each time, each board, had a stark text only black and white ad that said:
"Elon, dump Trump!"
...and Elon is wise enough not to take that advice onboard, I think he has a rare opportunity here to ride in the slipstream of Trump's ambitions, he's smart enough to realize how to use them for the benefit of SpaceX.
Post by: Dalhousie on 02/28/2017 12:22 am
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 02/28/2017 12:28 am
They explicitly allow non-certified launch vehicles.
Understood. However:
- All such missions still require an FAA launch license; use of non-certified vehicles does not mean "no FAA license required".
But again (and forgive me - it's been some time since I read the regs), isn't the prime driver for approval or denial of a launch license the mitigation of risk to the public from the launch activity?
If so, the fact that the vehicle carries a spaceflight participant shouldn't play into the decision rationale aside from whether or not such participants have been given a reasonable warning of the inherent risks and chosen to proceed in the face of such risks.
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/28/2017 12:31 am
Please stop calling them tourists. They are not. I'd call them adventurers, explorers, something like that. Not tourists. They are not going to turn up and go, like a tourist would.
They could very well just turn up and go. A turnip could do it. With a food and water dispenser a dog or chimp could do this. They are TOURISTS.
Matthew
Post by: Oli on 02/28/2017 12:34 am
it is a joy ride/ ego trip. Looks bad if you ask me.
Matthew
That's the future of commercial human spaceflight. You better get used to it.
Humanity should abandon space if it doesn't care about diversity. The problem is not so much too much whiteness; it's a total lack of any other colour.
I will never understand the obsession with skin color. For me diversity means different culture. Funnily enough nationalists and isolationists are more likely to preserve cultural diversity (not that I am one myself).
Ok that's all from me. :)
Post by: meekGee on 02/28/2017 12:34 am
My take is that of this flight goes well, a commercial lunar landing won't be too far behind...Actually I think this is the biggest misconception about this flight.
This mission gets you closer to a lunar landing in the same way that SS2 gets you closer to orbital flight - not one bit, except by way of PR.
This is no Apollo 8, which was a step along a carefully engineered path to a lunar landing.
This is a step towards long duration spaceflight, but there's nothing really "moony" about it. They might as well have just done a very high elliptical orbit. (Technology-wise)
I think round-the-moon is the ultimate bang-for-buck in space tourism, and that it will become an awesome revenue source (I preached this before), but this is not leading to a moon landing.
IMO.
Post by: strip mine the moon on 02/28/2017 12:37 am
is the 2nd stage restartable enough to handle course corrections to and from the moon?
granted this will be a free return trajectory but still the earth reenty corridor is not that large
unless you are willing to land anywhere on earth.
just things I remember from the Apollo missions.
Post by: mme on 02/28/2017 12:38 am
I have trouble imagining SpaceX not getting all sorts of valuable data and experience from this fully funded mission. To me this is no more a stunt than landing boosters in the ocean was.Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
Matthew
So if a government pays for it, it's serious?
It does not matter who pays for it IMO, it is not science, it is not pushing back a frontier, providing a service like satellites, it is a joy ride/ ego trip. Looks bad if you ask me.
Matthew
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/28/2017 12:39 am
Post by: joek on 02/28/2017 12:42 am
But again (and forgive me - it's been some time since I read the regs), isn't the prime driver for approval or denial of a launch license the mitigation of risk to the public from the launch activity?
If so, the fact that the vehicle carries a spaceflight participant shouldn't play into the decision rationale aside from whether or not such participants have been given a reasonable warning of the inherent risks and chosen to proceed in the face of such risks.
Correct. A spaceflight participant's risk does not (at least pro-forma) factor into whether the FAA grants a license. However, the FAA does require some level of due diligence--you can't simply say "the spaceflight participant has signed and accepted the risk... so we're good to go on the first flight of our experimental vehicle which no one has ever flown on". The delta between what commercial and FAA wants is an ongoing discussion and no clear lines have yet been defined to my knowledge. So essentially case-by-case at this point as far as I can tell.
Post by: John Alan on 02/28/2017 12:42 am
Post by: rmencos on 02/28/2017 12:43 am
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
Matthew
So if a government pays for it, it's serious?
It does not matter who pays for it IMO, it is not science, it is not pushing back a frontier, providing a service like satellites, it is a joy ride/ ego trip. Looks bad if you ask me.
Matthew
I think calling them "tourists" is what takes away from what is being proposed. It's like the guy in The Right Stuff who said that Gus Grissom was just doing what monkeys could do. This isn't a joy ride. Two people are paying a lot of money to be guinea pigs on barely tested rocket and capsule, and go further into a hostile environment than any human in 50 years. This is truly historic for our generation if SpaceX can pull it off. Call these guys (or gals) adventurers, spacefarers or pioneers. Anybody can be a tourist.Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
Matthew
So if a government pays for it, it's serious?
It does not matter who pays for it IMO, it is not science, it is not pushing back a frontier, providing a service like satellites, it is a joy ride/ ego trip. Looks bad if you ask me.
Matthew
Post by: jgoldader on 02/28/2017 12:48 am
This quite possibly explains the request to see about putting crew on EM-1. I doubt this came as a surprise to the President. I would not want to be the briefer who has to give the EM-1 report.
I'd say this is typically audacious for Musk, but it's more. There are a lot of things that have to move into place for this to happen, obviously. But if it happens, it strikes me as the most significant event in space development since STS-1. It's a high stakes gamble that opens up cislunar space in one swoop. One giant leap, indeed.
What does this mean for NASA HSF? I obviously don't know. What I do suspect is that the status quo for SLS is off the table now. It will probably take a year or two to really shake out, and seriously nasty political battles, but I don't know how the current slow, expensive, vague plans will be able to deal with a successful Dragon flight to the moon.
I'm almost 50, and don't remember the moon landings. I might not live long enough to see people back on the moon, but with a little luck, I may get to see *privately funded* missions around it.
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/28/2017 12:54 am
Post by: montyrmanley on 02/28/2017 12:58 am
There are a lot of things that have to move into place for this to happen, obviously. But if it happens, it strikes me as the most significant event in space development since STS-1. It's a high stakes gamble that opens up cislunar space in one swoop. One giant leap, indeed.
Maybe.
A circumlunar flight is still just a baby step. We get out of LEO, so great; but we still don't have any infrastructure to live or work beyond LEO, and this mission -- while cool -- would do little to nothing to advance that goal. Nor is it intended to, really; Musk is doing two things with this mission: selling a pleasure-cruise to two extremely wealthy people and generating income for his company; and he'll be conducting a vital engineering test of various components of his company's spacecraft and ground systems. If SpaceX gets reusability of the various components, "moon cruises" might even prove a profitable line of business for SpaceX. There are lots of wealthy people in the world who'd pay for a trip like that.
But exploitation of cislunar space is going to need more than a big booster rocket and capsule. We need refueling depots, space tugs, comm sats at earth/moon L1/L2, etc. And I'm not even getting into the larger scale habs, refining, and assembly facilities that we'll need to build in order for our presence in cislunar space to be sustainable.
This will be a project of decades, not years. But as the old saying goes, the first step on any long journey begins with leaving your house!
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/28/2017 01:07 am
Matthew
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 02/28/2017 01:07 am
Post by: LouScheffer on 02/28/2017 01:08 am
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. [...] This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life.What makes me glum is not rich people doing something interesting - it's that we need rich folks, volunteers, or both, to get this stuff done in the first place. Why should it be Rotary that's trying to get rid of polio? Why does it take Gates to attack malaria? Why do we need a few rich private customers to finance BEO technology? What is a government for, if not to do those projects that are both difficult and useful?
Am I alone in this?
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/28/2017 01:10 am
Why the announcement now??Maybe it gives NASA an easy out...
Post by: meekGee on 02/28/2017 01:11 am
Fascinating. I jumped on late, expecting to find the NSF servers on fire. I'm not disappointed. :)If Musk had gone for a lunar landing, you'd be right, since that would be a distraction...
That said, my first reaction was: This was not Musk's style. He's been serious about developing tools to explore Mars. If Jeff Bezos proposed this, I wouldn't have bat one eyelash.
But I continued to read here and began thinking in the long-term. It's all about financing. Musk cannot guarantee much with NASA beyond 2024 beyond perhaps a satellite launch or two, and some comsat flights. He'll need a new revenue stream.
I wouldn't be the first to sign up, and he'd be a fool not to make a test flight, but this is certainly a 9.5 on the amazing people Pucker Factor meter.
But I'd suggest that multi-day flights would be a pre-requisite for any long term manned missions, and if someone is paying, why not start now?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/28/2017 01:11 am
Post by: Kharkov on 02/28/2017 01:16 am
That said, it's hard to believe that Musk/SpaceX think SLS is any good. A big, expensive, rarely-flying rocket would seem, to a proponent of cheap, frequently flying rockets, to be a bad idea.
Hence this Lunar Tourism (Or 'Once Around the Moon' Tourism). What better way to put a knife in the back of SLS without leaving any obvious fingerprints? The trip will get the whole world's attention, not just the U.S.. The news reports are bound to say, loudly, clearly and repeatedly, the cost as a whole, and per tourist.
SLS, whatever its advantages, is not likely to look good in comparison. Falcon Heavy will have a famous trip PRIOR to SLS's first mission - a (probably) unmanned mission, at a probably-reported-as-a-high price, right AFTER SpaceX does the same thing for (probably but almost certainly reported as) a lot less money.
Political support for SLS may vanish quicker than ice cubes in a Texas summer..
Post by: montyrmanley on 02/28/2017 01:16 am
Why the announcement now??
But really, this may be Musk's way of positioning his company as something more than a cheap ride into LEO for NASA. If he can show that the FH/Dragon2 stack is as capable as SLS/Orion in cislunar space for short missions, and for a much lower total cost, that's a pretty big motivator for Congress and the President to decide of SLS is worth the continued development cost or not.
(Chris Edit: Naughty word masked is still a naughty word. I don't want 5 page letter of complaints from parents! ;))
Post by: ZachF on 02/28/2017 01:19 am
Well.
This quite possibly explains the request to see about putting crew on EM-1. I doubt this came as a surprise to the President. I would not want to be the briefer who has to give the EM-1 report.
I'd say this is typically audacious for Musk, but it's more. There are a lot of things that have to move into place for this to happen, obviously. But if it happens, it strikes me as the most significant event in space development since STS-1. It's a high stakes gamble that opens up cislunar space in one swoop. One giant leap, indeed.
What does this mean for NASA HSF? I obviously don't know. What I do suspect is that the status quo for SLS is off the table now. It will probably take a year or two to really shake out, and seriously nasty political battles, but I don't know how the current slow, expensive, vague plans will be able to deal with a successful Dragon flight to the moon.
I'm almost 50, and don't remember the moon landings. I might not live long enough to see people back on the moon, but with a little luck, I may get to see *privately funded* missions around it.
Yeah, a $billions per launch SLS is going to be really hard to keep alive if SpaceX is launching tourists around the moon for a couple hundred million or a pop.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/28/2017 01:19 am
Fascinating. I jumped on late, expecting to find the NSF servers on fire. I'm not disappointed. :)
They were humming at a SpaceX launch level, especially when Elon didn't keep to his schedule.
The servers cope as we've been improving the packages every year to cope, paid for via our great supporters who are L2 subscribers. I have a Google Analytics page which is a live view of site visitation (very cool tool Mark set up for me) and these days we're cope with some really big peaks. Just a few years ago we'd be removing guests and worrying about "Bad Gateway" errors at 20 percent of the demand we were at around 1pm Pacific today.
Anyway! Moving on!
Post by: gospacex on 02/28/2017 01:29 am
What makes me glum is not rich people doing something interesting - it's that we need rich folks, volunteers, or both, to get this stuff done in the first place. Why should it be Rotary that's trying to get rid of polio? Why does it take Gates to attack malaria? Why do we need a few rich private customers to finance BEO technology? What is a government for, if not to do those projects that are both difficult and useful?
Unfortunately, government is quite inefficient in everything it does.
It only makes sense to use government programs for things which are useful *and currently unprofitable*. When done by government, such programs still run the risk of being done inefficiently (sometimes awfully so), but at least they would be done. Scientific probes to other planets and space telescopes are good examples.
Post by: butters on 02/28/2017 01:29 am
Or would there be a third FH launch after STP-2 but before the human lunar mission?
Or would they really launch a Dragon on a lunar free return trajectory for the first time with people onboard??
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/28/2017 01:30 am
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. [...] This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life.
Am I alone in this?
What makes me glum is not rich people doing something interesting - it's that we need rich folks, volunteers, or both, to get this stuff done in the first place.
Let me refine your thesis. Everyone needs to get what they can get done, done. Couldn't agree with that more.
Here's the fly in the ointment. It takes resources to get anything worthwhile done, and you need to coordinate/cooperate/lead to do so. Now the argument for what to do, when to do it, and how to do it ... begins.
The thesis of "little/no government" shifts everything it can to the private sector. But ... to "lead" you'd better be accomplished like a Bezos/Gates/Musk/... to be able to play any of these games. Because you are in effect a government onto your own.
That's not how our govt and its institutions have ever or will ever work, so there are bounds.
Quote
Why should it be Rotary that's trying to get rid of polio? Why does it take Gates to attack malaria? Why do we need a few rich private customers to finance BEO technology? What is a government for, if not to do those projects that are both difficult and useful?
Good question. Because your average citizen isn't broadminded enough to consider it worth doing. And the dearth of great leaders to advocate for seemingly unpopular ideas, because of longer term yield ... aren't there to do so. And at the moment they don't seem to be desired. That is your answer.
It wasn't always so. It might not always be. Generally, when something horrible happens ... suddenly things change.
Like, say, this little beeping sphere goes by in the sky, after witnessing the dawn of a nuclear age. "Gee, you know something else could be there instead of that beeping thing, perhaps it could hurt me ..."
Human nature.
Post by: knowles2 on 02/28/2017 01:38 am
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
Matthew
If Space X seriously hopes to send people to Mars in 2020s, then showing they can do a fly by of the moon with normal people seems like a great idea to me. Especially if they can get some volunteers willing to pay for it.
I think the idea of NASA getting priority on these missions make me take Space X a lot less seriously.
Post by: meekGee on 02/28/2017 01:45 am
'twas obligatory politeness.Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
Matthew
If Space X seriously hopes to send people to Mars in 2020s, then showing they can do a fly by of the moon with normal people seems like a great idea to me. Especially if they can get some volunteers willing to pay for it.
I think the idea of NASA getting priority on these missions make me take Space X a lot less seriously.
And it doesn't mean they won't fly the private parties anyway.
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 01:52 am
Please stop calling them tourists. They are not. I'd call them adventurers, explorers, something like that. Not tourists. They are not going to turn up and go, like a tourist would.
They are tourists. They are on an automated vehicle, and just are going along for the ride.
Post by: mark_m on 02/28/2017 01:55 am
Yes, and as they mentioned in their press release, NASA provided a majority of the funding for the development of Dragon 2. Given their long working relationship, if NASA is willing to pay for a seat, giving them priority seems not only polite but reasonable to me.'twas obligatory politeness.Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
Matthew
If Space X seriously hopes to send people to Mars in 2020s, then showing they can do a fly by of the moon with normal people seems like a great idea to me. Especially if they can get some volunteers willing to pay for it.
I think the idea of NASA getting priority on these missions make me take Space X a lot less seriously.
And it doesn't mean they won't fly the private parties anyway.
Post by: meekGee on 02/28/2017 01:56 am
Post by: montyrmanley on 02/28/2017 01:57 am
Please stop calling them tourists. They are not. I'd call them adventurers, explorers, something like that. Not tourists. They are not going to turn up and go, like a tourist would.
They are tourists. They are on an automated vehicle, and just are going along for the ride.
Was Yuri Gagarin just a tourist, then? The Vostok 1 spacecraft was automated to a large degree, or controlled from the ground....
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/28/2017 01:58 am
Or would they really launch a Dragon on a lunar free return trajectory for the first time with people onboard??
Isn't NASA considering an even less flight proven vehicle ... for same?
Post by: punder on 02/28/2017 01:58 am
Please stop calling them tourists. They are not. I'd call them adventurers, explorers, something like that. Not tourists. They are not going to turn up and go, like a tourist would.
They are tourists. They are on an automated vehicle, and just are going along for the ride.
Yeah Jim, but if the Pirates of the Carribean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists.
Post by: mainmind on 02/28/2017 02:09 am
Space tourism is a side show. I hope these stunt persons paid full price for this. Seems to have little upside and many possible pitfalls. This make SpaceX seem less serious.
Matthew
If Space X seriously hopes to send people to Mars in 2020s, then showing they can do a fly by of the moon with normal people seems like a great idea to me. Especially if they can get some volunteers willing to pay for it.
I think the idea of NASA getting priority on these missions make me take Space X a lot less seriously.
Musk has been pretty clear about two things: 1) he wants to put people on Mars 2) he'll use whatever mechanisms he can to fund the company that can make that happen, e.g. commercial satellite launches, delivering cargo to ISS, delivering crew to ISS, (potentially) creating global satellite internet constellation. A couple people with deep enough pockets came to him and said "Hey, it looks like you could put us in the history books with a mission we can afford and you have the tech for. Can we buy a lift?" and he said yes because they were willing to pay enough to generate a profit for item (1) above. If he's really smart, SpaceX will be doing it without delaying any other plans. Time will tell.
Regarding the SLS/EM1(2) vs. FH/DV2 round-the-moon argument: SLS block 1 still gets more payload to orbit per launch than FH. Per wikipedia, SLS block 1 starts at 70 metric tons to LEO; FH is at 54 mT. SLS has an evolution path to 130 mT per launch. Yes, there are cost-per-kg considerations, but also pad issues with performing multiple launches from a single pad, as mentioned up-thread. All I'm arguing is that SLS could have a useful place in BEO exploration because it can loft so much mass at once, and Orion can have a place, as well, because of its design to support more crew on long duration missions than the announced SpX sortie. Currently, neither the SLS architecture, nor SpaceX, possesses to utilize their assets beyond direct-return lunar fly-by is either a) deep-space long-duration habitats or b) lunar ascent/descent stages and lunar surface habitats.
If NASA is redirected by Congress or the White House to Lunar missions, some company will still be tasked with developing assets (a) and (b), and the status of the SLS will determine what mass allocation they have to work with. SLS isn't automatically dead because SpaceX can recreate (preemptively) the EM-2 mission profile.
If SpaceX can pull this off, kudos to them. It's a win for human space exploration, and US expertise. If more customers come forward to further pad SpaceX's bottom line, good for them. I hope they enjoy the trip.
One question - do any thermal engineers here worry that the Dragon V2 won't have the radiator capacity to properly regulate the temperature of the capsule when it isn't enjoying eclipse and the shade of the Earth 40% of its time in orbit? The artists' concepts of what the DV2 looks like in orbit doesn't appear to have much in the way of radiators and it was originally (?) designed for LEO operations. Are the fins the radiators? Will the barbecue roll be enough, or will additional equipment pointing or extending out of the trunk be required.
Post by: meekGee on 02/28/2017 02:19 am
This might eat the orbital tourism business, mostly because it has a destination...The "tourist/explorer" discussion belongs in the Pluto-is-isn't-a-planet thread.
The matter is irrelevant. Except to Musk - the distinction will help him differentiate his business from Bezos/Branson, to the tune of $100B of private equity financing, over 40 years.
They are tourists. But EM-2 is not much more, and at least there is some return on the investment to do the mission.
Side thought: does this undercut the existing "space tourism" businesses? Because everyone waits for the bigger ride? Does everyone sell of their holdings ... oops.
Better question for all of you: What HSF mission can be done - that can be clearly and unambiguously classed as "not a tourist" mission, well out of LEO?
In either case, their names would go into the history books alongside Apollo astros, irrespective of "tourist".
Suborbital will remain since it's a different price point, but it's funny to see that having started at about the same time, SpaceX is going to fly around the moon at about the same time that others are going to fly 100 km parabolas.
Post by: pb2000 on 02/28/2017 02:27 am
The flight will undoubtedly return a massive amount of data and if the margins allow, a whole bunch of bleeding edge stuff can be jammed into the corners and trunk to do science without the usual aerospace design requirements.
Who knows, maybe the mysterious customers will turn out to have a scientific or engineering background, and can actually do experiments themselves on the trip.
For the people who are just whining about obscenely rich people; keep in mind that a good chunk of the proceeds for this mission will be paid out to employees of spaceX, industry suppliers, and funding of ITS. How is that not a good thing?
Post by: Lumina on 02/28/2017 02:29 am
Well.
This quite possibly explains the request to see about putting crew on EM-1. I doubt this came as a surprise to the President. I would not want to be the briefer who has to give the EM-1 report.
I'd say this is typically audacious for Musk, but it's more. There are a lot of things that have to move into place for this to happen, obviously. But if it happens, it strikes me as the most significant event in space development since STS-1. It's a high stakes gamble that opens up cislunar space in one swoop. One giant leap, indeed.
What does this mean for NASA HSF? I obviously don't know. What I do suspect is that the status quo for SLS is off the table now. It will probably take a year or two to really shake out, and seriously nasty political battles, but I don't know how the current slow, expensive, vague plans will be able to deal with a successful Dragon flight to the moon.
I'm almost 50, and don't remember the moon landings. I might not live long enough to see people back on the moon, but with a little luck, I may get to see *privately funded* missions around it.
I think this is just the beginning. Not sure how many FH launches and/or new hardware may be needed, but if the 2018 flight makes history, what or who is to stop Elon Musk from shooting for a manned Moon landing as his next move?
The space frontier really seems to be opening up, whether we are ready for it or not. About time, too. The 24th December of 2018 - next year!! - will be the 50th anniversary of the Earthrise picture taken from Apollo 8.
Post by: pb2000 on 02/28/2017 02:35 am
I think this is just the beginning. Not sure how many FH launches and/or new hardware may be needed, but if the 2018 flight makes history, what or who is to stop Elon Musk from shooting for a manned Moon landing as his next move?
That would require a lot more hardware and years of development time that would be better spent on ITS.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/28/2017 02:41 am
Hence this Lunar Tourism (Or 'Once Around the Moon' Tourism). What better way to put a knife in the back of SLS without leaving any obvious fingerprints? The trip will get the whole world's attention, not just the U.S.. The news reports are bound to say, loudly, clearly and repeatedly, the cost as a whole, and per tourist.
Congress both created and cursed SLS at the same time. They own it completely, no one, not Musk, anyone else.
Musk gave them a long overdue wakeup call. "Hello? do you know you'll soon be able to order passenger and cargo service to/from the moon? Have a pleasant flight ..."
clongton said here years back that Musk would be already on the ground serving refreshments for NASA astros when they landed. He will likely be proven right.
Don't blame NASA or anyone else. Blame the idiots who thought "lean Constellation" was a good idea, or even more so walking away from Craig Stiedel's spiral development of EELV.
This nonsense of EM 1/2 and SLS "make work" goes away soon. Perhaps Congress gets a kick up ITS rump and actually does a HSF program worth a damn. It is still possible, and long overdue.
Quote
SLS, whatever its advantages, is not likely to look good in comparison. Falcon Heavy will have a famous trip PRIOR to SLS's first mission - a (probably) unmanned mission, at a probably-reported-as-a-high price, right AFTER SpaceX does the same thing for (probably but almost certainly reported as) a lot less money.
If, a big "if", Musk gets F9/FH reuse to work, Orion/SLS near term advantage becomes greater crew safety at longer duration missions, at BLEO destinations. And that's about it. It won't fly frequently enough to matter for the rest of what you'll need.
Quote
Political support for SLS may vanish quicker than ice cubes in a Texas summer..
It has been the same for quite a long time. Shelby and Boeing and Lockheed and Orbital ATK like it that way.
Feel free to tell them off at your leisure.
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 02:46 am
The flight will undoubtedly return a massive amount of data
Data from what?
if the margins allow, a whole bunch of bleeding edge stuff can be jammed into the corners and trunk to do science without the usual aerospace design requirements.
Wrong. if they don't follow aerospace design requirements, then the hardware isn't going to do "science"
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/28/2017 02:48 am
Post by: Ronpur50 on 02/28/2017 02:52 am
If anyone can pull it off, a company like SpaceX could.
I can't wait to see if it happens.
Post by: Lumina on 02/28/2017 03:00 am
I think this is just the beginning. Not sure how many FH launches and/or new hardware may be needed, but if the 2018 flight makes history, what or who is to stop Elon Musk from shooting for a manned Moon landing as his next move?
That would require a lot more hardware and years of development time that would be better spent on ITS.
SpaceX has demonstrated the ability to do things in parallel; by 2020 it should have 4 launch pads at its disposal; and if lunar trips are strong money-earners they can pay for the extra hardware.
I think that the biggest factor in whether the space frontier opens up is a can-do attitude. We're not suffering from a lack of technology, only a lack of will. In the 1960's the only source of will was the U.S. government driven by cold war calculations. If the 2018 flight goes well, my bet is that Elon will be willing and able (technically, financially and "politically") to take the next step and go for the landing.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/28/2017 03:04 am
This might eat the orbital tourism business, mostly because it has a destination...
This trip won't have a destination. A destination is where you stop and spend time away from your transportation to/from the destination. This will just be a ride - one with a great view, but still, just a ride.
Quote
Suborbital will remain since it's a different price point, but it's funny to see that having started at about the same time, SpaceX is going to fly around the moon at about the same time that others are going to fly 100 km parabolas.
The market for $250,000 sub-orbital rides is already pretty limited, and passengers don't have to worry about going to the bathroom in zero-G while floating next to someone that may not be a soulmate.
The market for flying around the Moon will likely wane after the 1st flight, since the novelty of being cooped up on a small vehicle for 6 days with not much to do except peer out a window and float in zero-G won't be enough to entice too many people. And once the first people do it, and the risks have been mitigated to some degree, then it does become tourism - which eliminates the true adventurers with money to burn.
Post by: watermod on 02/28/2017 03:07 am
Post by: AncientU on 02/28/2017 03:09 am
The NASA response reads a bit like: we'll do everything we can to ensure that SpaceX checks all the contractual boxes before we'll let them launch our astronauts, but we can't hold them back from launching private individuals.
It's more than that. It indicates that this is the kind of stuff that private companies should be focusing on while NASA focuses on "beyond the Moon" destinations (i.e. Mars).
The goal posts just lurched to the right again.
This is exactly what NASA was planning to use the next decade and tens of $Billions on -- and it's disingenuous to the nth degree for them now to say "focus on beyond the Moon" destinations. Yesterday it was "focus on beyond low earth orbit."
Post by: PhillyJimi on 02/28/2017 03:10 am
There are over 1,800 billionaires in the world. They and their kids want to brag about what they did over summer vacation. At some point how many cars, homes and tropical islands can you own?
Given the options which are all very dangerous.
Suborbital is most likely a very expensive amusement park type of ride.
Orbital is nice but it would most likely be a short trip? 10 Orbits?
Apollo 8/13 would give you best of Suborbital, Orbital and seeing the moon up close while the Earth becomes a little blue marble. It would be a week long vacation of a lifetime.
To me there is no real choice in what mission I would want to experience if money was no object.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/28/2017 03:14 am
It would suit me just fine! I'd pee in a hose and poop in a bag and spend 6 days in that 'can' with a crew mate if I could get to look at the Moon close up for a couple hours and the Universe around me!! :) I'd take my Wife, Maree if I could - we are both 'Space Geeks' and she'd probably cope with zero-g adaptation better than I could. But Dreams are free, I suppose - the only way we could afford this would be if we were some kind of 'Lunar ticket' lottery winners... Now there's an idea!!This might eat the orbital tourism business, mostly because it has a destination...
This trip won't have a destination. A destination is where you stop and spend time away from your transportation to/from the destination. This will just be a ride - one with a great view, but still, just a ride.QuoteSuborbital will remain since it's a different price point, but it's funny to see that having started at about the same time, SpaceX is going to fly around the moon at about the same time that others are going to fly 100 km parabolas.
The market for $250,000 sub-orbital rides is already pretty limited, and passengers don't have to worry about going to the bathroom in zero-G while floating next to someone that may not be a soulmate.
The market for flying around the Moon will likely wane after the 1st flight, since the novelty of being cooped up on a small vehicle for 6 days with not much to do except peer out a window and float in zero-G won't be enough to entice too many people. And once the first people do it, and the risks have been mitigated to some degree, then it does become tourism - which eliminates the true adventurers with money to burn.
Post by: pb2000 on 02/28/2017 03:27 am
The flight will undoubtedly return a massive amount of data
Data from what?
if the margins allow, a whole bunch of bleeding edge stuff can be jammed into the corners and trunk to do science without the usual aerospace design requirements.
Wrong. if they don't follow aerospace design requirements, then the hardware isn't going to do "science"
You see ISS crew using consumer grade electronics all the time, launching low cost cube sats and doing student experiments. I'm not talking about returning Hubble quality data, but I'm sure there's something that was axed (or not yet invented) from LRO that some scientist somewhere would love to have on board.
Post by: sanman on 02/28/2017 03:33 am
Totally open for discussion, but posting "wow" is not worth people's finger scrolling. So make a point. :)
Wow! So cool! ;D
Looks like SpaceX will beat Blue Origin to the Space Tourism market after all! This could kick off the start of a whole series of Space Tourist flights, out to the Moon or even just LEO (aka. cis-lunar space). Once the first flight proves itself - and garners all sorts of glory and publicity - then the floodgates could open up.
If it is indeed someone like James Cameron going on this mission, I would hope he'd take us all along by including one of his fancy camera systems on the flight. Then I can put on my Oculus Rift and feel like I'm along for the ride.
I'm just trying to understand what component of US govt involvement there may be in all of this. I'd read that the Trump Whitehouse had been seeking a lunar-related mission as proof to the American public that their country was more serious about space again. Both Donald Trump and Elon Musk have a lot of agility and showmanship in their respective styles, and so the rapid unveiling of this grand announcement would be consistent with how both men operate.
Since this Whitehouse is especially inclined towards positive-publicity events, then there may be opportunity for further govt-sponsored spaceflight missions that continue to push the envelope on manned spaceflight. If this helps to further subsidize development for Dragon and FalconHeavy, then all the better - and let's not forget ITS, New Glenn and New Armstrong.
Will the Age of Flags-and-Footprints soon be returning?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/28/2017 03:45 am
It seems nobody has seen my previous posts on this subject?! James Cameron has a five year commitment to his 'Avatar' sequel trilogy project, here in New Zealand. Unless you hear different from the man himself; that's his status.Totally open for discussion, but posting "wow" is not worth people's finger scrolling. So make a point. :)
Wow! So cool! ;D
Looks like SpaceX will beat Blue Origin to the Space Tourism market after all! This could kick off the start of a whole series of Space Tourist flights, out to the Moon or even just LEO (aka. cis-lunar space). Once the first flight proves itself - and garners all sorts of glory and publicity - then the floodgates could open up.
If it is indeed someone like James Cameron going on this mission, I would hope he'd take us all along by including one of his fancy camera systems on the flight. Then I can put on my Oculus Rift and feel like I'm along for the ride.
I'm just trying to understand what component of US govt involvement there may be in all of this. I'd read that the Trump Whitehouse had been seeking a lunar-related mission as proof to the American public that their country was more serious about space again. Both Donald Trump and Elon Musk have a lot of agility and showmanship in their respective styles, and so the rapid unveiling of this grand announcement would be consistent with how both men operate.
Since this Whitehouse is especially inclined towards positive-publicity events, then there may be opportunity for further govt-sponsored spaceflight missions that continue to push the envelope on manned spaceflight. If this helps to further subsidize development for Dragon and FalconHeavy, then all the better - and let's not forget ITS, New Glenn and New Armstrong.
Will the Age of Flags-and-Footprints soon be returning?
Post by: AncientU on 02/28/2017 04:05 am
Well.
This quite possibly explains the request to see about putting crew on EM-1. I doubt this came as a surprise to the President. I would not want to be the briefer who has to give the EM-1 report.
I'd say this is typically audacious for Musk, but it's more. There are a lot of things that have to move into place for this to happen, obviously. But if it happens, it strikes me as the most significant event in space development since STS-1. It's a high stakes gamble that opens up cislunar space in one swoop. One giant leap, indeed.
What does this mean for NASA HSF? I obviously don't know. What I do suspect is that the status quo for SLS is off the table now. It will probably take a year or two to really shake out, and seriously nasty political battles, but I don't know how the current slow, expensive, vague plans will be able to deal with a successful Dragon flight to the moon.
I'm almost 50, and don't remember the moon landings. I might not live long enough to see people back on the moon, but with a little luck, I may get to see *privately funded* missions around it.
Reposting...
The contrast between FH/Dragon 2 and SLS/Orion will be amply demonstrated over the next few years.
Let's watch the show...
Post by: sanman on 02/28/2017 04:09 am
It seems nobody has seen my previous posts on this subject?! James Cameron has a five year commitment to his 'Avatar' sequel trilogy project, here in New Zealand. Unless you hear different from the man himself; that's his status.
Okay, so Dennis Tito then? The Cirque-du-Soleil guy? Whoever it is, I hope they'll make the most of the opportunity to video-document the trip and broadcast it.
Blue Origin also needs to step up to the plate and get a flight team of their own ready. Bezos doesn't have any rocket called New Lindbergh, but maybe they can use that nomenclature for missions of note.
If demand really picks up for BEO flights, then maybe it will resurrect ideas like DragonLab, etc.
Post by: Lars-J on 02/28/2017 04:17 am
Elon Musk & SpaceX have, AFAIK, been careful not to insult, mock, or generally diss SLS. They don't want to annoy NASA, or those Senators & Congressmen pushing SLS. Also, doing so gains them nothing or very little while feeding the 'anti-SpaceX' types.
That said, it's hard to believe that Musk/SpaceX think SLS is any good. A big, expensive, rarely-flying rocket would seem, to a proponent of cheap, frequently flying rockets, to be a bad idea.
I don't think Musk & SpaceX care much about SLS, either pro or con. SLS is irrelevant to their plans. Their primary goal is not to kill SLS. (even if it may end up doing so)
What this does is provide some external funds to gain experience which will be VERY valuable for their ultimate goal moving forward. A flight proven FH and Dragon does open up a lot of possibilities in the cis-lunar area which can help pave the way for their next project, to A) show private spaceflight is possible and B) build a demand for ITS.
Post by: ChrisC on 02/28/2017 04:19 am
Has the press conference audio popped up anywhere?
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 02/28/2017 04:26 am
Post by: david1971 on 02/28/2017 04:32 am
Please stop calling them tourists. They are not. I'd call them adventurers, explorers, something like that. Not tourists. They are not going to turn up and go, like a tourist would.
They are tourists. They are on an automated vehicle, and just are going along for the ride.
Was Yuri Gagarin just a tourist, then? The Vostok 1 spacecraft was automated to a large degree, or controlled from the ground....
Well, there was that whole bail out of the capsule and land via parachute part...
Post by: Ludus on 02/28/2017 04:40 am
Why the announcement now??FWIW, think its been on the edge of happening for a while now. Suggest the launch off 39A did the trick.
Or maybe the decision to let Red Dragon slip to 2020. Both are impressive SpaceX initiated missions that use Falcon Heavy. Both are high profile. Red Dragon involves more pressure to hit a specific window and requires more work outside what SpaceX would do anyway for pay. Moon Dragon is paid for, will get more buzz, and is a better demo that FH does much of what SLS is supposed to do.
It's obvious low hanging fruit that's been discussed on NSF for many years. Once SX decided Red Dragon would have to slip to the next synod why not move it up into the slot?
Post by: mikelepage on 02/28/2017 04:40 am
Post by: rakaydos on 02/28/2017 04:40 am
It was in the Apollo days, certiantly, when they had to ditch the service module before entry, and "skipping off" the atmosphere meant staying in space longer than the capsule was designed for without the extra air and scrubbers.
But Dragon's Trunk has nothing. Power, perhaps, but a few extra batteries are easy enough to manage.
The Superdracos can fire during entry to fine tune the course, and even without that, a mission can be planned to do a lighter aerobreak, do an orbit, and comit to a lighter entry without the hazards of a high speed entry.
Post by: yg1968 on 02/28/2017 05:07 am
I skimmed this whole fabulous thread before asking ...
Has the press conference audio popped up anywhere?
It hasn't.
Post by: northenarc on 02/28/2017 05:08 am
Post by: Pipcard on 02/28/2017 05:24 am
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/28/2017 05:24 am
Charles Simonyi would be a credible guess - he's a two time Soyuz to ISS veteran to boot. But he might be pushing it, age wise. And Dennis Tito is into his 70's now, so probably not him.It seems nobody has seen my previous posts on this subject?! James Cameron has a five year commitment to his 'Avatar' sequel trilogy project, here in New Zealand. Unless you hear different from the man himself; that's his status.
Okay, so Dennis Tito then? The Cirque-du-Soleil guy? Whoever it is, I hope they'll make the most of the opportunity to video-document the trip and broadcast it.
Blue Origin also needs to step up to the plate and get a flight team of their own ready. Bezos doesn't have any rocket called New Lindbergh, but maybe they can use that nomenclature for missions of note.
If demand really picks up for BEO flights, then maybe it will resurrect ideas like DragonLab, etc.
Post by: Bynaus on 02/28/2017 05:25 am
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-statement-about-spacex-private-moon-venture-announcement
Perhaps we shouldnt forget that SLS is not necessarily something NASA wants to do - its something Congress makes them do. So I can imagine that this development might be welcomed at least by some within NASA...
Post by: Hauerg on 02/28/2017 05:26 am
I've seen some concerns about the capsule entry corridore being really narrow. I disagree.
It was in the Apollo days, certiantly, when they had to ditch the service module before entry, and "skipping off" the atmosphere meant staying in space longer than the capsule was designed for without the extra air and scrubbers.
But Dragon's Trunk has nothing. Power, perhaps, but a few extra batteries are easy enough to manage.
The Superdracos can fire during entry to fine tune the course, and even without that, a mission can be planned to do a lighter aerobreak, do an orbit, and comit to a lighter entry without the hazards of a high speed entry.
Superdracos can do everything BUT FINEtuning.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/28/2017 05:27 am
My two questions:Glorified, sealable plastic bags and germ wipes for number twos, tough plastic bottles with a one-way valve for urine. Then seal both in a tough, airtight aluminum or stainless steel box, I'd imagine.
- will there be a disposable "orbital module" similar to Soyuz/Shenzhou?
- and if not, where will the toilets be?
Post by: Surfdaddy on 02/28/2017 05:28 am
The flight will undoubtedly return a massive amount of data
Data from what?
1 - How do the thermal systems on Dragon 2 work beyond LEO?
2 - What is the performance of life support on a one week mission?
3 - How do our beyond LEO navigational systems work?
4 - What is the radiation environment beyond LEO experienced by Dragon v2?
5 - How well do our control systems work returning to reentry from beyond LEO?
6 - What is the performance of the heat shield when arriving at ~25,000mph?
7 - How well do our communication systems work at and beyond lunar distances?
I'm sure there is more.
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/28/2017 06:01 am
"Falcon Heavy is due to launch its first test flight this summer and, once successful, will be the most powerful vehicle to reach orbit after the Saturn V moon rocket."
The people who write these need to do a bit more fact checking. The "most powerful vehicle to reach orbit after the Saturn V moon rocket" was Energia, with 35.1 MN of thrust. What Falcon Heavy will be is the fourth most powerful launch vehicle to reach orbit.
Energia 35.10 MN
Saturn V 33.85 MN
Space Shuttle 30.90 MN
Falcon Heavy 24.68 MN
Atlas V 551 12.27 MN
GSLV Mk.III 11.66 MN
Ariane 5 11.40 MN
CZ-5 10.64 MN
H-IIB 9.98 MN
Proton-M 9.94 MN
Angara A5 9.61 MN
Delta IV Heavy 9.41 MN
"At 5 million pounds of liftoff thrust, Falcon Heavy is two-thirds the thrust of Saturn V and more than double the thrust of the next largest launch vehicle currently flying."
According to the SpaceX web site Falcon Heavy is 5.55 Mlbf (24.68 MN). That is just over double the thrust of the Atlas V 551 at liftoff. 5 Mlbf (22.24 MN) is not double the thrust.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html
Post by: ppb on 02/28/2017 06:10 am
I wish NASA could revert to the NACA days and become a true research organization once again. Our Apollo success was enabled by the propulsion research of the 1950s; in fact all major advances in transportation history were preceded by the harnessing of an energy source. It's all about the propulsion: there have been no revolutionary advances here in over 50 years. NASA has been the victim of its own Apollo success: it's been stuck caring and feeding a standing army mostly built for one mission and has mostly lost the ability to push the technological frontiers.Logistics chain for SLS/Orion does not support that, and it would take 2-5 years to change. It can't launch at that cadence.SLS program managers can not be happy about this. This will only up the pressure for a crewed EM-1 mission.
SpaceX is stepping on some pretty big toes with this announcement. We knew it was going to happen eventually, though.
Having said all that...whoa. Talk about a test under fire. Guidance, comms, ECLSS, hot return, plus the very real risk of death. If anyone can pull it off SpaceX can, but...woof.
I’m thinking this will actually reduce the pressure for a crewed EM-1…
It changes the landscape. You're right - the pressure comes off because it will seem to compete with commercial efforts.
However, they now have to justify themselves as a program with scope.
Both EM-1/2 have always been extremely expensive "joke" missions. But that's what the politics around SLS have wanted, not NASA.
So its the Congress that really bites it in the rear if EM 1/2 are exposed as the bad jokes they have always been.
And Congress hasn't been overly fond of Musk either. So if he brings it off, there will be a lot of "WTF" directed at them.
They are then well and truly screwed.
SLS/Orion's only hope now is for dual-launch of Block 1B's, doing heavy-spacecraft Lunar landing missions lasting 2 or 3 weeks each.
But you are right about mission duration - Orion is designed for more duration, and SLS payload is underutilized.
However, neither Dragon or Orion have duration down yet. Dragon has been on the ISS for extended time, so its in the lead.QuoteOr maybe a variation of the 'Inspiration Mars' flyby mission in 2021...That will take years to get the needed ECLSS proof before flying.QuoteBut since a big funding boost is unlikely, then... :( However, don't expect much to happen until if and when the Moon Dragon mission flies successfully. If it does, the countdown to true SLS cancellation will start.Think it will "bumble along" in the mean time.
Again, what SLS/Orion needs is a lander on short notice. What Congress does not yet know is that they need it even worse, so they can declare SLS/Orion a victory in returning to the lunar surface and move on ...
Post by: Star One on 02/28/2017 06:26 am
What makes me glum is not rich people doing something interesting - it's that we need rich folks, volunteers, or both, to get this stuff done in the first place. Why should it be Rotary that's trying to get rid of polio? Why does it take Gates to attack malaria? Why do we need a few rich private customers to finance BEO technology? What is a government for, if not to do those projects that are both difficult and useful?
Unfortunately, government is quite inefficient in everything it does.
It only makes sense to use government programs for things which are useful *and currently unprofitable*. When done by government, such programs still run the risk of being done inefficiently (sometimes awfully so), but at least they would be done. Scientific probes to other planets and space telescopes are good examples.
Can we keep the politics out of this and yes your statement is political. It's bad enough people trying to bring in party politics by the back door with somehow crediting the administration when it's clearly an entirely private venture.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/28/2017 06:31 am
What makes me glum is not rich people doing something interesting - it's that we need rich folks, volunteers, or both, to get this stuff done in the first place. Why should it be Rotary that's trying to get rid of polio? Why does it take Gates to attack malaria? Why do we need a few rich private customers to finance BEO technology? What is a government for, if not to do those projects that are both difficult and useful?
Unfortunately, government is quite inefficient in everything it does.
It only makes sense to use government programs for things which are useful *and currently unprofitable*. When done by government, such programs still run the risk of being done inefficiently (sometimes awfully so), but at least they would be done. Scientific probes to other planets and space telescopes are good examples.
Can we keep the politics out of this and yes your statement is political. It's bad enough people trying to give the administration any credit in this as it is when it's clearly an entirely private venture.
Your plea to keep politics out of this is undercut by a blatantly political sentence immediately following it.
Anyway, politics is an inherent part of this topic. Trying to keep politics out of it is like having a discussion about soccer and trying to ban any mention of goalkeepers.
Post by: Star One on 02/28/2017 06:35 am
What makes me glum is not rich people doing something interesting - it's that we need rich folks, volunteers, or both, to get this stuff done in the first place. Why should it be Rotary that's trying to get rid of polio? Why does it take Gates to attack malaria? Why do we need a few rich private customers to finance BEO technology? What is a government for, if not to do those projects that are both difficult and useful?
Unfortunately, government is quite inefficient in everything it does.
It only makes sense to use government programs for things which are useful *and currently unprofitable*. When done by government, such programs still run the risk of being done inefficiently (sometimes awfully so), but at least they would be done. Scientific probes to other planets and space telescopes are good examples.
Can we keep the politics out of this and yes your statement is political. It's bad enough people trying to give the administration any credit in this as it is when it's clearly an entirely private venture.
Your plea to keep politics out of this is undercut by a blatantly political sentence immediately following it.
Anyway, politics is an inherent part of this topic. Trying to keep politics out of it is like having a discussion about soccer and trying to ban any mention of goalkeepers.
I don't see how what I said was party political (I've edited my OP to make this clearer) as it would have been true whoever was in the White House it's not about the present occupant.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/28/2017 06:38 am
The flight will undoubtedly return a massive amount of data
Data from what?
1 - How do the thermal systems on Dragon 2 work beyond LEO?
2 - What is the performance of life support on a one week mission?
3 - How do our beyond LEO navigational systems work?
4 - What is the radiation environment beyond LEO experienced by Dragon v2?
5 - How well do our control systems work returning to reentry from beyond LEO?
6 - What is the performance of the heat shield when arriving at ~25,000mph?
7 - How well do our communication systems work at and beyond lunar distances?
I'm sure there is more.
For most of those items, if the answer is anything other than "as we expected", then two people die.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/28/2017 06:46 am
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/28/2017 06:47 am
Will there be a disposable "orbital module" similar to Soyuz/Shenzhou? And if not, where will the toilets be? Because that is my number one concern about this.
There's definitely no time for SpaceX to design and build a disposable orbital module for this mission. Just look how long they've taken to go from the Dragon V2 reveal to operational Dragon V2 flights. It also would kill the economics of it.
They'll just carry along toilets of some sort in the capsule itself. Regulations in some places, such as Mt. Whitney, require hikers to pack out all solid human waste, and there are disposable "toilet" bags for the purpose. The mission is short enough that nothing fancy is needed -- no recycling or anything like that, just capturing the waste.
For anyone willing to be the first to fly on a mission like this, primitive toilets will not be the number one concern. I'm sure they'd be willing to just wear diapers for a few days if it came to that.
Post by: sanman on 02/28/2017 07:20 am
The matter is irrelevant. Except to Musk - the distinction will help him differentiate his business from Bezos/Branson, to the tune of $100B of private equity financing, over 40 years.
They are tourists. But EM-2 is not much more, and at least there is some return on the investment to do the mission.
Side thought: does this undercut the existing "space tourism" businesses? Because everyone waits for the bigger ride? Does everyone sell of their holdings ... oops.
Plenty of people signed up to buy Tesla cars, rather than waiting for better Tesla models to come along.
There are plenty of people who'd sign up for the first circum-lunar flight, rather than wait for something better to come along.
Quote
Better question for all of you: What HSF mission can be done - that can be clearly and unambiguously classed as "not a tourist" mission, well out of LEO?
In either case, their names would go into the history books alongside Apollo astros, irrespective of "tourist".
Landing on the Moon, or traveling to an asteroid.
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/28/2017 07:29 am
Glorified, sealable plastic bags and germ wipes for number twos, tough plastic bottles with a one-way valve for urine. Then seal both in a tough, airtight aluminum or stainless steel box, I'd imagine.
I'm sure that with its 5000 strong workforce, SpaceX can manage to build a proper toilet and avoid the use of baggies.
Post by: TomH on 02/28/2017 07:41 am
Post by: vapour_nudge on 02/28/2017 07:57 am
From the SpaceX press release.
"Falcon Heavy is due to launch its first test flight this summer and, once successful, will be the most powerful vehicle to reach orbit after the Saturn V moon rocket."
The people who write these need to do a bit more fact checking. The "most powerful vehicle to reach orbit after the Saturn V moon rocket" was Energia, with 35.1 MN of thrust. What Falcon Heavy will be is the fourth most powerful launch vehicle to reach orbit.
Energia 35.10 MN
Saturn V 33.85 MN
Space Shuttle 30.90 MN
Falcon Heavy 24.68 MN
Atlas V 551 12.27 MN
GSLV Mk.III 11.66 MN
Ariane 5 11.40 MN
CZ-5 10.64 MN
H-IIB 9.98 MN
Proton-M 9.94 MN
Angara A5 9.61 MN
Delta IV Heavy 9.41 MN
"At 5 million pounds of liftoff thrust, Falcon Heavy is two-thirds the thrust of Saturn V and more than double the thrust of the next largest launch vehicle currently flying."
According to the SpaceX web site Falcon Heavy is 5.55 Mlbf (24.68 MN). That is just over double the thrust of the Atlas V 551 at liftoff. 5 Mlbf (22.24 MN) is not double the thrust.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html
Hi Steven. The Atlas numbers would be the lift off thrust but don't they throttle up shortly after? Might be wrong
Post by: CJ on 02/28/2017 08:03 am
It *appears* to be a lunar flyby as part of a deep space 400,000 mile apogee trajectory. What would that do regarding landing zones? I recall that with Apollo, landing latitude range was dictated by the angle of the moon's orbit relative to the equator, more specifically where on its orbit the moon was for TEI. Any similar issues with this mission?
BTW, regarding the record books; would the crew not only be the humans to travel furthest from Earth, but also the humans due to returning from a 400,000 mile apogee? (I'm assuming that's going to be a slightly higher velocity than Apollo 13?)
Post by: jpo234 on 02/28/2017 08:35 am
Any info on the orbital mechanics of this?
It *appears* to be a lunar flyby as part of a deep space 400,000 mile apogee trajectory. What would that do regarding landing zones? I recall that with Apollo, landing latitude range was dictated by the angle of the moon's orbit relative to the equator, more specifically where on its orbit the moon was for TEI. Any similar issues with this mission?
BTW, regarding the record books; would the crew not only be the humans to travel furthest from Earth, but also the humans due to returning from a 400,000 mile apogee? (I'm assuming that's going to be a slightly higher velocity than Apollo 13?)
I'm interested in this as well. There are arguments that Elon misspoke and that it will actually be 400000km, not miles. 400000 miles is supposedly not possible within a week.
Apollo 13 took ~6 days and reached a distance 400,171 km from earth (248,655 miles) which would neatly match the number from SpaceX in km.
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/28/2017 08:40 am
With all the talk about NASA supposedly being p...ed about the circumlunar mission, that announcement certainly doesn't sound like that:Like I said, it gives them an out... ;)
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-statement-about-spacex-private-moon-venture-announcement
Perhaps we shouldnt forget that SLS is not necessarily something NASA wants to do - its something Congress makes them do. So I can imagine that this development might be welcomed at least by some within NASA...
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/28/2017 08:52 am
[EDIT]
Tin-foil hat on - IIRC, Musk and Bezos have both been to see President Trump on at least one or possibly two occasions as part of a group of space sector leaders. I wonder if there may be a Presidential request for a favour at work here.
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/28/2017 08:54 am
Trump did not inherit his money. What are you talking about? Leave politics out of this. If the President can help push space forward using whatever motives he might have it is OK by me. This new announcement is something that would interest someone like that to be a part of.Why are you talking about him? It's a matter of record how much he and his siblings inherited and how much his ventures lost and nobody really cares... Unless he is one of the two who have paid a down payment...
Post by: dodo on 02/28/2017 09:12 am
https://twitter.com/Astro_Mike/status/836346660880015360
Mike Massimino
@Astro_Mike
Okay, the real space race is about to kick into high gear! Big announcement from @spacex
https://twitter.com/StationCDRKelly/status/836338112498401281
Scott Kelly
@StationCDRKelly
It's been almost a year. Send me!
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/28/2017 09:26 am
Some astronauts seem enthusiastic about this.
https://twitter.com/Astro_Mike/status/836346660880015360
Mike Massimino
@Astro_Mike
Okay, the real space race is about to kick into high gear! Big announcement from @spacex
https://twitter.com/StationCDRKelly/status/836338112498401281
Scott Kelly
@StationCDRKelly
It's been almost a year. Send me!
Um... Well, Scott, Mike... This may be me but I don't think Musk would say 'no' if you gentlemen are volunteering for the CDR and PLT positions!
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/28/2017 09:40 am
I met some of you guys at a rendezvous in Titusville for STS-135. It was good to see you folk!
For this mission - I would propose an Expedition by all willing and able NSF members to be together at KSC or nearby it for the launch of this Mission To The Moon. What do you guys think of that? I would dearly love to meet Chuck Longton, Chris Bergin, Steve Pietrobon, Space Ghost1962 etc - just for example - and indeed anyone else who thinks they could make it there.
What do you think? I know a lot of things have to fall into place first but....
Post by: HighlandRay on 02/28/2017 09:45 am
Post by: Archibald on 02/28/2017 09:46 am
I suggest we call the circumlunar mission " Grey Dragon" (because the Moon is grey of course)
But...
To me manned Moon is as difficult as unmanned Mars... and unmanned Mars already missed the 2018 launch window.
What I mean is that Musk replaced an impossible (schedule) mission with another, similarly impossible mission.
An example: both missions need Falcon 9H and Dragon 2, which are hardly ready.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/28/2017 09:49 am
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/28/2017 10:13 am
Regarding NASA's interest, this may all feed into the possibility of a 'MoonLab' station at EML-2 for various bits of crewed exo-magnetosphere research. If Falcon Heavy/Dragon can prove this mission profile, then NASA have a CRS provider lined up and ready to go to support the program. So, it is at least in their best interests to cooperate and encourage.
If SpaceX can rig up an MPS for the Dragon (maybe a Kestrel knock-off), it might even be useful as a crew transfer vehicle for cis-Lunar space, enabling NASA to concentrate SLS on throwing large cargos (including Boeing's proposed ultra-simple lander) to the Moon or cis-Lunar space. As crewed Falcon Heavy will launch from LC-39A (and any NASA supporting mission will probably have NASA decals on the spacecraft), NASA will be able to claim with a straight face that it is a 'NASA vehicle and mission'.
It would be kind of ironic if the oft-derided CLV/CaLV launch profile happens after all, just with Falcon-9/-Heavy as CLV and SLS as CaLV instead (Yes, I'm suggesting that Falcon-9 could launch a Lunar Dragon to LEO to meet up with the lunar lander and EUS).
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 02/28/2017 10:52 am
I wish to issue a challenge/proposal to all Nasaspaceflight.com family members:
For this mission - I would propose an Expedition by all willing and able NSF members to be together at KSC or nearby it for the launch of this Mission To The Moon. What do you guys think of that? I would dearly love to meet Chuck Longton, Chris Bergin, Steve Pietrobon, Space Ghost1962 etc - just for example - and indeed anyone else who thinks they could make it there.
If you read NSF and have a pulse, you have no excuse to not show up. This could be epic. And, I swear, if they radio "You are go for TLI" I'll buy a round of drinks for all assembled.
Post by: gospacex on 02/28/2017 11:08 am
What makes me glum is not rich people doing something interesting - it's that we need rich folks, volunteers, or both, to get this stuff done in the first place. Why should it be Rotary that's trying to get rid of polio? Why does it take Gates to attack malaria? Why do we need a few rich private customers to finance BEO technology? What is a government for, if not to do those projects that are both difficult and useful?
Unfortunately, government is quite inefficient in everything it does.
It only makes sense to use government programs for things which are useful *and currently unprofitable*. When done by government, such programs still run the risk of being done inefficiently (sometimes awfully so), but at least they would be done. Scientific probes to other planets and space telescopes are good examples.
Can we keep the politics out of this and yes your statement is political.
Why should we keep politics out of this?
My statement is a political *fact*. The people who did not live in a system where government tries to fully control economy simply do not appreciate this fact enough. There may be thinking "here we go, free market apologist again with his mantra".
The thing is, the "mantra" is true. We are witnessing yet another example right now, with SpaceX vs SLS comparison.
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 02/28/2017 11:20 am
I've seen some concerns about the capsule entry corridore being really narrow. I disagree.
It was in the Apollo days, certiantly, when they had to ditch the service module before entry, and "skipping off" the atmosphere meant staying in space longer than the capsule was designed for without the extra air and scrubbers.
But Dragon's Trunk has nothing. Power, perhaps, but a few extra batteries are easy enough to manage.
The Superdracos can fire during entry to fine tune the course, and even without that, a mission can be planned to do a lighter aerobreak, do an orbit, and comit to a lighter entry without the hazards of a high speed entry.
Superdracos can do everything BUT FINEtuning.
Which begs the question, how will mid-course corrections be managed? With Draco thrusters alone? Dragon 2 doesn't have the luxury of a SM fat on fuel to modify the trajectory. So many questions. Inertial guidance, ECLSS, entry corridor. I assume Dragon 2 will roll on entry, like Apollo, to control its path. Interesting to compare Dragon 2 capabilities in this regard vs. Apollo, Orion.
Post by: jpo234 on 02/28/2017 11:25 am
What makes me glum is not rich people doing something interesting - it's that we need rich folks, volunteers, or both, to get this stuff done in the first place. Why should it be Rotary that's trying to get rid of polio? Why does it take Gates to attack malaria? Why do we need a few rich private customers to finance BEO technology? What is a government for, if not to do those projects that are both difficult and useful?
Simple: Because they spend their own and not other peoples money.
Post by: Kaputnik on 02/28/2017 11:41 am
I've seen some concerns about the capsule entry corridore being really narrow. I disagree.
It was in the Apollo days, certiantly, when they had to ditch the service module before entry, and "skipping off" the atmosphere meant staying in space longer than the capsule was designed for without the extra air and scrubbers.
But Dragon's Trunk has nothing. Power, perhaps, but a few extra batteries are easy enough to manage.
The Superdracos can fire during entry to fine tune the course, and even without that, a mission can be planned to do a lighter aerobreak, do an orbit, and comit to a lighter entry without the hazards of a high speed entry.
Superdracos can do everything BUT FINEtuning.
Which begs the question, how will mid-course corrections be managed? With Draco thrusters alone? Dragon 2 doesn't have the luxury of a SM fat on fuel to modify the trajectory. So many questions. Inertial guidance, ECLSS, entry corridor. I assume Dragon 2 will roll on entry, like Apollo, to control its path. Interesting to compare Dragon 2 capabilities in this regard vs. Apollo, Orion.
Good question. Are the SD tanks cross plumbed with the Dracos? If so, there is more than enough propellant for correction burns, just they will need to be done long and slow using Dracos. But it's not that different to some interplanetary probes using relatively small engines to enter orbit, with burns lasting many tens of minutes.
Post by: corneliussulla on 02/28/2017 11:49 am
I think there is much more going on here than sending a couple folks round the moon
Elon Musk cannot get to Mars without some government funding. He has a president in place who whilst unpredictable is generally anti gov, pro business.
Musk is effectively going to do what NASA was planning to do a year or two later for a mission cost of $140 mill ish. A similar mission with SLS will cost $1 billion plus. However going forward if the side boosters on FH and the dragon2 can be reused for say 10 such missions u could be looking at SX selling such trips for $40-$50 mill( with profit for ITS dev) NASA will look ridiculous spending $ 1 billion plus on similar missions.
There is little doubt in my mind that Musk is trying to end NASA launch vehicle development by influencing the administration and showing just how ineffectual And wasteful the NASA launch manned vehicle development has been. This is not because he dislikes NASA, he just knows he can do that bit much better and cheaper than NASA. NASA could then spend its efforts developing space telescopes to image worlds around other stars and systems for use by There astronauts who SpaxeX deliver to moon or Mars.
$ 20 billion since constellation and not a single man in orbit. I have little doubt if NASA put out contract to land people on Mars for half that money Musk would deliver the ITS which has capabilities beyond NASA wildest imaginings, remember bushs 41,s $400 billion plan to get to Mars. ITS comes in at somewhere between 2-5% of that and with much greater capability.
I hope Musk can end the SLS nonsense and NASA can get on with what it does best, great space science and Moon/Mars surface systems development. I believe that way we get further/faster
Post by: ugordan on 02/28/2017 11:49 am
If so, there is more than enough propellant for correction burns, just they will need to be done long and slow using Dracos. But it's not that different to some interplanetary probes using relatively small engines to enter orbit, with burns lasting many tens of minutes.
The CRS Dragon deorbit burns take, what, 6 minutes already? That's a non-issue for course-correction burns. The bigger issue I see is how are they going to perform deep space tracking and navigation in the first place in order to be able to *do* TCMs. Leasing NASA assets or is there some trivial way to do that in the absence of GPS in deep space?
Also an issue I can see right now is an unproved lunar reentry on the Dragon 2 mold line (Zond-like more than Apollo-like). Skip entry profile? Sidewall heating? Questions, questions...
Post by: Star One on 02/28/2017 12:04 pm
What makes me glum is not rich people doing something interesting - it's that we need rich folks, volunteers, or both, to get this stuff done in the first place. Why should it be Rotary that's trying to get rid of polio? Why does it take Gates to attack malaria? Why do we need a few rich private customers to finance BEO technology? What is a government for, if not to do those projects that are both difficult and useful?
Unfortunately, government is quite inefficient in everything it does.
It only makes sense to use government programs for things which are useful *and currently unprofitable*. When done by government, such programs still run the risk of being done inefficiently (sometimes awfully so), but at least they would be done. Scientific probes to other planets and space telescopes are good examples.
Can we keep the politics out of this and yes your statement is political.
Why should we keep politics out of this?
My statement is a political *fact*. The people who did not live in a system where government tries to fully control economy simply do not appreciate this fact enough. There may be thinking "here we go, free market apologist again with his mantra".
The thing is, the "mantra" is true. We are witnessing yet another example right now, with SpaceX vs SLS comparison.
Are you somehow expecting to make a statement on this and be unchallenged on it?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/28/2017 12:09 pm
X may be a few hundred.
Y is many thousands.
You may think you're in a small conference room where only those people in the room are listening to what you have to say, but you're actually being televised around the world to a big audience. (Did you all like that analogy? ;D)
Consider your post before submitting it. One strong post is better than one post and five follow ups because someone else on this planet happens to disagree with you. The audience will decide who has the best point.
Post by: Port on 02/28/2017 12:11 pm
I think there is much more going on here than sending a couple folks round the moon
Elon Musk cannot get to Mars without some government funding. He has a president in place who whilst unpredictable is generally anti gov, pro business.
Musk is effectively going to do what NASA was planning to do a year or two later for a mission cost of $140 mill ish. A similar mission with SLS will cost $1 billion plus. However going forward if the side boosters on FH and the dragon2 can be reused for say 10 such missions u could be looking at SX selling such trips for $40-$50 mill( with profit for ITS dev) NASA will look ridiculous spending $ 1 billion plus on similar missions.
There is little doubt in my mind that Musk is trying to end NASA launch vehicle development by influencing the administration and showing just how ineffectual And wasteful the NASA launch manned vehicle development has been. This is not because he dislikes NASA, he just knows he can do that bit much better and cheaper than NASA. NASA could then spend its efforts developing space telescopes to image worlds around other stars and systems for use by There astronauts who SpaxeX deliver to moon or Mars.
$ 20 billion since constellation and not a single man in orbit. I have little doubt if NASA put out contract to land people on Mars for half that money Musk would deliver the ITS which has capabilities beyond NASA wildest imaginings, remember bushs 41,s $400 billion plan to get to Mars. ITS comes in at somewhere between 2-5% of that and with much greater capability.
I hope Musk can end the SLS nonsense and NASA can get on with what it does best, great space science and Moon/Mars surface systems development. I believe that way we get further/faster
amen to that.
NASA's problem is that it is treated as a jobs- and electoral votes programm from the elected officials at certain states - which would be fine (not by me but hell, lets say i would care less) if it would not lead to absolutely abysmal results (creating engineering systems with constraints, never a good idea performance or price-wise).
if those 20B$ would have spent on science and research for propulsion instead of porking up aerospace giants to buy votes - just image what NASA could have already accomplished.
We have the same problem here with ESA and Airbus/Thales - bu we don't have SpaceX, take the chance you have been given, good things will happen IMO
Post by: nacnud on 02/28/2017 12:17 pm
From the SpaceX press release.
"Falcon Heavy is due to launch its first test flight this summer and, once successful, will be the most powerful vehicle to reach orbit after the Saturn V moon rocket."
The people who write these need to do a bit more fact checking. The "most powerful vehicle to reach orbit after the Saturn V moon rocket" was Energia, with 35.1 MN of thrust. What Falcon Heavy will be is the fourth most powerful launch vehicle to reach orbit.
Energia 35.10 MN
Saturn V 33.85 MN
Space Shuttle 30.90 MN
Falcon Heavy 24.68 MN
Atlas V 551 12.27 MN
GSLV Mk.III 11.66 MN
Ariane 5 11.40 MN
CZ-5 10.64 MN
H-IIB 9.98 MN
Proton-M 9.94 MN
Angara A5 9.61 MN
Delta IV Heavy 9.41 MN
"At 5 million pounds of liftoff thrust, Falcon Heavy is two-thirds the thrust of Saturn V and more than double the thrust of the next largest launch vehicle currently flying."
According to the SpaceX web site Falcon Heavy is 5.55 Mlbf (24.68 MN). That is just over double the thrust of the Atlas V 551 at liftoff. 5 Mlbf (22.24 MN) is not double the thrust.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html
By powerful I think they are meaning a successful launch of payload to LEO, so...
Energia - 0 tonnes, the Polyus launch failed, would have had a potential payload of 100 tonnes
Energia + Buran - 0 comparing apples to apples the Buran was part of the launch vehicle and carried no payload on its first launch, would have had a potential payload of 30 tonnes
Saturn V - 140 tonnes
Falcon 9 - 54 tonnes
Delta IV Heavy - 28.8 tonnes
Space Shuttle - 27.5 tonnes
Semantics and marketing but not categorically wrong.
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 02/28/2017 12:33 pm
I think this is just the beginning. Not sure how many FH launches and/or new hardware may be needed, but if the 2018 flight makes history, what or who is to stop Elon Musk from shooting for a manned Moon landing as his next move?
That would require a lot more hardware and years of development time that would be better spent on ITS.
Why?
{Jim/}
Post by: CraigLieb on 02/28/2017 01:08 pm
Although I can't afford to go to the Moon yet, I would like to place a few of my parent's ashes there as a memorial to their life journey. When my grandfather was born, the car had just been developed a few decades before, and the family vehicle was a horse/wagon. He lived to see a man walk on the moon and see the Space shuttle launch. To place his only daughter's ashes on the moon might be a fitting tribute.
Would it be possible for a separate company to secure space in the dragon trunk with an ejector that dispenses small cubes (securely sealed) to be deposited on the surface? I imagine they overall package would have to have some retro thrust to separate away and descend which adds to the risk somewhat. Maybe the smart orbital mechanics can determine the minimum dV required from a free return trajectory to a descent trajectory even if it is a very slow descent.
Post by: clongton on 02/28/2017 01:11 pm
Everything else is an add-on activity.
These are not tourists - these are astronauts.
Post by: First Mate Rummey on 02/28/2017 01:20 pm
1) Musk: it would give a boost to Musk coolness and give SpaceX rockets and spacecrafts a feeling them being safe enough its creator uses them first. After all, many inventors tried themself their vehicles or inventions;
2) a foreign citizen: this would kick ass to Trump and send him a message that SpaceX is deciding on its own, in the hope to get more funds in exchange of contracting stuff like who to send on these missions. Indeed the press release mentions humankind but not U.S.A..
Hopefully just not Sandra Bullock and George Clooney! ;)
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 01:21 pm
The flight will undoubtedly return a massive amount of data
Data from what?
if the margins allow, a whole bunch of bleeding edge stuff can be jammed into the corners and trunk to do science without the usual aerospace design requirements.
Wrong. if they don't follow aerospace design requirements, then the hardware isn't going to do "science"
You see ISS crew using consumer grade electronics all the time, launching low cost cube sats and doing student experiments. I'm not talking about returning Hubble quality data, but I'm sure there's something that was axed (or not yet invented) from LRO that some scientist somewhere would love to have on board.
Wrong
The ISS crew is using consumer grade electronics at standard atmosphere in a module. Not the same as in a vacuum in sunlight.
the 'low cost cube sats" don't last very long. (the ones that do use high quality parts do)
Post by: LouScheffer on 02/28/2017 01:21 pm
The bigger issue I see is how are they going to perform deep space tracking and navigation in the first place in order to be able to *do* TCMs. Leasing NASA assets or is there some trivial way to do that in the absence of GPS in deep space?There's been a lot of work on using GPS for deeper space, above the GPS orbits. In this case you use the beams from the satellites on the far side of the Earth, some of which miss the Earth and spill over. This is used by the MMS satellites up to 70,000 km today, and should work fine at lunar distances with a somewhat higher gain antenna. See Navigating in Space - Taking GNSS to New Heights (http://www.insidegnss.com/node/5196). Accuracy will not be as good as GPS down low, due to geometrical dilution of precision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilution_of_precision_(navigation)), but should be plenty good enough for a flyby.
Alternatively, they could use a standard deep space transponder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Deep_Space_Transponder), and rent tracking time from NASA or ESA. This would be super conservative, since it's what all deep space probes use already.. However it requires much more interaction and complex scheduling with other organizations, and some expense.
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 01:23 pm
1 - How do the thermal systems on Dragon 2 work beyond LEO?
2 - What is the performance of life support on a one week mission?
3 - How do our beyond LEO navigational systems work?
4 - What is the radiation environment beyond LEO experienced by Dragon v2?
5 - How well do our control systems work returning to reentry from beyond LEO?
6 - What is the performance of the heat shield when arriving at ~25,000mph?
7 - How well do our communication systems work at and beyond lunar distances?
I'm sure there is more.
No, there is less. That data will need to be known before this. So my point stands.
Post by: beancounter on 02/28/2017 01:24 pm
Media show. Won't happen in the timeframe and putting people onboard a spacecraft without a professional crew (i.e. pilots with proper training) is a recipe for disaster. Doesn't matter if Musk wants the Dragon to be 'fully automated', it won't be safe.Dragon goes up and comes back fully automatic. Soyuz does it, Buran before then. Look at the robotic probes that NASA has launched with some still going. There's nothing magical about automation and not having human crews punching the buttons or whatever isn't a requirement.
Madness.
You're just stuck in an old paradigm.
Cheers
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 01:25 pm
Are there any "off the shelf" small communications sats that an F-9 could put in orbit around the moon to provide high bandwidth communications relays for the Dragon V2?
No, because the issue is on earth and not in lunar orbit
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 01:30 pm
Some astronauts seem enthusiastic about this.
https://twitter.com/Astro_Mike/status/836346660880015360
Mike Massimino
@Astro_Mike
Okay, the real space race is about to kick into high gear! Big announcement from @spacex
https://twitter.com/StationCDRKelly/status/836338112498401281
Scott Kelly
@StationCDRKelly
It's been almost a year. Send me!
They are both retired and no longer speak for the astronaut corp.
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 01:34 pm
Which begs the question, how will mid-course corrections be managed? With Draco thrusters alone? Dragon 2 doesn't have the luxury of a SM fat on fuel to modify the trajectory.
Don't need a "a SM fat on fuel". See LRO, GRAIL, Lunar Orbiter, etc. They all used small thrusters.
People need to forget the Apollo paradigm. There are many other ways of doing this.
Post by: RonM on 02/28/2017 01:34 pm
I've seen some concerns about the capsule entry corridore being really narrow. I disagree.
It was in the Apollo days, certiantly, when they had to ditch the service module before entry, and "skipping off" the atmosphere meant staying in space longer than the capsule was designed for without the extra air and scrubbers.
But Dragon's Trunk has nothing. Power, perhaps, but a few extra batteries are easy enough to manage.
The Superdracos can fire during entry to fine tune the course, and even without that, a mission can be planned to do a lighter aerobreak, do an orbit, and comit to a lighter entry without the hazards of a high speed entry.
Superdracos can do everything BUT FINEtuning.
Which begs the question, how will mid-course corrections be managed? With Draco thrusters alone? Dragon 2 doesn't have the luxury of a SM fat on fuel to modify the trajectory. So many questions. Inertial guidance, ECLSS, entry corridor. I assume Dragon 2 will roll on entry, like Apollo, to control its path. Interesting to compare Dragon 2 capabilities in this regard vs. Apollo, Orion.
Dragon has a lower mass than Apollo, but with eight SuperDraco engines it has about six times the thrust of the Apollo SPS AJ10-137. Plenty of thrust to conduct lunar missions as long as it has enough fuel.
It wouldn't surprise me if SpaceX designed Dragon 2 guidance, ECLSS, etc. to be capable of cislunar operations. NASA has talked about a lunar station with commercial resupply, so SpaceX knows there is a need for that capability.
Post by: kevinof on 02/28/2017 01:36 pm
Some astronauts seem enthusiastic about this.
https://twitter.com/Astro_Mike/status/836346660880015360
Mike Massimino
@Astro_Mike
Okay, the real space race is about to kick into high gear! Big announcement from @spacex
https://twitter.com/StationCDRKelly/status/836338112498401281
Scott Kelly
@StationCDRKelly
It's been almost a year. Send me!
They are both retired and no longer speak for the astronaut corp.
Post by: Proponent on 02/28/2017 01:36 pm
With all the talk about NASA supposedly being p...ed about the circumlunar mission, that announcement certainly doesn't sound like that:Like I said, it gives them an out... ;)
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-statement-about-spacex-private-moon-venture-announcement
Perhaps we shouldnt forget that SLS is not necessarily something NASA wants to do - its something Congress makes them do. So I can imagine that this development might be welcomed at least by some within NASA...
Some substantial parts of NASA, like MSFC, Michoud and Stennis, seem to be very enthusiastic about SLS, and no doubt some big parts of KSC and JSC too.
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 01:36 pm
the dragon trunk with an ejector that dispenses small cubes (securely sealed) to be deposited on the surface? I imagine they overall package would have to have some retro thrust to separate away and descend which adds to the risk somewhat. Maybe the smart orbital mechanics can determine the minimum dV required from a free return trajectory to a descent trajectory even if it is a very slow descent.
No, too much delta v required
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/28/2017 01:37 pm
Some astronauts seem enthusiastic about this.
https://twitter.com/Astro_Mike/status/836346660880015360
Mike Massimino
@Astro_Mike
Okay, the real space race is about to kick into high gear! Big announcement from @spacex
https://twitter.com/StationCDRKelly/status/836338112498401281
Scott Kelly
@StationCDRKelly
It's been almost a year. Send me!
They are both retired and no longer speak for the astronaut corp.
That's not really relevant, Jim. What matters is that men who have actually done space-flight are enthusiastic about this proposal.
The astronaut corps themselves are government employees and it would be inappropriate for them to comment as NASA astronauts or on behalf of NASA astronauts. Especially as I'm pretty sure that these proposals are going to metastasise into a political football.
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 01:39 pm
That's not really relevant, Jim. What matters is that men who have actually done space-flight are enthusiastic about this proposal.
Yes, it is because they are private citizens. There is no reason that they would be no more enthusiastic than others.
Post by: Proponent on 02/28/2017 01:40 pm
People need to forget the Apollo paradigm.
Most of all, Congress needs to forget the Apollo paradigm.
Post by: gospacex on 02/28/2017 01:53 pm
Some astronauts seem enthusiastic about this.
https://twitter.com/Astro_Mike/status/836346660880015360
Mike Massimino
@Astro_Mike
Okay, the real space race is about to kick into high gear! Big announcement from @spacex
https://twitter.com/StationCDRKelly/status/836338112498401281
Scott Kelly
@StationCDRKelly
It's been almost a year. Send me!
They are both retired and no longer speak for the astronaut corp.
Would a not-retired astronaut risk making enemies inside agency by saying something in support of this mission? I wouldn't.
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 01:53 pm
Would a not-retired astronaut risk making enemies inside agency by saying something in support of this mission? I wouldn't.
Why would that matter? Again, they are retired.
Post by: gospacex on 02/28/2017 01:54 pm
With all the talk about NASA supposedly being p...ed about the circumlunar mission, that announcement certainly doesn't sound like that:Like I said, it gives them an out... ;)
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-statement-about-spacex-private-moon-venture-announcement
Perhaps we shouldnt forget that SLS is not necessarily something NASA wants to do - its something Congress makes them do. So I can imagine that this development might be welcomed at least by some within NASA...
Some substantial parts of NASA, like MSFC, Michoud and Stennis, seem to be very enthusiastic about SLS
I wonder why? :D :D :D
Post by: Proponent on 02/28/2017 02:03 pm
Here's a guess: NASA starts talking more about a cis-lunar hab, proudly announcing that, thanks to the ISS model it pioneered, the hab will be launched by NASA (on SLS, of course), while the commercial sector will handle logistics. Orion isn't canceled outright -- it's still meant to be some kind of back-up or to figure in some nebulous Mars architecture, but it's de-emphasized and begins to fade away*. Maybe EUS gets put on hold indefinitely.
Some plan is put in place to build up the cis-lunar hab over the years, justifying continued SLS launches at a glacial pace. The necessary cadence of launches to maintain safety can be de-emphasized, because the lanuches carry hardware only, no people.
* Orion is built by Lockheed Martin in Colorado. It's been noted before that the first concession the Obama administration to Congress in the fight over the FY 2011 NASA budget was to rescind its proposed cancellation of Orion; it was suggested then that this was related to the fact that of the states receiving major funding through Orion/SLS, Colorado was among the most Democratic. From the Trump administration's point of view now, Colorado committed the sin of not voting for Trump in 2016.
EDIT: Added footnote about politics of Orion. Footnote added after cro-magnon gramps liked the post, so the like may not apply to the footnote.
Post by: yg1968 on 02/28/2017 02:16 pm
Post by: Proponent on 02/28/2017 02:19 pm
Post by: montyrmanley on 02/28/2017 02:22 pm
Orion isn't canceled outright -- it's still meant to be some kind of back-up or to figure in some nebulous Mars architecture, but it's de-emphasized and begins to fade away. Maybe EUS gets put on hold indefinitely.
Orion costs too much and has too long a supply-chain to just freeze-dry for a rainy day. LockMart isn't just going to eat the costs of maintaining the production lines, facilities, and staff required to build that craft; if NASA wants to keep it around, they'll have to pony up the money for the industrial base. And since, to date, Orion development has cost roughly as much as a Ford-class aircraft carrier (between $8.5 and $10.5 billion, http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/gao-slams-nasas-cost-estimating-for-orion-sls), the only way for costs to go down is to make more of the capsules and amortize the cost. If the program is just canceled outright, the sunk costs are lost, but at least the hemorrhaging is stopped.
More relevant to this thread, SpaceX is trying to make the Dragon 2 viable for other roles than just ISS resupply missions. For most realistic near-to-mid-term cislunar missions involving a crew, the Dragon 2 is competitive with Orion and costs much less. I suspect this "pleasure cruise" around the moon is in part a way for SpaceX to showcase the FH/Dragon's strengths apart from being an orbital FedEx service. Which is necessary if SpaceX wants to build an actual commercial business around their spacecraft, because the ISS won't be up there forever, and the business of launching satellites is rapidly becoming commoditized.
Post by: yg1968 on 02/28/2017 02:24 pm
Why Dream Chaser to Hubble?
That was a proposal that SNC made to the transition team as a mission that could be acheived before 2020:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29416.msg1641688#msg1641688
Post by: Kaputnik on 02/28/2017 02:24 pm
Payloads to the Moon:
Although I can't afford to go to the Moon yet, I would like to place a few of my parent's ashes there as a memorial to their life journey. When my grandfather was born, the car had just been developed a few decades before, and the family vehicle was a horse/wagon. He lived to see a man walk on the moon and see the Space shuttle launch. To place his only daughter's ashes on the moon might be a fitting tribute.
Would it be possible for a separate company to secure space in the dragon trunk with an ejector that dispenses small cubes (securely sealed) to be deposited on the surface? I imagine they overall package would have to have some retro thrust to separate away and descend which adds to the risk somewhat. Maybe the smart orbital mechanics can determine the minimum dV required from a free return trajectory to a descent trajectory even if it is a very slow descent.
By far the most economical and simple way of doing this would be to include human remains as a payload that is attached to the second stage, and then intentionally crash the stage into the moon, as the SIVB did.
Any kind of free flier is going to cost way, way more than this.
Which begs a question- what do we think SpaceX intend to do with the second stage? Free return alongside the Dragon and disposal back at Earth? Depletion burn to escape? Lunar impact?
Post by: Proponent on 02/28/2017 02:29 pm
Orion isn't canceled outright -- it's still meant to be some kind of back-up or to figure in some nebulous Mars architecture, but it's de-emphasized and begins to fade away. Maybe EUS gets put on hold indefinitely.Orion costs too much and has too long a supply-chain to just freeze-dry for a rainy day. LockMart isn't just going to eat the costs of maintaining the production lines, facilities, and staff required to build that craft; if NASA wants to keep it around, they'll have to pony up the money for the industrial base. And since, to date, Orion development has cost roughly as much as a Ford-class aircraft carrier (between $8.5 and $10.5 billion, http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/gao-slams-nasas-cost-estimating-for-orion-sls), the only way for costs to go down is to make more of the capsules and amortize the cost. If the program is just canceled outright, the sunk costs are lost, but at least the hemorrhaging is stopped.
That would matter only if NASA were to be serious about using flying Orion some day. I'm suggesting the plan would be to kill it, just to do so nice and slowly, to reduce the political pain.
Post by: Phil Stooke on 02/28/2017 02:46 pm
Post by: Tim S on 02/28/2017 02:47 pm
The only path forward is the combination of forces. Rockets can, as SpaceX knows only too well, blow up in one's face.
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 02:56 pm
SpaceX is very competitive, once you take into account the discount they have to provide to counter their customers large insurance premium, but it needs to prove the reliability and ability to keep to schedule. I'm sure the NASA landing team are being told there is no golden ticket to deep space transportation, which requires purpose of schedule and relability, both of which SpaceX struggle with.
The only path forward is the combination of forces. Rockets can, as SpaceX knows only too well, blow up in one's face.
Jeesh, there is some double talk.
SLS has more struggles with both.
SLS schedules are worse than Spacex
As for reliability, SLS related components have caused some of the most expensive spaceflight accidents.
I would be worried if I lived in the Huntsville/Decatur area
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/28/2017 02:58 pm
Quote
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 2h2 hours agohttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/836568314734338048 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/836568314734338048)
Sputnik, keepin’ it real.
Quote
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 2h2 hours agohttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/836569958087802880 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/836569958087802880)
Same picture, very different assessment (this one from The Atlantic.)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/28/2017 03:10 pm
Exciting new for sure, and imagine a three-way lunar race - lunar Soyuz vs manned EM-1 vs lunar Dragon. 8)
I suggest we call the circumlunar mission " Grey Dragon" (because the Moon is grey of course)
But...
To me manned Moon is as difficult as unmanned Mars... and unmanned Mars already missed the 2018 launch window.
What I mean is that Musk replaced an impossible (schedule) mission with another, similarly impossible mission.
An example: both missions need Falcon 9H and Dragon 2, which are hardly ready.
Both have been in development for years and both are planned to fly later this year. I don't see any evidence to support your claim that a flight by both a year later is "impossible".
Sure, the schedules could slip and they might not be able to make a 2018 target. But "impossible" is an overstatement -- by a lot.
Post by: ppb on 02/28/2017 03:21 pm
Aerobrake around the Earth ala Mars orbiters. See what Planet is doing with their cubesats.the dragon trunk with an ejector that dispenses small cubes (securely sealed) to be deposited on the surface? I imagine they overall package would have to have some retro thrust to separate away and descend which adds to the risk somewhat. Maybe the smart orbital mechanics can determine the minimum dV required from a free return trajectory to a descent trajectory even if it is a very slow descent.
No, too much delta v required
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 03:22 pm
Aerobrake around the Earth ala Mars orbiters. See what Planet is doing with their cubesats.
Huh?
He is proposing that they try to land on the moon and not earth.
There is no aerobraking for the moon.
Aerobrake around the Earth requires to be in earth orbit and would do nothing for moon.
Aerocapture (which has yet to be done) would mean it is still in earth orbit.
So, what is your point?
Post by: ppb on 02/28/2017 03:24 pm
I thought we were talking about depositing cremains on the moon from this mission. But ya, probably too much requirements creep.
Aerobrake around the Earth ala Mars orbiters. See what Planet is doing with their cubesats.
That isn't going to help them land on the moon
Post by: raketa on 02/28/2017 03:24 pm
Post by: rsdavis9 on 02/28/2017 03:30 pm
Exciting new for sure, and imagine a three-way lunar race - lunar Soyuz vs manned EM-1 vs lunar Dragon. 8)
I suggest we call the circumlunar mission " Grey Dragon" (because the Moon is grey of course)
But...
To me manned Moon is as difficult as unmanned Mars... and unmanned Mars already missed the 2018 launch window.
What I mean is that Musk replaced an impossible (schedule) mission with another, similarly impossible mission.
An example: both missions need Falcon 9H and Dragon 2, which are hardly ready.
Both have been in development for years and both are planned to fly later this year. I don't see any evidence to support your claim that a flight by both a year later is "impossible".
Sure, the schedules could slip and they might not be able to make a 2018 target. But "impossible" is an overstatement -- by a lot.
actually the difference is red dragon versus dragon 2.
Dragon 2 is already scheduled for 1st flight at end of 2017.
Red Dragon is a dragon 2 with at least some additional mods and tests
1. demonstrated propulsive landing on earth
2. Extra fuel for mars landing
3. people stuff stripping
4. Payload for mars mods
So this mission is more "off the shelf stuff" then mars 2018.
Post by: ppb on 02/28/2017 03:32 pm
The original idea was to do something else on the cicumlunar mission, and the poster's idea was to deposit cremains on the moon, maybe in an ejected cubesat vessel. I thought your delta v comment was referring to that.
Aerobrake around the Earth ala Mars orbiters. See what Planet is doing with their cubesats.
Huh?
He is proposing that they try to land on the moon and not earth.
There is no aerobraking for the moon.
Aerobrake around the Earth requires to be in earth orbit and would do nothing for moon.
Aerocapture (which has yet to be done) would mean it is still in earth orbit.
So, what is your point?
Post by: raketa on 02/28/2017 03:34 pm
Post by: rsdavis9 on 02/28/2017 03:35 pm
The original idea was to do something else on the cicumlunar mission, and the poster's idea was to deposit cremains on the moon, maybe in an ejected cubesat vessel. I thought your delta v comment was referring to that.
Aerobrake around the Earth ala Mars orbiters. See what Planet is doing with their cubesats.
Huh?
He is proposing that they try to land on the moon and not earth.
There is no aerobraking for the moon.
Aerobrake around the Earth requires to be in earth orbit and would do nothing for moon.
Aerocapture (which has yet to be done) would mean it is still in earth orbit.
So, what is your point?
as said above it is probably best to either eject after or during TLI or put it on S2.
If done after TLI it means the initial trajectory would be impact moon.
Might not be a good idea.
Post by: pb2000 on 02/28/2017 03:35 pm
You see ISS crew using consumer grade electronics all the time, launching low cost cube sats and doing student experiments. I'm not talking about returning Hubble quality data, but I'm sure there's something that was axed (or not yet invented) from LRO that some scientist somewhere would love to have on board.
Wrong
The ISS crew is using consumer grade electronics at standard atmosphere in a module. Not the same as in a vacuum in sunlight.
the 'low cost cube sats" don't last very long. (the ones that do use high quality parts do)
Exactly, for stuff in the trunk, it only needs to last ~6 days, and it would be trivial add enough shielding and heat-sinking for that period of time.
Post by: montyrmanley on 02/28/2017 03:35 pm
Jeesh, there is some double talk.
SLS has more struggles with both.
SLS schedules are worse than Spacex
As for reliability, SLS related components have caused some of the most expensive spaceflight accidents.
I would be worried if I lived in the Huntsville/Decatur area
Many the SLS/Orion development problems stem, IMO, from NASA's horrible project management and outdated procurement model, not so much with the design of the system itself. I expect the SLS, all things being equal, will be a very reliable launch platform...but also an extremely expensive one. Going with the traditional capsule-on-top model will alleviate the most severe safety design flaw of the shuttle (the side-mount orbiter).
SpaceX's Falcon is a pretty reliable booster, but it has a ways to go to match that of the Atlas or even Soyuz. This reliability issue will be amplified when they start flying "used" boosters and the long-delayed FH this year. If SpaceX can execute their 2017/2018 plans with no major anomalies, that's going to put the SLS project in a very precarious position, particularly with the current Administration. On the other hand, if the FH does not perform to expectations or is delayed again, it could boost the fortunes of the SLS accordingly.
Post by: smfarmer11 on 02/28/2017 03:50 pm
Post by: mme on 02/28/2017 03:51 pm
To NASA's credit, they're putting on a brave face and making it sound like it's at least partially their idea.I don't understand all these assumptions that NASA (as if it's a monolith) has a problem with this. There are people in NASA that support Commercial Space. The whole point of Commercial Space is to foster this sort of thing.
NASA is a big organization with a lot of moving parts and people with different goals and beliefs. No doubt there are groups that are not fans of commercial space. But if we're going to refer to NASA as a monolith, they have been a huge supporter of SpaceX. If they were anti-SpaceX they could have down selected them and gone with Starliner only for crew. They could have said no to using Dragon 2 for latest commercial cargo contract. There are so many ways that NASA could have delayed or derailed SpaceX over the years and they haven't.
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 03:53 pm
outdated procurement model, not so much with the design of the system itself.
Not true at all. It is a 180.
The government still has a need to buy hardware and to use cost plus. Cost plus is never going away.
The issue with SLS is that is an outdated hardware and design.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/28/2017 03:54 pm
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/28/2017 03:59 pm
Nasawatch's coverage of this seems right on.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/28/2017 04:16 pm
Quote
Buzz Aldrin
Verified account @TheRealBuzz
Actually @elonmusk I support space tourism & there are many useful things we can do at the moon such as an Int'l moon base mining the ice.🌙🌘
https://twitter.com/TheRealBuzz/status/836624983073910784 (https://twitter.com/TheRealBuzz/status/836624983073910784)
Post by: mme on 02/28/2017 04:17 pm
The SLS procurement model, choice of key hardware, support of missions to leverage it and it's very existence are largely outside of NASA's control so I think it's pretty unfair to blame it on NASA.Jeesh, there is some double talk.
SLS has more struggles with both.
SLS schedules are worse than Spacex
As for reliability, SLS related components have caused some of the most expensive spaceflight accidents.
I would be worried if I lived in the Huntsville/Decatur area
Many the SLS/Orion development problems stem, IMO, from NASA's horrible project management and outdated procurement model, not so much with the design of the system itself. I expect the SLS, all things being equal, will be a very reliable launch platform...but also an extremely expensive one. Going with the traditional capsule-on-top model will alleviate the most severe safety design flaw of the shuttle (the side-mount orbiter).
SpaceX's Falcon is a pretty reliable booster, but it has a ways to go to match that of the Atlas or even Soyuz. This reliability issue will be amplified when they start flying "used" boosters and the long-delayed FH this year. If SpaceX can execute their 2017/2018 plans with no major anomalies, that's going to put the SLS project in a very precarious position, particularly with the current Administration. On the other hand, if the FH does not perform to expectations or is delayed again, it could boost the fortunes of the SLS accordingly.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/28/2017 04:19 pm
To NASA's credit, they're putting on a brave face and making it sound like it's at least partially their idea.I don't understand all these assumptions that NASA (as if it's a monolith) has a problem with this. There are people in NASA that support Commercial Space. The whole point of Commercial Space is to foster this sort of thing.
NASA is a big organization with a lot of moving parts and people with different goals and beliefs. No doubt there are groups that are not fans of commercial space. But if we're going to refer to NASA as a monolith, they have been a huge supporter of SpaceX. If they were anti-SpaceX they could have down selected them and gone with Starliner only for crew. They could have said no to using Dragon 2 for latest commercial cargo contract. There are so many ways that NASA could have delayed or derailed SpaceX over the years and they haven't.
Eric Berger has a good piece on what parts of NASA may really be thinking about yesterday's announcement: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/if-you-think-nasa-is-frustrated-with-spacex-youre-probably-right/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/if-you-think-nasa-is-frustrated-with-spacex-youre-probably-right/)
Edit: clarified
Post by: smfarmer11 on 02/28/2017 04:19 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40318.0
Post by: dodo on 02/28/2017 04:21 pm
QuoteBuzz Aldrin
Verified account @TheRealBuzz
Actually @elonmusk I support space tourism & there are many useful things we can do at the moon such as an Int'l moon base mining the ice.🌙🌘
https://twitter.com/TheRealBuzz/status/836624983073910784 (https://twitter.com/TheRealBuzz/status/836624983073910784)
For the sake of completeness, his first tweet of the subject was:
Buzz Aldrin
@TheRealBuzz
Been there, done that. I prefer Get Your Ass to #Mars [red ball here]#GYATM
Also, yesterday Bill Harwood did a short piece on this for CBS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAR-tBpOol8
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/28/2017 04:41 pm
Post by: montyrmanley on 02/28/2017 04:53 pm
The SLS procurement model, choice of key hardware, support of missions to leverage it and it's very existence are largely outside of NASA's control so I think it's pretty unfair to blame it on NASA.
It's NASA's program, and it's up to them to manage it. NASA is a government agency and thus is bound to the diktat of Congress, no doubt, but it's no different than any other federal agencies in that respect. It's also NASA's job to provide advice and guidance to Congress to establish national priorities, and it is in this area that NASA has fallen most criminally short. And not just in the SLS program, but...well, since they were founded, really. NASA's departmental remit is so nebulous and badly defined that NASA by default is often in the dark about their actual goals; and NASA leadership is often too spineless and rudderless to ask for more concrete direction. "But...but...Congress!" is no excuse.
SpaceX can justify sending two civilians on a pleasure-cruise around the moon for the simple reason that the civilians are willing to pay for the privilege. It's a fee-for-service deal. Musk may have larger ambitions, but he doesn't need to have larger ambiitions, or big-picture plans. If there's money to be made ferrying rich people to the moon and back, SpaceX can decide to be in that business simply by deciding if they have a capability to provide the service at a cost the market will bear. That's it. If they fail to execute on their strategy, they go out of business or reorganize into more profitable endeavors.
NASA can't do that -- it (as an agent of the Federal Government) has to justify the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on any program it oversees (whether developed in house or via contractors). NASA's decades-long inability to perform this essential task well is at the root of their present difficulties. Why has the Orion capsule's design stretched out for more than a decade and cost damned near $10 billion dollars when SpaceX could design the Dragon2 in far less time and for far less money? NASA needs to justify this to Congress and the Administration (i.e., representatives of the American people). Why is this taking so long and costing so much? If the Orion capsule is much more capable than Dragon 2, fine: let NASA explain how this additional capability will be used, and why it justifies the extra expense.
Post by: philw1776 on 02/28/2017 05:05 pm
Question: Would it be two passengers sent alone, or two passengers plus a pilot, or one passenger plus a pilot? I can't imagine sending customers without a professional SpaceX pilot on board.
Why would it need to be piloted?
Is Red Dragon piloted?
No.
RD travels further, does interplanetary re-entry and lands on the surface of a planet tens of millions of miles away.
Post by: gospacex on 02/28/2017 05:05 pm
The SLS procurement model, choice of key hardware, support of missions to leverage it and it's very existence are largely outside of NASA's control so I think it's pretty unfair to blame it on NASA.
This completely ignores the genesis of SLS: the Constellation program. It's a brainchild of a NASA admin, Michael Griffin. He fought tooth and nail against any proposal to adapt Atlas or Delta for crewed flights.
It was a golden opportunity to end this nonsense of government-designed launch vehicles, and _NASA_ leadership fought against it. Not only Congress.
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 05:08 pm
It's NASA's program, and it's up to them to manage it. NASA is a government agency and thus is bound to the diktat of Congress, no doubt, but it's no different than any other federal agencies in that respect. It's also NASA's job to provide advice and guidance to Congress to establish national priorities, and it is in this area that NASA has fallen most criminally short. And not just in the SLS program, but...well, since they were founded, really. NASA's departmental remit is so nebulous and badly defined that NASA by default is often in the dark about their actual goals; and NASA leadership is often too spineless and rudderless to ask for more concrete direction. "But...but...Congress!" is no excuse.
Wrong takeaway on every point. Shows a lack of understanding on how the government works.
No, it is the administration's job to give NASA priorities. NASA does not set its own course.
And knock it off with the "criminally" terms.
Post by: Helodriver on 02/28/2017 05:09 pm
The kestrel in the trunk idea is a non starter mainly because it's use of cryogenic propellants. Better would be a superDraco with a higher expansion ration for better ISP, and the storability of hypergolics. However this subject was discussed extensively in this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40318.0
As for "junk in the trunk" I don't see it becoming a service module but I do think it will likely carry one or even a few expendable free flying camera equipped cubesats or something similar that will separate, maneuver, and maintain somewhat close formation with the capsule as it swings by the moon to provide the ultimate drone imagery of the Dragon with the lunar surface rotating underneath. Images will be transmitted to the capsule as part of the tourist package and for SpaceX promotional use.
Such a thing could also be as simple as a few wifi GoPros or commercial 360 degree ball cameras ejected from under the nose cap.
Post by: Donosauro on 02/28/2017 05:14 pm
This news that is exciting as all here on this forum is hardly getting any coverage from the UK television news other that a few brief mentions of tourist going round the moon. As I type this they are still racking over the Oscars gaff.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39115201
Post by: hydra9 on 02/28/2017 05:17 pm
NASA's focus should be on using the SLS to deploy a Deep Space Hab to EML1 and deploying habitat modules and water extraction machinery to the lunar surface.
NASA should also be focusing on converting upper stage propellant tanks (SLS-EUS, Centaur, ACES 68, etc.) into reusable propellant manufacturing, storing, and distributing LOX/LH2 depots that can be deployed within cis-lunar space and beyond.
Marcel
Post by: Kaputnik on 02/28/2017 05:32 pm
Aerobrake around the Earth ala Mars orbiters. See what Planet is doing with their cubesats.the dragon trunk with an ejector that dispenses small cubes (securely sealed) to be deposited on the surface? I imagine they overall package would have to have some retro thrust to separate away and descend which adds to the risk somewhat. Maybe the smart orbital mechanics can determine the minimum dV required from a free return trajectory to a descent trajectory even if it is a very slow descent.
No, too much delta v required
Erm, it's kind of important to consider *where* you do your braking. I hope you apply a little more logic when you drive your car!
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 05:34 pm
Maybe this will put an end to the White House idea of using the SLS/Orion
There, fixed it for you
Post by: meekGee on 02/28/2017 05:42 pm
The SLS procurement model, choice of key hardware, support of missions to leverage it and it's very existence are largely outside of NASA's control so I think it's pretty unfair to blame it on NASA.
This completely ignores the genesis of SLS: the Constellation program. It's a brainchild of a NASA admin, Michael Griffin. He fought tooth and nail against any proposal to adapt Atlas or Delta for crewed flights.
It was a golden opportunity to end this nonsense of government-designed launch vehicles, and _NASA_ leadership fought against it. Not only Congress.
That he did, but Bolden, for example fought against SLS until congress made them do it.
It may not be NASA's "Fault", but NASA by its definition is subject to congressional intervention down to "thou shall use SRBs, because reasons", and NASA can't change that, so it's part of NASA, fault or not.
This is all playing out as expected.
---
As for a Lunar landing, it's not only that this flight is not a technological enabler. It's that such a landing will require a lot of development and be a distraction from the Mars goal.
For this flight, they'll use an almost generic D2, and most everything they have to develop is "on the way to Mars".
Plus, it's a revenue source. If they do it once, and if the boosters and capsules are reusable, they might work up to flying once per month. This is so much more than a LEO flight. With care, this can rival comsat revenue.
---
Also - to land on the moon will require 2400 m/s dV. A Hydrazine motor with ISP of 240 will give a mass ratio of 2.7, so to land 100 kg mass, you need to start out with 270 kg. That's a reasonable package to put in the trunk, and plenty of space agencies and even universities would pay for a ride like that.
Post by: kirghizstan on 02/28/2017 05:42 pm
Maybe this will put an end to the White House idea of using the SLS/Orion
There, fixed it for you
Is this Jim officially planting a anti-SLS/Orion flag. I'm sorry if I either misinterpreted or you planted this flag on a prior occasion.
Post by: VulcanCafe on 02/28/2017 05:42 pm
Complete and total speculation but I smell smoke.
Thoughts?
Post by: dodo on 02/28/2017 06:05 pm
Question: Would it be two passengers sent alone, or two passengers plus a pilot, or one passenger plus a pilot? I can't imagine sending customers without a professional SpaceX pilot on board.
Why would it need to be piloted?
Is Red Dragon piloted?
No.
RD travels further, does interplanetary re-entry and lands on the surface of a planet tens of millions of miles away.
Just from a psychological viewpoint it makes sense to have an experienced astronaut accompany the paying customers. Plus if something breaks you want someone who knows how it was put together. I'd be very surprised if Garrett Reisman is not in that flight.
* rests back in armchair
Post by: philw1776 on 02/28/2017 06:07 pm
I would.
If duct tape directions from ground control can't fix it. They're likely hosed. :)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/28/2017 06:09 pm
Question: Would it be two passengers sent alone, or two passengers plus a pilot, or one passenger plus a pilot? I can't imagine sending customers without a professional SpaceX pilot on board.
Why would it need to be piloted?
Is Red Dragon piloted?
No.
RD travels further, does interplanetary re-entry and lands on the surface of a planet tens of millions of miles away.
Just from a psychological viewpoint it makes sense to have an experienced astronaut accompany the paying customers. Plus if something breaks you want someone who knows how it was put together. I'd be very surprised if Garrett Reisman is not in that flight.
* rests back in armchair
On the other hand, you're paying $100 million for a week-long vacation in a very small space with a person you want to be with. You might not want a third person you don't know very well also crammed in that small space.
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 06:13 pm
. Plus if something breaks you want someone who knows how it was put together.
Then that person is not an astronaut. Astronauts just know how to operate a vehicle, they don't build or design it.
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/28/2017 06:16 pm
To NASA's credit, they're putting on a brave face and making it sound like it's at least partially their idea.I don't understand all these assumptions that NASA (as if it's a monolith) has a problem with this. There are people in NASA that support Commercial Space. The whole point of Commercial Space is to foster this sort of thing.
NASA is a big organization with a lot of moving parts and people with different goals and beliefs. No doubt there are groups that are not fans of commercial space. But if we're going to refer to NASA as a monolith, they have been a huge supporter of SpaceX. If they were anti-SpaceX they could have down selected them and gone with Starliner only for crew. They could have said no to using Dragon 2 for latest commercial cargo contract. There are so many ways that NASA could have delayed or derailed SpaceX over the years and they haven't.
Eric Berger has a good piece on what parts of NASA may really be thinking about yesterday's announcement: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/if-you-think-nasa-is-frustrated-with-spacex-youre-probably-right/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/if-you-think-nasa-is-frustrated-with-spacex-youre-probably-right/)
Edit: clarified
I find that to be a rather negative article by Eric Berger, to be honest. At one point, in support of his overall argument, he quotes a certain Ms. Dittmar, who provides a negative view on Musk's endeavours. Only to reveal that Ms. Dittmar "serves as executive director of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, the organization formed by the principal contractors behind NASA's SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft".
Well shock and horror, the contractors building the SLS have bad things to say about SpaceX. What a surprise.
The general gist of it seems to be that NASA is bending over backwards for SpaceX despite SpaceX's commercial crew program slipping to 2018. No mention is made, however, of the fact that 2018 is still a year earlier than Boeing - a long established "old Space" company - can produce their version of a commercial crew vehicle.
Post by: rsnellenberger on 02/28/2017 06:22 pm
Assuming that they've done an adequate job of market research, "E-Ticket Ride to the Moon" has the advantage (commercially) that they can "own" the entire critical path of the effort rather than depend on some other entity (e.g., Bigelow) as a partner.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/28/2017 06:33 pm
This announcement can also be viewed as a "Declaration of Independence" by SpaceX with respect to the capability that they've developed with the funds supplied by the Commercial Crew program. While acknowledging that SpaceX owes an obligation to continue meeting the terms of their agreement with NASA, they assert here their proprietary right to employ Dragon 2 & Falcon Heavy to perform other missions that they believe are in their commercial interest.
SpaceX doesn't need to declare that. Nobody has ever doubted it. In fact, the idea that companies would find other customers for the vehicles they are using for NASA has been an explicitly-stated goal of NASA's commercial cargo and crew programs from day one, starting with the first CRS announcement.
The timing of this announcement is all about the customer. Someone agreed to pay for the trip, no more, no less.
Post by: wannamoonbase on 02/28/2017 06:42 pm
Maybe this will put an end to the White House idea of using the SLS/Orion
There, fixed it for you
Is this Jim officially planting a anti-SLS/Orion flag. I'm sorry if I either misinterpreted or you planted this flag on a prior occasion.
How can anyone, other than a member of congress, support SLS and Orion at their costs?
Capable vehicles, but my gosh!
We maybe living through a (two) decades long transition of NASA from the Apollo and Shuttle era to commercial space. I would not be surprised if in 5-10 years that NASA buys launch services and focuses on other things, like science and technology development.
Post by: dodo on 02/28/2017 06:55 pm
. Plus if something breaks you want someone who knows how it was put together.
Then that person is not an astronaut. Astronauts just know how to operate a vehicle, they don't build or design it.
Hmm... I had this romantic idea (perhaps from the Apollo era) that astronauts were very much involved in the design of systems. I may be (a) plain wrong or (b) outdated - specialization is a true devil.
Post by: gospacex on 02/28/2017 06:56 pm
I don't understand all these assumptions that NASA (as if it's a monolith) has a problem with this. There are people in NASA that support Commercial Space. The whole point of Commercial Space is to foster this sort of thing.
NASA is a big organization with a lot of moving parts and people with different goals and beliefs. No doubt there are groups that are not fans of commercial space.
In every big organization there are many different people, true.
However, organizations _as a whole_, regardless of the thoughts of individual people inside them, tend to act to self-preserve (because those which dont, disappear) and if possible, to grow. The same is true about departments inside big organizations.
You are a bad, unsuccessful manager if you allow your project to be canceled (even if the project is pointless). In the bureaucratic logic and politics, it does not actually matter whether project makes sense or not. You must survive at any cost. We all remember ESAS, which "proved" that EELVs are unsuitable for manned flights. Because Constellation had to survive no matter what. If you need to lie in order to achieve that, you do that.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 02/28/2017 07:09 pm
Has anyone considered that the NASA announcement last week may have been a preemptive face-saving response to SpaceX. I assume here SpaceX notified NASA of their upcoming announcement, which prompted a quick re-analysis of the EM1 mission.
Complete and total speculation but I smell smoke.
Thoughts?
that thought crossed my mind too.
Post by: yg1968 on 02/28/2017 07:12 pm
Apparently, there is a Rumor that Trump will say something about returning to human spaceflight tonight. See tweets from Eric Berger and John Yang.
Post by: dglow on 02/28/2017 07:13 pm
The timing of this announcement is all about the customer. Someone agreed to pay for the trip, no more, no less.
The timing of the announcement is very calculated. Elon has too prominent a seat at the new administration's table for it not to be.
Post by: yg1968 on 02/28/2017 07:14 pm
Has anyone considered that the NASA announcement last week may have been a preemptive face-saving response to SpaceX. I assume here SpaceX notified NASA of their upcoming announcement, which prompted a quick re-analysis of the EM1 mission.
Complete and total speculation but I smell smoke.
Thoughts?
It was mentionned in Chris' article:
Quote from: Chris Bergin NSF
A NASA HQ source claimed they were not informed about the announcement ahead of Elon’s comments on Monday, although he believes Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot and President Trump’s NASA “Landing Team” was briefed, which in turn – the source claimed – was why Mr. Lightfoot asked NASA to conduct a study into accelerating the schedule towards crewed missions on Orion.
Post by: Jim on 02/28/2017 07:18 pm
Hmm... I had this romantic idea (perhaps from the Apollo era) that astronauts were very much involved in the design of systems. I may be (a) plain wrong or (b) outdated - specialization is a true devil.
How old were the STS-135 astronauts in the early 70's?
Post by: woods170 on 02/28/2017 07:24 pm
Jim has been openly sceptic about SLS/Orion for a long time. He merely confirmed what he has stated before.Maybe this will put an end to the White House idea of using the SLS/Orion
There, fixed it for you
Is this Jim officially planting a anti-SLS/Orion flag. I'm sorry if I either misinterpreted or you planted this flag on a prior occasion.
Post by: mn on 02/28/2017 07:27 pm
I would love to know in terms of fuel requirements, once you reach the moon how much additional fuel would be needed for orbit insertion and then escape lunar orbit and head back to earth.
If it takes X amount of fuel to do TLI, how much more would be needed for lunar orbit? are we talking about 20% more, 50% more, double? etc.
Just Curious.
TY
Post by: Star One on 02/28/2017 07:28 pm
How much are SpaceX tourists actually paying to fly around the Moon?
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14763632/spacex-private-moon-flight-price-cost-estimate-nasa-space-adventures
Post by: mvpel on 02/28/2017 07:35 pm
Hmm... I had this romantic idea (perhaps from the Apollo era) that astronauts were very much involved in the design of systems. I may be (a) plain wrong or (b) outdated - specialization is a true devil.
I've been involved in writing documentation for military systems, and have had the opportunity to spend a bit of time working with teams on site. There, as in the ISS, everything that is to be done with or to the systems is extensively and meticulously documented down to the letter, and any off-nominal work is done in close coordination with the engineering teams back home. The astronauts, as I see it, are not distinguished by their engineering prowess, but their generalist flexibility, their ability to learn new things easily, and most importantly to make connections among their various areas of knowledge and experience. Take a look at a space walk, such as the IDA installation, for example - there's no "winging it" in that situation. Each step is laid out and timed to the second, and the ideal mission never deviates from that plan. And when it does, the generalist flexibility of the astronauts enables them to fully and accurately assess the situation, whether it's a fussy connector or a malfunctioning suit, and work in close collaboration with others to identify, understand, solve the problem.
But just imagine how many heads are going to explode when the first high-school-graduate blue collar employee launches into space. Expert welder? Plumber? Electrician? Millwright? Janitor? We'll see.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mBgUObLnlHI/hqdefault.jpg)
But even if they don't have a PhD., they'll have that same kind of flexible generalist mindset which good astronauts exhibit.
Have you ever watched the "Gold Rush" series on the Discovery Channel? Rough-looking, dirt-covered, cussing, and endlessly tough folks with calloused hands unafraid of putting in grueling hours keeping enormous, dangerous, complex equipment up and running by any means necessary in the middle of a hostile wilderness miles from the nearest hardware store with only a supply of metal, welders, assorted large tools, and their wits, ingenuity, and substantial intelligence.
I'm descended from generations of Kansas farmers; these are my people. Snooty coastal elites tend to look down on them, but if you want to see what the Martian pioneers are going to look like - the ones who survive anyway - take in a few episodes of "Gold Rush" or "Bering Sea Gold." Instead of Au they'll be digging for H2O
In the long run, the foundations of Lunar and Martian civilization are going to be built by rednecks, not only by PhD's. Folks need to get over it.
Post by: obi-wan on 02/28/2017 07:53 pm
I understand that what they are planning is just to fly around the moon and not enter lunar orbit.
I would love to know in terms of fuel requirements, once you reach the moon how much additional fuel would be needed for orbit insertion and then escape lunar orbit and head back to earth.
If it takes X amount of fuel to do TLI, how much more would be needed for lunar orbit? are we talking about 20% more, 50% more, double? etc.
Just Curious.
TY
As a rough rule of thumb, using storable propellants:
One kilogram on a translunar trajectory takes 4 kg in low Earth orbit
One kg in lunar orbit takes 4 kg in translunar trajectory
One kg on the lunar surface takes 4 kg in lunar orbit
One kg returned to Earth takes 4 kg on the lunar surface
Not suitable for use in navigation, but it supplies a good intuitive bound to the problem.
Post by: wolfpack on 02/28/2017 08:14 pm
I'll buy a Tesla.
Post by: CitabriaFlyer on 02/28/2017 08:32 pm
Assume that I am a 45 year old lay person with some scientific acumen. Private practice doctor, former USAF flight doc, >1000 hours private pilot with instrument and aerobatic experience. Biology major with a little physics and math 25 years ago. Burning desire to fly in space since watching STS -1 in 4th grade. Assume I win Powerball and decide I want to purchase this trip free return around the moon with SpaceX.
What are the five most important questions I should ask SpaceX management as part of my due diligence as I consider paying for this trip?
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/28/2017 08:45 pm
Years ago here on NSF I came up with the designation you are describing... "astronaut-technician"... ;)Hmm... I had this romantic idea (perhaps from the Apollo era) that astronauts were very much involved in the design of systems. I may be (a) plain wrong or (b) outdated - specialization is a true devil.
I've been involved in writing documentation for military systems, and have had the opportunity to spend a bit of time working with teams on site. There, as in the ISS, everything that is to be done with or to the systems is extensively and meticulously documented down to the letter, and any off-nominal work is done in close coordination with the engineering teams back home. The astronauts, as I see it, are not distinguished by their engineering prowess, but their generalist flexibility, their ability to learn new things easily, and most importantly to make connections among their various areas of knowledge and experience. Take a look at a space walk, such as the IDA installation, for example - there's no "winging it" in that situation. Each step is laid out and timed to the second, and the ideal mission never deviates from that plan. And when it does, the generalist flexibility of the astronauts enables them to fully and accurately assess the situation, whether it's a fussy connector or a malfunctioning suit, and work in close collaboration with others to identify, understand, solve the problem.
But just imagine how many heads are going to explode when the first high-school-graduate blue collar employee launches into space. Expert welder? Plumber? Electrician? Millwright? Janitor? We'll see.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mBgUObLnlHI/hqdefault.jpg)
But even if they don't have a PhD., they'll have that same kind of flexible generalist mindset which good astronauts exhibit.
Have you ever watched the "Gold Rush" series on the Discovery Channel? Rough-looking, dirt-covered, cussing, and endlessly tough folks with calloused hands unafraid of putting in grueling hours keeping enormous, dangerous, complex equipment up and running by any means necessary in the middle of a hostile wilderness miles from the nearest hardware store with only a supply of metal, welders, assorted large tools, and their wits, ingenuity, and substantial intelligence.
I'm descended from generations of Kansas farmers; these are my people. Snooty coastal elites tend to look down on them, but if you want to see what the Martian pioneers are going to look like - the ones who survive anyway - take in a few episodes of "Gold Rush" or "Bering Sea Gold." Instead of Au they'll be digging for H2O
In the long run, the foundations of Lunar and Martian civilization are going to be built by rednecks, not only by PhD's. Folks need to get over it.
Post by: gospacex on 02/28/2017 08:50 pm
Post by: Phil Stooke on 02/28/2017 09:12 pm
Post by: wannamoonbase on 02/28/2017 09:13 pm
I understand that what they are planning is just to fly around the moon and not enter lunar orbit.
I would love to know in terms of fuel requirements, once you reach the moon how much additional fuel would be needed for orbit insertion and then escape lunar orbit and head back to earth.
If it takes X amount of fuel to do TLI, how much more would be needed for lunar orbit? are we talking about 20% more, 50% more, double? etc.
Just Curious.
TY
As a rough rule of thumb, using storable propellants:
One kilogram on a translunar trajectory takes 4 kg in low Earth orbit
One kg in lunar orbit takes 4 kg in translunar trajectory
One kg on the lunar surface takes 4 kg in lunar orbit
One kg returned to Earth takes 4 kg on the lunar surface
Not suitable for use in navigation, but it supplies a good intuitive bound to the problem.
So you're saying that we should be making liquid oxygen on the lunar surface?
I'm in!
Post by: mn on 02/28/2017 09:15 pm
I understand that what they are planning is just to fly around the moon and not enter lunar orbit.
I would love to know in terms of fuel requirements, once you reach the moon how much additional fuel would be needed for orbit insertion and then escape lunar orbit and head back to earth.
If it takes X amount of fuel to do TLI, how much more would be needed for lunar orbit? are we talking about 20% more, 50% more, double? etc.
Just Curious.
TY
As a rough rule of thumb, using storable propellants:
One kilogram on a translunar trajectory takes 4 kg in low Earth orbit
One kg in lunar orbit takes 4 kg in translunar trajectory
One kg on the lunar surface takes 4 kg in lunar orbit
One kg returned to Earth takes 4 kg on the lunar surface
Not suitable for use in navigation, but it supplies a good intuitive bound to the problem.
Sorry I'm a bit lost here.
I was not thinking of lunar surface, so just translunar to lunar orbit and then lunar orbit back to translunar/earth
Thanks
Post by: Oersted on 02/28/2017 09:44 pm
The 2018 synod had closest Earth-Mars distance in July 2018.
SpaceX realised they wouldn't be ready for a 2018 Mars mission.
Going to the Moon in December 2018 (Apollo 8 anniversary) buys them half a year more.
Musk knows he has to motivate his employees with grand and lofty goals.
The December 2018 Moon shot fits the bill perfectly: being technically feasible and inspiring as well.
Post by: jongoff on 02/28/2017 09:45 pm
I understand that what they are planning is just to fly around the moon and not enter lunar orbit.
I would love to know in terms of fuel requirements, once you reach the moon how much additional fuel would be needed for orbit insertion and then escape lunar orbit and head back to earth.
If it takes X amount of fuel to do TLI, how much more would be needed for lunar orbit? are we talking about 20% more, 50% more, double? etc.
Just Curious.
TY
As a rough rule of thumb, using storable propellants:
One kilogram on a translunar trajectory takes 4 kg in low Earth orbit
One kg in lunar orbit takes 4 kg in translunar trajectory
One kg on the lunar surface takes 4 kg in lunar orbit
One kg returned to Earth takes 4 kg on the lunar surface
Not suitable for use in navigation, but it supplies a good intuitive bound to the problem.
I'm not sure how legit those rules of thumb are...
The key Delta-V numbers are approximately:
LEO to TLI -- ~3100m/s
TLI to LOI -- ~800m/s
LUNO to EOI -- ~800m/s
So, if you wanted a Dragon capsule to enter low lunar orbit from a Trans Lunar Injection orbit, and then subsequently do an Earth return burn that would take it back to earth, you're talking on the order of 1600m/s or so. Assuming a 320s Isp for NTO/MMH, that yields a required mass ratio of MR=e^(dV/(Isp*g0))=1.67. That means that if you had a 10mT capsule (I can't remember the Dragon V2 numbers off the top of my head), you'd need to send an additional 6.7mT of prop through TLI for it to enter and exit lunar orbit.
That's enough that you almost certainly couldn't do it with a FH, but not multiple 4x multipliers.
Also, that was for entering a circular LLO. If you want to enter/exit EML-2 it's more like 150-250m/s each for entry and exit if you do a powered lunar swingby on the way out and back. That would only require ~1.7mT of extra propellant, which might actually be feasible. But it would make your trip *much* longer (on the order of 3wks). So you'd likely need to beef up the ECLSS non-trivially compared to an ISS capsule. Still intriguing though--I could see a future Dragon V2 option to deliver crews/passengers/cargo to an EML-2 station.
~Jon
Post by: kraisee on 02/28/2017 09:54 pm
How can anyone, other than a member of congress, support SLS and Orion at their costs?
Its the same old two edged sword that we faced on DIRECT.
SLS has become a money pit of a program, but the decision makers for that program are exactly the same ones who are the core supporters of NASA within Congress, and they are the only line of defense against the other members of Congress who would prefer to gut the whole agency budget for other programs of their choice.
Don't forget that NASA's top line budget is also set by these same people (think: which leading appropriator represents NASA rocket design center in Alabama? Always follow the money).
Then we must also remember that these same people are chosen by the electorate in their own states specifically to look out for the interests of the people in that state. So it isn't much of a surprise that they push programs that create jobs in those districts. That's their actual job.
So, the choice sadly comes down to supporting the expensive SLS program and the rest of NASA in tow, or remove the core political support for the agency and see the whole of NASA's budget gutted - and that would include gutting SpaceX's contracts and the science budget too.
You don't have to like it - I don't - but the choice comes down to putting up with SLS, or cutting everyone's budget. Pinching my nose, I'll continue to 'support' SLS.
Ross.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/28/2017 10:04 pm
The timing of this announcement is all about the customer. Someone agreed to pay for the trip, no more, no less.
The timing of the announcement is very calculated. Elon has too prominent a seat at the new administration's table for it not to be.
There's zero evidence for that, and it makes little sense. Elon said two people put a significant deposit down for a flight around the Moon. Do you think he was lying? If so, the lie will eventually be exposed. Elon isn't dumb enough to do that. If he wasn't lying, this isn't something Elon just dreamed up, it's based on an external factor: these two people who paid money. Do you think they put down a deposit long ago and Elon has been sitting on that news just waiting until he can use the announcement for political purposes? That doesn't make any sense to me. He wouldn't know if there would eventually be a time to announce it for political purposes, and in the meantime SpaceX would be failing to capitalize on this great PR.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/28/2017 10:22 pm
Post by: dglow on 02/28/2017 10:26 pm
The timing of this announcement is all about the customer. Someone agreed to pay for the trip, no more, no less.
The timing of the announcement is very calculated. Elon has too prominent a seat at the new administration's table for it not to be.
There's zero evidence for that, and it makes little sense. Elon said two people put a significant deposit down for a flight around the Moon. Do you think he was lying? If so, the lie will eventually be exposed. Elon isn't dumb enough to do that. If he wasn't lying, this isn't something Elon just dreamed up, it's based on an external factor: these two people who paid money. Do you think they put down a deposit long ago and Elon has been sitting on that news just waiting until he can use the announcement for political purposes? That doesn't make any sense to me. He wouldn't know if there would eventually be a time to announce it for political purposes, and in the meantime SpaceX would be failing to capitalize on this great PR.
Whoa. Please take a breath and read what I wrote. In no way do I suggest Elon is lying.
Your opinion: the timing is all about the customer. Mine: the timing is very calculated.
Quote
Do you think they put down a deposit long ago and Elon has been sitting on that news just waiting until he can use the announcement for political purposes?
It appears Elon did not make his announcement as soon as the deposit was made. Read what Bergin wrote: (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/spacex-two-citizens-dragon-2-lunar-mission/)
"A NASA HQ source claimed they were not informed about the announcement ahead of Elon’s comments on Monday, although he believes Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot and President Trump’s NASA “Landing Team” was briefed, which in turn – the source claimed – was why Mr. Lightfoot asked NASA to conduct a study into accelerating the schedule towards crewed missions on Orion."
Quote
He wouldn't know if there would eventually be a time to announce it for political purposes, and in the meantime SpaceX would be failing to capitalize on this great PR.
The evidence we have suggests otherwise. Musk didn't announce until after NASA made the EM-1 study public. He did announce in advance of Trump's speech tonight. Let's wait and see whether there's any connection there.
Peace.
Post by: meekGee on 02/28/2017 10:33 pm
The F9/FH/D2 architecture is about the stabilize now, at a performance level that is even above what was originally promised.
With Block 5 and streamlined barge operations, SpaceX will be launching at a cost point that's just without competition and will be servicing markets that it created - from comsat constellations to tourism - that they created.
Which now really puts it out there - what is NASA (or anyone else) doing developing expendables? And is there any place for them in a reusable market that has SpaceX, and at some point BO?
NASA should at this point really do some soul searching. It's got plenty of places to go, but trying to stay in the launcher game isn't one of them.
I think transportation-level ideas (e.g. depots) will be best handled by the launch providers. But there's a lot of science that can be done with fund that can be liberated from SLS. More science probes. More planetary science. More telescope platforms. More basic science and technology. Please.
Post by: envy887 on 02/28/2017 10:48 pm
...
I think transportation-level ideas (e.g. depots) will be best handled by the launch providers. But there's a lot of science that can be done with fund that can be liberated from SLS. More science probes. More planetary science. More telescope platforms. More basic science and technology. Please.
I doubt any funds liberated from SLS will go to NASA.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/28/2017 10:59 pm
How can anyone, other than a member of congress, support SLS and Orion at their costs?
Its the same old two edged sword that we faced on DIRECT.
SLS has become a money pit of a program, but the decision makers for that program are exactly the same ones who are the core supporters of NASA within Congress, and they are the only line of defense against the other members of Congress who would prefer to gut the whole agency budget for other programs of their choice.
Don't forget that NASA's top line budget is also set by these same people (think: which leading appropriator represents NASA rocket design center in Alabama? Always follow the money).
Then we must also remember that these same people are chosen by the electorate in their own states specifically to look out for the interests of the people in that state. So it isn't much of a surprise that they push programs that create jobs in those districts. That's their actual job.
So, the choice sadly comes down to supporting the expensive SLS program and the rest of NASA in tow, or remove the core political support for the agency and see the whole of NASA's budget gutted - and that would include gutting SpaceX's contracts and the science budget too.
You don't have to like it - I don't - but the choice comes down to putting up with SLS, or cutting everyone's budget. Pinching my nose, I'll continue to 'support' SLS.
Ross.
I've heard that claim before. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that it's true.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/28/2017 11:10 pm
The timing of this announcement is all about the customer. Someone agreed to pay for the trip, no more, no less.
The timing of the announcement is very calculated. Elon has too prominent a seat at the new administration's table for it not to be.
There's zero evidence for that, and it makes little sense. Elon said two people put a significant deposit down for a flight around the Moon. Do you think he was lying? If so, the lie will eventually be exposed. Elon isn't dumb enough to do that. If he wasn't lying, this isn't something Elon just dreamed up, it's based on an external factor: these two people who paid money. Do you think they put down a deposit long ago and Elon has been sitting on that news just waiting until he can use the announcement for political purposes? That doesn't make any sense to me. He wouldn't know if there would eventually be a time to announce it for political purposes, and in the meantime SpaceX would be failing to capitalize on this great PR.
Whoa. Please take a breath and read what I wrote. In no way do I suggest Elon is lying.
Yeah, that's my point. Obviously, he's not lying, and I figured you didn't think so either. So I wanted to dispense with that possibility first.
Your opinion: the timing is all about the customer. Mine: the timing is very calculated.QuoteDo you think they put down a deposit long ago and Elon has been sitting on that news just waiting until he can use the announcement for political purposes?
It appears Elon did not make his announcement as soon as the deposit was made. Read what Bergin wrote: (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/spacex-two-citizens-dragon-2-lunar-mission/)
"A NASA HQ source claimed they were not informed about the announcement ahead of Elon’s comments on Monday, although he believes Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot and President Trump’s NASA “Landing Team” was briefed, which in turn – the source claimed – was why Mr. Lightfoot asked NASA to conduct a study into accelerating the schedule towards crewed missions on Orion."
Yeah, and I've discussed that exact quote from the article in other posts.
Two important points here:
1. This is from a NASA source and he says NASA wasn't briefed. And it says the source "believes" there was a briefing. It's not clear whether the source actually has any information for that believe or whether it's pure speculation.
2. Even if Trump's team was briefed, that doesn't mean the announcement was timed for political purposes. For example, Musk might have made the deal 3 weeks ago and decided to do an announcement, then briefed the White House, then did the announcement. The timing is still based on being done a short time after the deal was done.
QuoteHe wouldn't know if there would eventually be a time to announce it for political purposes, and in the meantime SpaceX would be failing to capitalize on this great PR.
The evidence we have suggests otherwise. Musk didn't announce until after NASA made the EM-1 study public. He did announce in advance of Trump's speech tonight. Let's wait and see whether there's any connection there.
You still haven't given any evidence. The timing of Musk's announcement relative to the EM-1 announcement could be coincidence. Or the EM-1 announcement could have been rushed to come before Musk's announcement, which the the opposite of the causal relationship you're claiming. Or the EM-1 announcement might have triggered the customers to do the deal with Musk. There are all kinds of possibilities. The truth is we just don't know.
Post by: yg1968 on 02/28/2017 11:13 pm
How can anyone, other than a member of congress, support SLS and Orion at their costs?
Its the same old two edged sword that we faced on DIRECT.
SLS has become a money pit of a program, but the decision makers for that program are exactly the same ones who are the core supporters of NASA within Congress, and they are the only line of defense against the other members of Congress who would prefer to gut the whole agency budget for other programs of their choice.
Don't forget that NASA's top line budget is also set by these same people (think: which leading appropriator represents NASA rocket design center in Alabama? Always follow the money).
Then we must also remember that these same people are chosen by the electorate in their own states specifically to look out for the interests of the people in that state. So it isn't much of a surprise that they push programs that create jobs in those districts. That's their actual job.
So, the choice sadly comes down to supporting the expensive SLS program and the rest of NASA in tow, or remove the core political support for the agency and see the whole of NASA's budget gutted - and that would include gutting SpaceX's contracts and the science budget too.
You don't have to like it - I don't - but the choice comes down to putting up with SLS, or cutting everyone's budget. Pinching my nose, I'll continue to 'support' SLS.
Ross.
You could find substitute government projects: Mars habitats and a lander come to mind. It's not like we are on the verge of running out of things to spend on for Mars exploration or colonization.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/28/2017 11:18 pm
So, the choice sadly comes down to supporting the expensive SLS program and the rest of NASA in tow, or remove the core political support for the agency and see the whole of NASA's budget gutted - and that would include gutting SpaceX's contracts and the science budget too.
You don't have to like it - I don't - but the choice comes down to putting up with SLS, or cutting everyone's budget. Pinching my nose, I'll continue to 'support' SLS.
NASA is not monolithic, and the SLS and Orion only support the "Human Exploration Operations" part of the budget, which includes the ISS and Commercial Cargo & Crew.
Cancelling the SLS and Orion won't affect the ISS or Commercial Cargo & Crew, and certainly won't affect the Science, Space Technology or Aeronautics Research parts of NASA. And it may not "free up" any money for any of those either, which is OK by me.
NASA is a tool that the U.S. Government chooses to solve non-defense related specific problems that deal with space (not so much aeronautics anymore unfortunately). And if we don't have a problem that the SLS and Orion solve, then we don't need them - and funding them "just because" would be a drain on NASA's overall resources, and a waste of taxpayer money.
This SpaceX mission is showing that we may have reached an inflection point in history where the technology has come down enough in overall price that private individuals can afford to not only leave Earth, but travel just as far as government employees have. And the government is not involved in a direct way.
One of the goals of our government is to support the private sector, and if our government wants to support private sector space-related activities then we might have reached a point in our history where NASA doesn't need to own as much infrastructure as they had to own at the beginning of the space era, and instead they can rely on the private sector for their needs. That should be celebrated, not feared.
So in that light this mission by SpaceX to send two civilians around the Moon is definitely historic. Whereas the SLS and Orion EM-1 proposed mission is looking more and more like a desperate attempt to salvage two programs that were never needed from Day 1.
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/28/2017 11:53 pm
This would be my hope for the direction things go. If not then another provider needs to develop DS capability with their CC system. Meanwhile SLS/Orion disappears and is replaced with the public /private program for DS Lunar habitat and transport of crew and cargo as an outgrowth of the CC program. A BTW Vulcan using ACES with distributed launch can reach and actually possibly exceed any of the FH and even SLS payload capabilities.
As far as whether there is an Lunar orbit that the Dragon2/FH can reach is unknown because the basis to determine that is not a public set of information containing the exact design details of both the FH and the Dragon2.
As far as whether upper level government managers knew about this mission and why it was just announced is that negotiations are not an instant thing and take in some case multiple months. The public announcment would be after the negotiations have concluded and a contract existed. The upper level government managers could have been briefed that SpaceX had been contacted by customers that would like to hire such a ride at SpaceX soonest opportunity and SpaceX started negotiations with these customers. They would also possibly breifed of when that soonest possibility could be.
Post by: speedevil on 03/01/2017 12:10 am
As a rough rule of thumb, using storable propellants:
One kilogram on a translunar trajectory takes 4 kg in low Earth orbit
One kg in lunar orbit takes 4 kg in translunar trajectory
One kg on the lunar surface takes 4 kg in lunar orbit
One kg returned to Earth takes 4 kg on the lunar surface
Not suitable for use in navigation, but it supplies a good intuitive bound to the problem.
Is anyone aware of a thread for 'existing spacex hardware' mini lander?
Something along the lines of a gimballed Draco thruster, 50kg of propellant, and a 20kg payload, to be kicked out of the trunk sometime before the moon, get to a safe distance and then enable. It would be very hard to get something that lasted over a lunar day.
The Yutu rover weight 140kg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutu_%28rover%29
Post by: virnin on 03/01/2017 12:15 am
Post by: docmordrid on 03/01/2017 12:25 am
Silver Dragon = Moon? (lyric: Light of the Silvery Moon)
Post by: dglow on 03/01/2017 12:41 am
You still haven't given any evidence. The timing of Musk's announcement relative to the EM-1 announcement could be coincidence. Or the EM-1 announcement could have been rushed to come before Musk's announcement, which the the opposite of the causal relationship you're claiming. Or the EM-1 announcement might have triggered the customers to do the deal with Musk. There are all kinds of possibilities. The truth is we just don't know.
That's right, we don't know.
All we have is Thiel in the administration (https://qz.com/869105/peter-thiel-is-pushing-donald-trump-use-private-space-companies-like-spacex-at-nasa/), a sudden announcement (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/science/spacex-moon-tourists.html?_r=0) by Musk, Bergin's source (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/spacex-two-citizens-dragon-2-lunar-mission/) in NASA, and Yang (https://twitter.com/johnyangtv/status/836658161771819010) and Berger's tweets (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/836662420877737984) about tonight. A lot of smoke. No point arguing whether or not we see flames.
FWIW, I want Musk to be calculating in these matters. For the sake of SpaceX, I hope he is political. It's a good and necessary thing, IMO.
Post by: vt_hokie on 03/01/2017 12:49 am
This SpaceX mission is showing that we may have reached an inflection point in history where the technology has come down enough in overall price that private individuals can afford to not only leave Earth, but travel just as far as government employees have. And the government is not involved in a direct way.
Well, yes and no. SpaceX is using technology developed largely though government efforts, refined and improved to reduce costs but not revolutionary, and arguably Falcon 9 and certainly Dragon wouldn't exist without NASA funding.
I'm excited by this announcement, because it seems realistic enough to have a real shot of happening (even if 2018 is a little optimistic) and to see people leave low Earth orbit for the first time in my life, having been born too late for Apollo, would be nothing short of awesome. So, I'm all for it provided that it does not threaten commercial crew in any way (which I suppose it shouldn't, as long as proper resources are devoted to that, and as long as a failure of this risky flight doesn't also risk lengthy delays in commercial crew).
Post by: meekGee on 03/01/2017 12:50 am
Just wondering when this new mission will show up on the SpaceX Launch Manifest web page. Maybe they're still trying to decide on a title for it?
Kardashian Dragon?
I mean, if you're gonna pay for it, maybe you get to name it?
(no, not for realz)
Post by: Jdeshetler on 03/01/2017 01:19 am
- Silicon is the 2nd most common elements on the lunar surface.
- Those 2 deep pocket riders may be related to Silicon Valley in a way.
Post by: maitri982 on 03/01/2017 02:24 am
Post by: maitri982 on 03/01/2017 02:53 am
Post by: Comga on 03/01/2017 04:03 am
How will SpaceX recover the crew from the mission around the moon?
There are at least four possibilities:
1) Proven parachute landing in the ocean
2) SpaceX's undemonstrated propulsive landing on the Super Dracos
3) Soyuz style propulsively assisted parachute landing in the dessert.
4) A drogue only descent with propulsive assist (not mentioned anywhere else that I know of.)
There could be significant dispersion in the location of a splash-down. SpaceX will have to develop an water recovery operation adequate for crew recovery for Commercial Crew, if NASA doesn't change its demand, but they won't have enough assets to cover a large part of the ocean. Option 1 seems unlikely.
Option 2 seems pretty far out there. Almost everything will have been proven, including Falcon Heavy, but not propulsive landing.
Option 3 is my best guess. There is lots of area in the American southwest, and if the Dragon comes down 100 km off course, it's not likely to be a big problem. It was, IIRC, the landing method SpaceX wanted to use for Commercial Crew at the beginning, so they have already planed for it. They used to have plans to demonstrate this from a helicopter drop.
Option 4 is my favorite, with option 3 as a backup. However, the strongest advantage of option 4 is that there would be much less drift under the parachutes, but that won't be the biggest source of landing point error when returning from the moon.
Post by: Jim on 03/01/2017 04:05 am
Which now really puts it out there - what is NASA (or anyone else) doing developing expendables? And is there any place for them in a reusable market that has SpaceX, and at some point BO?
The reusable market has yet to exist.
Post by: kraisee on 03/01/2017 04:37 am
How can anyone, other than a member of congress, support SLS and Orion at their costs?
Its the same old two edged sword that we faced on DIRECT.
SLS has become a money pit of a program, but the decision makers for that program are exactly the same ones who are the core supporters of NASA within Congress, and they are the only line of defense against the other members of Congress who would prefer to gut the whole agency budget for other programs of their choice.
Don't forget that NASA's top line budget is also set by these same people (think: which leading appropriator represents NASA rocket design center in Alabama? Always follow the money).
Then we must also remember that these same people are chosen by the electorate in their own states specifically to look out for the interests of the people in that state. So it isn't much of a surprise that they push programs that create jobs in those districts. That's their actual job.
So, the choice sadly comes down to supporting the expensive SLS program and the rest of NASA in tow, or remove the core political support for the agency and see the whole of NASA's budget gutted - and that would include gutting SpaceX's contracts and the science budget too.
You don't have to like it - I don't - but the choice comes down to putting up with SLS, or cutting everyone's budget. Pinching my nose, I'll continue to 'support' SLS.
Ross.
You could find substitute government projects: Mars habitats and a lander come to mind. It's not like we are on the verge of running out of things to spend on for Mars exploration or colonization.
Yes, that was what we tried to promote back in the day.
The blockage we hit was that particularly Sen. Shelby had a strangle hold of this one big program that was very lucrative for his district, and he had enough power on appropriations committee to keep it.
Any split of that money into other elements like propellant depots, landers and habs would have meant the NASA would be obligated to share the budget resources with some of the other centers (JSC, KSC etc) and that would have made Alabama/Marshall's pie slice smaller. That's why he wanted one huge rocket development program as the centerpiece of the NASA HSF budget.
I have seen nothing in recent years to indicate this situation has changed.
SpaceX might yet tip the balance - they certainly have the best chance to do so - but they will need a few more years to change the political momentum that underpins the whole agency.
And I'm not trying to bash SpaceX at all, but the truth is that their two recent accidents don't work in their favour in the question of whether they can replace the big NASA program. They just don't yet seem ready to take on the mantle of Flagship NASA Human Space Flight Program of Record. They can get there, but first they are going to need to demonstrate they are reliable. 20 to 30 totally successful missions would demonstrate that their recent accidents are definitely not part of a larger trend, were actually aberrations, and that they can indeed be heavily relied upon by the US Government and Taxpayer.
Similarly, because each mission costs so much, if SLS screws the pooch on any of its early flights, all their bets are off there too. This whole question could still swing either way.
But the single biggest factor, I believe, is just who is lined-up to replace the 82 year old Shelby pro-NASA powerhouse on the Senate appropriations committee whenever he retires? That choice will dictate years of NASA's future top-line budget hopes *FAR* more than anything else will.
Ross.
Post by: meekGee on 03/01/2017 04:53 am
That's a very good analysis IMO.How can anyone, other than a member of congress, support SLS and Orion at their costs?
Its the same old two edged sword that we faced on DIRECT.
SLS has become a money pit of a program, but the decision makers for that program are exactly the same ones who are the core supporters of NASA within Congress, and they are the only line of defense against the other members of Congress who would prefer to gut the whole agency budget for other programs of their choice.
Don't forget that NASA's top line budget is also set by these same people (think: which leading appropriator represents NASA rocket design center in Alabama? Always follow the money).
Then we must also remember that these same people are chosen by the electorate in their own states specifically to look out for the interests of the people in that state. So it isn't much of a surprise that they push programs that create jobs in those districts. That's their actual job.
So, the choice sadly comes down to supporting the expensive SLS program and the rest of NASA in tow, or remove the core political support for the agency and see the whole of NASA's budget gutted - and that would include gutting SpaceX's contracts and the science budget too.
You don't have to like it - I don't - but the choice comes down to putting up with SLS, or cutting everyone's budget. Pinching my nose, I'll continue to 'support' SLS.
Ross.
You could find substitute government projects: Mars habitats and a lander come to mind. It's not like we are on the verge of running out of things to spend on for Mars exploration or colonization.
Yes, that was what we tried to promote back in the day.
The blockage we hit was that particularly Sen. Shelby had a strangle hold of this one big program that was very lucrative for his district, and he had enough power on appropriations committee to keep it.
Any split of that money into other elements like propellant depots, landers and habs would have meant the NASA would be obligated to share the budget resources with some of the other centers (JSC, KSC etc) and that would have made Alabama/Marshall's pie slice smaller. That's why he wanted one huge rocket development program as the centerpiece of the NASA HSF budget.
I have seen nothing in recent years to indicate this situation has changed.
SpaceX might yet tip the balance - they certainly have the best chance to do so - but they will need a few more years to change the political momentum that underpins the whole agency.
And I'm not trying to bash SpaceX at all, but the truth is that their two recent accidents don't work in their favour in the question of whether they can replace the big NASA program. They just don't yet seem ready to take on the mantle of Flagship NASA Human Space Flight Program of Record. They can get there, but first they are going to need to demonstrate they are reliable. 20 to 30 totally successful missions would demonstrate that their recent accidents are definitely not part of a larger trend, were actually aberrations, and that they can indeed be heavily relied upon by the US Government and Taxpayer.
Similarly, because each mission costs so much, if SLS screws the pooch on any of its early flights, all their bets are off there too. This whole question could still swing either way.
But the single biggest factor, I believe, is just who is lined-up to replace the 82 year old Shelby pro-NASA powerhouse on the Senate appropriations committee whenever he retires? That choice will dictate years of NASA's future top-line budget hopes *FAR* more than anything else will.
Ross.
SpaceX is not quite ready, agreed, but most of us are talking in terms of "reasonable trajectories": "If everything goes reasonably OK for all players".
Failures for any of the players can change or delay the outcome of course. (And already have)
Shelby, formidable as he is, is just a symptom of the way the system is structured. If it wasn't him, it'd have been someone else. No shortage of his type in politics.
Post by: kraisee on 03/01/2017 05:05 am
...
You don't have to like it - I don't - but the choice comes down to putting up with SLS, or cutting everyone's budget. Pinching my nose, I'll continue to 'support' SLS.
Ross.
I've heard that claim before. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that it's true.
I certainly think it is wise to be healthily skeptical of any information you get regarding political motives - on all subjects. But this is what I believe, based on doing my time in the wringer.
This viewpoint was formed by my experience, and that of Chuck, Steve and our team, based on ~7 years of fighting for a major program change between 2005 and 2011.
We walked a lot of the halls of power in DC. We had so many meetings with Senators and Congressmen, and their various staff members in the Russel, Hart and Rayburn buildings, OMB, West Wing, E Street etc. We also met a variety of company Exec's and even a few lobbyists. Gads, how many lunches did we have in Union Station?!?
If you're trying to make a real difference, believing your own thing only gets you so far. We had our heads collectively stuck in the sand for the first few years, but to really change things you have to learn what's really going on, who wants what - and why. It took us about three years to finally figure out the real motives for all of the big NASA players in DC. Thanks to a handful of people willing to really teach us the ropes, we actually got under the skin of the whole NASA-related political landscape there, and what I said above remains what I believe today.
Personally, the whole political environment was never comfortable for me. I got out of that world in 2011 and don't miss it for one second. But it sure was an eye opening experience. Perhaps more people should push a cause the way we did, because it teaches you the difference between how you think the government runs, how you wish the government were run, and the reality of how it actually does.
Ross.
Post by: meekGee on 03/01/2017 05:05 am
The funny part is that it already does, even before the first reused rocket flies.
Which now really puts it out there - what is NASA (or anyone else) doing developing expendables? And is there any place for them in a reusable market that has SpaceX, and at some point BO?
The reusable market has yet to exist.
This is because customers estimate that the most likely future course is that SpaceX will have a low cost highly reusable system soon.
Anyone who's job requires to look forward and determine how to position their company, can't afford to wait till after this has become a done deal, or else they'll be too late.
You may not be seeing signs of it, but I believe that in the last year, this perception has gone from being "fringe" to being the common wisdom.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/01/2017 05:39 am
This viewpoint was formed by my experience, and that of Chuck, Steve and our team, based on ~7 years of fighting for a major program change between 2005 and 2011.
I first became active on space blogs because of DIRECT, so I salute you for your efforts. It's not easy pushing a boulder up a hill you can't see the top of, and all you have is the faith that it's the right thing to do.
Ultimately though I learned about the cost of the Shuttle system, and I eventually came to the conclusion that government systems that relied on using Shuttle technology were not going to result in affordable transportation systems.
Even if you ignore the cost challenges the SLS has, it's very apparent that the U.S. Government doesn't have a need to move enough mass to space that merits owning and operating it's own unique transportation system. And that is the real program killer here, since every year it just becomes more and more apparent that there is nothing for the SLS and Orion to support.
We already know what the future is, since the USAF stopped depending on NASA for rides to space after the Challenger accident, and NASA has already committed to using the private sector for supporting the ISS.
If anything this SpaceX Moon trip is just the confirmation that our private sector is truly up to taking over the task of space transportation from NASA. NASA knows that, so it's just a matter of how long it will take the politicians to finally admit to it...
Post by: gospacex on 03/01/2017 05:49 am
If you're trying to make a real difference, believing your own thing only gets you so far. We had our heads collectively stuck in the sand for the first few years, but to really change things you have to learn what's really going on, who wants what - and why. It took us about three years to finally figure out the real motives for all of the big NASA players in DC.
With healthy dose of cynicism and common sense, you do not need "few years" to figure these things out. Just assume that everyone acts in his own interests (even if this hurts overall society) - and you'll have a rather accurate first approximation of what's going on.
Post by: jongoff on 03/01/2017 06:01 am
Basically, a two-launch, joint ULA/SpaceX mission. Falcon Heavy launches Dragon V2 and a tanker module. ULA launches a Vulcan/ACES 546 with the ACES having a Xeus landing kit and a crew cabin module. The two stacks rendezvous and swap propellant between the tanker and the ACES stage. Dragon then discards the tanker, and attaches to the now fully-refueled Xeus stack. Xeus does the TLI burn, the LOI burn, and then the crew enters the crew cabin and leaves the Dragon in LLO. Xeus and crew cabin descend to the surface, the astronauts/tourists get out and do their thing for a day or two, then Xeus takes off with the crew cabin and returns to LLO. Dragon mates back up, and Xeus does the homeward burn.
Without doing anything clever, the concept barely closes with a tiny bit of margin. But there are several clever things you could do that might even allow you to have enough margin to make the mission really work, while recovering the Xeus/crew cabin in LEO for refueling and subsequent missions.
I'm suggesting a ULA/SpaceX mission because I really think that a) SpaceX doesn't care about the Moon (White Dragon is an exception since they don't have to really do much new development to start tapping a new market), and b) ULA/Masten are better positioned for a *lunar* lander, and they actually want to develop one--assuming they can find the development funding.
I don't even want to know how many people you'd have to get seriously drunk to get SpaceX and ULA singing kumbaya, and Boeing and LM giving ULA their blessing to openly compete with SLS/Orion. But the concept comes close enough to working that it's at least an intriguing technical thought.
~Jon
Post by: avollhar on 03/01/2017 06:46 am
without any crazy slingshot maneuvers at the moon or large course corrections, the orbital periods (Earth-apogee-Earth) are as follows for different apogee heights
384000 km = 9.7 days
500000 km = 14.4 days
640000 km = 20.9 days
Post by: corneliussulla on 03/01/2017 06:54 am
He knows this will have political implications for NASA and SLS. He privately probably thinks SLS is a load of nonsense but doesn't want to embarrass NASA so he lets the administration know what he is up to. This sets alarm bells off at NASA and they come up with daft idea of first mission of SLS being manned ( meanwhile falcon design must be frozen and flown 7 times) and maybe ask Musk to delay announcement until they announce There moon mission which he did.
It's hard to know the exact events but Elon needs cash to get ITS done and he is not a guy who will wait around for NASA/ congress to change its mind on SLS. Once falcon is frozen and dragon certified he might be able to spend all surplus from satellite launch and ISS servicing missions on ITS development. Lets say that $200 mill a year plus moon tourists at $100 mill a year. Budget for ITS could be $3 billion over 10 years to 2028. Things are not static of course but hard to see that budget being enough to develop ITS when a Nimitz class carrier costs $13 bill and they already have the plans.
Elon is going to have to come up with some more ideas or get administration and NASA fired up about his vision of Mars to get An ITS on Mars by end of 2020ies, maybe his other ventures will start throwing shed loads of cash in coming years because he probably needs between 4 to 10 times the resources Available from spacex to get this job done.
Post by: Bynaus on 03/01/2017 07:05 am
A short reminder on orbital mechanics:
without any crazy slingshot maneuvers at the moon or large course corrections, the orbital periods (Earth-apogee-Earth) are as follows for different apogee heights
384000 km = 9.7 days
500000 km = 14.4 days
640000 km = 20.9 days
I actually start to think that Elon mixed up miles and km in the telecon. So then it would be 400'000 km, not miles - approximately the distance of the Moon.
Also, orbital periods with an apogee at the Moon are not a good approximation for the duration of a free return flight. Take Apollo 13, which lasted just short of 6 days.
Post by: ringsider on 03/01/2017 08:00 am
It wouldn't surprise me if one of them might be James Cameron, don't forget the guy is an adventurer and billionaire.One of them might be Musk?
Post by: Archibald on 03/01/2017 09:08 am
It appears to me the likely scenario here is that Musk is looking at all ways to increase SpaceX income so he can afford ITS development. Along come a couple guys willing to pay $80 mill each lets say to live out a dream. Musk thinks if I could sell a mission like this twice a year I would have $120 mill (guesstimate) a year to get things moving on ITS. This is probably worth delaying the red dragon programme
He knows this will have political implications for NASA and SLS. He privately probably thinks SLS is a load of nonsense but doesn't want to embarrass NASA so he lets the administration know what he is up to. This sets alarm bells off at NASA and they come up with daft idea of first mission of SLS being manned ( meanwhile falcon design must be frozen and flown 7 times) and maybe ask Musk to delay announcement until they announce There moon mission which he did.
It's hard to know the exact events but Elon needs cash to get ITS done and he is not a guy who will wait around for NASA/ congress to change its mind on SLS. Once falcon is frozen and dragon certified he might be able to spend all surplus from satellite launch and ISS servicing missions on ITS development. Lets say that $200 mill a year plus moon tourists at $100 mill a year. Budget for ITS could be $3 billion over 10 years to 2028. Things are not static of course but hard to see that budget being enough to develop ITS when a Nimitz class carrier costs $13 bill and they already have the plans.
Elon is going to have to come up with some more ideas or get administration and NASA fired up about his vision of Mars to get An ITS on Mars by end of 2020ies, maybe his other ventures will start throwing shed loads of cash in coming years because he probably needs between 4 to 10 times the resources Available from spacex to get this job done.
When you think about it, everything Musk done since 2001 (post- PayPal era) is geared to support Mars colonization someday.
- Solar city = large solar arrays on Mars since Mars Direct nuclear pile is politically unacceptable
- Tesla: electric Mars rovers, obviously
- reusable rocket / capsules: Mars landers
- Space internet, lunar tourists, NASA-COTS-CCDEV, military sats, competition with Arianespace: funding, funding, more funding.
It is a two-prongue attack on Mars colonization: on one side, technology readiness, on the other, massive funding and dollars. Both developments are to work together and converge on Mars within the next decade.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/01/2017 09:10 am
Evil Dragon?
That would be the one that Elon spoke about during a NASA TV interview with the 'Lay-zors'.
Post by: Oersted on 03/01/2017 09:28 am
When you think about it, everything Musk done since 2001 (post- PayPal era) is geared to support Mars colonization someday.
- Solar city = large solar arrays on Mars since Mars Direct nuclear pile is politically unacceptable
- Tesla: electric Mars rovers, obviously
- reusable rocket / capsules: Mars landers
- Space internet, lunar tourists, NASA-COTS-CCDEV, military sats, competition with Arianespace: funding, funding, more funding.
It is a two-prongue attack on Mars colonization: on one side, technology readiness, on the other, massive funding and dollars. Both developments are to work together and converge on Mars within the next decade.
His Boring Company project as well. He obviously realised that tunnelling is our best bet for creating a Mars base. When tunnelling the 'building materials' are already there, and with well-functioning machinery there is practically no limit to the size of the base. He must have been reading the 'Amazing habitats'-thread... :-)
Post by: JamesH65 on 03/01/2017 09:31 am
I dunno. There are some pretty smart people out there - you generally don't acquire large amounts of cash without some level of intelligence (unless you inherit it - Trump?). Did the training the Apollo guys get enable them to duct tape containers together? Or is that something any intelligent person could do. Of course, there are lots of switches in Apollo to learn - that's not the case in Dragon where everything is automated, or computer controlled.
Well, it's not about duct taping things, it's more about not panicking and keeping focus on the situation.
As a D-day veteran put it: 'Training is what makes you do the correct things when people are shooting at you'
That sort of training is not limited to astronauts.
Post by: JamesH65 on 03/01/2017 09:49 am
Please stop calling them tourists. They are not. I'd call them adventurers, explorers, something like that. Not tourists. They are not going to turn up and go, like a tourist would.
They could very well just turn up and go. A turnip could do it. With a food and water dispenser a dog or chimp could do this. They are TOURISTS.
Matthew
Just like....astronauts in the same seat?
These are completely automated craft. Anyone in them in a turnip, whether they pay for the trip or not. So you are clearly saying that astronauts are turnips, just along for the ride.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/01/2017 10:06 am
A lot can happen in seven days and I'd prefer to have someone who is able to manually execute course-correction burns and steer the thing through re-entry if the computers become balky or an error in the FHUS sends them on an unexpected and marginal trajectory (steeper re-entry corridor, for example). Then there is the issue of correct training to fix any fixable problems.
Post by: Proponent on 03/01/2017 10:08 am
I doubt any funds liberated from SLS will go to NASA.
If, say, SLS were canceled (not that I expect that), I doubt Sen. Shelby would fight redirecting some of its funding to, say, buying more EELVs (made in Decatur, Alabama) or to development of large-scale space power or depot technology at MSFC. It would still be spending driven by parochial politics, but it could be more productive from a space cadet's point of view.
I'm not saying there is no risk at all to NASA's funding, but I think that with some political skill (which was notably absent when Obama rolled out his FY 2011 budget proposal), the net result could be a higher level of useful funding.
Post by: Proponent on 03/01/2017 10:15 am
I think SLS will be cancelled. It's a waste of money given the new commercial alternatives coming online.
I don't think that's going to happen soon. Obama tried to cancel Ares V, but all he managed to do was turn it into SLS, and that was likely mostly because one senator in his party (Bill Nelson) objected (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27070.msg819080#msg819080). To cancel SLS, Trump would have to cross several senators and representatives in his own party, and he's got plenty of fights brewing with Congress already. There is no reason to believe he'd want to blow political capital on something so insignificant as SLS. As Trump seems a very vindictive person, I could imagine him going after SLS if multiple SLS supporters crossed him in some way, but that's not particularly likely.
Post by: ringsider on 03/01/2017 10:16 am
Tunnels...It appears to me the likely scenario here is that Musk is looking at all ways to increase SpaceX income so he can afford ITS development. Along come a couple guys willing to pay $80 mill each lets say to live out a dream. Musk thinks if I could sell a mission like this twice a year I would have $120 mill (guesstimate) a year to get things moving on ITS. This is probably worth delaying the red dragon programme
He knows this will have political implications for NASA and SLS. He privately probably thinks SLS is a load of nonsense but doesn't want to embarrass NASA so he lets the administration know what he is up to. This sets alarm bells off at NASA and they come up with daft idea of first mission of SLS being manned ( meanwhile falcon design must be frozen and flown 7 times) and maybe ask Musk to delay announcement until they announce There moon mission which he did.
It's hard to know the exact events but Elon needs cash to get ITS done and he is not a guy who will wait around for NASA/ congress to change its mind on SLS. Once falcon is frozen and dragon certified he might be able to spend all surplus from satellite launch and ISS servicing missions on ITS development. Lets say that $200 mill a year plus moon tourists at $100 mill a year. Budget for ITS could be $3 billion over 10 years to 2028. Things are not static of course but hard to see that budget being enough to develop ITS when a Nimitz class carrier costs $13 bill and they already have the plans.
Elon is going to have to come up with some more ideas or get administration and NASA fired up about his vision of Mars to get An ITS on Mars by end of 2020ies, maybe his other ventures will start throwing shed loads of cash in coming years because he probably needs between 4 to 10 times the resources Available from spacex to get this job done.
When you think about it, everything Musk done since 2001 (post- PayPal era) is geared to support Mars colonization someday.
- Solar city = large solar arrays on Mars since Mars Direct nuclear pile is politically unacceptable
- Tesla: electric Mars rovers, obviously
- reusable rocket / capsules: Mars landers
- Space internet, lunar tourists, NASA-COTS-CCDEV, military sats, competition with Arianespace: funding, funding, more funding.
It is a two-prongue attack on Mars colonization: on one side, technology readiness, on the other, massive funding and dollars. Both developments are to work together and converge on Mars within the next decade.
Post by: Kaputnik on 03/01/2017 10:16 am
We can go back and forth forever on SLS, NASA's budget and those who set it, SpaceX's relationship with NASA, [/size]etc, but....
How will SpaceX recover the crew from the mission around the moon?
There are at least four possibilities:
1) Proven parachute landing in the ocean
2) SpaceX's undemonstrated propulsive landing on the Super Dracos
3) Soyuz style propulsively assisted parachute landing in the dessert.
4) A drogue only descent with propulsive assist (not mentioned anywhere else that I know of.)
There could be significant dispersion in the location of a splash-down. SpaceX will have to develop an water recovery operation adequate for crew recovery for Commercial Crew, if NASA doesn't change its demand, but they won't have enough assets to cover a large part of the ocean. Option 1 seems unlikely.
Option 2 seems pretty far out there. Almost everything will have been proven, including Falcon Heavy, but not propulsive landing.
Option 3 is my best guess. There is lots of area in the American southwest, and if the Dragon comes down 100 km off course, it's not likely to be a big problem. It was, IIRC, the landing method SpaceX wanted to use for Commercial Crew at the beginning, so they have already planed for it. They used to have plans to demonstrate this from a helicopter drop.
Option 4 is my favorite, with option 3 as a backup. However, the strongest advantage of option 4 is that there would be much less drift under the parachutes, but that won't be the biggest source of landing point error when returning from the moon.
A dessert landing would be pretty sweet.
Post by: mikelepage on 03/01/2017 11:17 am
Question for Jim (other professionals feel free to chime in)
Assume that I am a 45 year old lay person with some scientific acumen. Private practice doctor, former USAF flight doc, >1000 hours private pilot with instrument and aerobatic experience. Biology major with a little physics and math 25 years ago. Burning desire to fly in space since watching STS -1 in 4th grade. Assume I win Powerball and decide I want to purchase this trip free return around the moon with SpaceX.
What are the five most important questions I should ask SpaceX management as part of my due diligence as I consider paying for this trip?
Not an aerospace professional (34yo PhD in Immunology myself), but these are the questions that come to mind for me:
1) I'd want a quantification of risks. So for instance: 7 days outside the magnetosphere is a radiation dose of ~12.6mSv or about one PET scan (ie nothing to worry about). What are the risks of RUD at launch, TLI, landing? What kind of testing have the life-support systems been through? (duration/stress testing). All the places I could die :) This kind of thing.
2) What do I need to learn in order to gain a strong working understanding of the Dragon2? It may all be automated - and I might not be allowed to change anything, but I want to be able know the parts of the ship, such that if the ground teams are diagnosing a problem, I can follow along on the control screen inside the Dragon, verifying the readings they are using. Supposing some completely unforeseen, compound, emergency (eg loss of communications + hurricane forms at the landing site during the mission), will there be a failsafe in the interface so I can simply and manually adjust the programmed burns and move my landing site by 1000km?
3) What kind of control will I be allowed over the internet communication back to Earth. Could I livestream the entire thing in 4K if I wanted to? If my role in this mission is to be a talking, breathing payload, then I want to make sure it's worth it.
4) Suppose I want to run my own experiments/launch smallsats etc, is SpaceX open to working with me like that? I can't imagine why they wouldn't be, but still that would be an expectation of mine.
5) Do I get to keep my underpants?
My $0.02.
Post by: JamesH65 on 03/01/2017 11:50 am
I cannot see what benefit having a pilot would give. Given an extremely automated system, I cannot think of anything that a pilot would be able to do that a computer wouldn't be able to do, probably much better. Will the craft even have any manual controls that a pilot would be able to use? What could they possible influence? The craft itself is going to pretty complicated - it's not as if someone on board is going to be able to 'fix' anything even with the right training.
So anyone on board one of these things is a passenger (I think the word tourist is inappropriate), whether they are paid by SpaceX to be there or have paid to be there.
Of course, could be wrong- perhaps there will be 'user serviceable parts', but what spares would you take with you....apart from duct tape and cable ties? Soldering iron for bad connections? Thick jumper in case the heating fails?
Post by: Ric Capucho on 03/01/2017 12:51 pm
But there *is* something that sets an astronaut apart from a "mere" space tourist: EVA.
Ric
Post by: Jim on 03/01/2017 01:11 pm
So anyone on board one of these things is a passenger (I think the word tourist is inappropriate), whether they are paid by SpaceX to be there or have paid to be there.
A passenger that has no specific destination and is along for the ride and sightseeing is a tourist.
Actually,
Tourist: a person who is traveling or visiting a place for pleasure.
Post by: uhuznaa on 03/01/2017 01:23 pm
We can go back and forth forever on SLS, NASA's budget and those who set it, SpaceX's relationship with NASA, [/size]etc, but....
How will SpaceX recover the crew from the mission around the moon?
There are at least four possibilities:
1) Proven parachute landing in the ocean
2) SpaceX's undemonstrated propulsive landing on the Super Dracos
3) Soyuz style propulsively assisted parachute landing in the dessert.
4) A drogue only descent with propulsive assist (not mentioned anywhere else that I know of.)
There could be significant dispersion in the location of a splash-down. SpaceX will have to develop an water recovery operation adequate for crew recovery for Commercial Crew, if NASA doesn't change its demand, but they won't have enough assets to cover a large part of the ocean. Option 1 seems unlikely.
Option 2 seems pretty far out there. Almost everything will have been proven, including Falcon Heavy, but not propulsive landing.
Option 3 is my best guess. There is lots of area in the American southwest, and if the Dragon comes down 100 km off course, it's not likely to be a big problem. It was, IIRC, the landing method SpaceX wanted to use for Commercial Crew at the beginning, so they have already planed for it. They used to have plans to demonstrate this from a helicopter drop.
Option 4 is my favorite, with option 3 as a backup. However, the strongest advantage of option 4 is that there would be much less drift under the parachutes, but that won't be the biggest source of landing point error when returning from the moon.
I think everything that involves firing the SuperDracos without depleting the propellants before touch down is much too risky. If you're sitting on lots of hypergols you definitely want to have everything nicely sealed or the tanks empty when you hit the ground or water.
So it will either be a full powered landing or a parachute landing in the ocean. The latter will have to work anyway in an emergency.
But yes, for tourism you don't want to add the expenses of plucking the craft out of the middle of the ocean, so in the long run it will be powered landings right on the landing pad. I have a hard time though seeing that happening next year after a lunar flight.
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/01/2017 01:26 pm
So anyone on board one of these things is a passenger (I think the word tourist is inappropriate), whether they are paid by SpaceX to be there or have paid to be there.
A passenger that has no specific destination and is along for the ride and sightseeing is a tourist.
Actually,
Tourist: a person who is traveling or visiting a place for pleasure.
Not a dictionary definition, but astronauts are paid to go, while tourists pay to go.
Matthew
Post by: maitri982 on 03/01/2017 01:31 pm
We don't know the political/funding consequences yet.
What one should be concerned for is our good friends that might get caught up in a RIF as a consequence. Especially as it seems that govt funding might be across the board may get cut. Especially mid level GS. Who aren't in the greatest position to go elsewhere. At least that's my concern here.
I don't want a single job lost at NASA...In fact I want expansion. But I think NASA should get out of the deep involvement in creating launchers via these cost plus contracts. It has failed over and over and simply does not work. Instead incentivize commercial providers to provide what you need and prove that they can at a given price.
NASA should focus on exploration and science, which they are peerless at.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/01/2017 01:40 pm
Post by: Proponent on 03/01/2017 01:57 pm
You still haven't given any evidence. The timing of Musk's announcement relative to the EM-1 announcement could be coincidence. Or the EM-1 announcement could have been rushed to come before Musk's announcement, which the the opposite of the causal relationship you're claiming. Or the EM-1 announcement might have triggered the customers to do the deal with Musk. There are all kinds of possibilities. The truth is we just don't know.
That's right, we don't know.
All we have is Thiel in the administration (https://qz.com/869105/peter-thiel-is-pushing-donald-trump-use-private-space-companies-like-spacex-at-nasa/), a sudden announcement (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/science/spacex-moon-tourists.html?_r=0) by Musk, Bergin's source (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/spacex-two-citizens-dragon-2-lunar-mission/) in NASA, and Yang (https://twitter.com/johnyangtv/status/836658161771819010) and Berger's tweets (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/836662420877737984) about tonight. A lot of smoke. No point arguing whether or not we see flames.
Let's review the history of the round-the-moon-by-2020 idea in a little more detail.
5 February. Andy Pasztor publishes a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Trump Space Policy Options Emphasize Role of Private Enterprise" (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-space-policy-options-emphasize-role-of-private-enterprise-1486317411). One passage pertains to circum-lunar missions:
Quote from: Andy Pasztor in WSJ, 5 Feb
In the email, Mr. Miller advocates that NASA “hold an internal competition between Old Space and New Space” to determine the best and least expensive way to return to the moon. “If this initiative can be approved quickly by the White House, and appropriately funded,” he said in the email, there could be “private American astronauts, on private space ships, circling the moon by 2020.”So, competition between NASA and American industry is integral to the idea at inception.
15 February. News leaks that NASA is looking at making EM-1 a circum-lunar flight with a crew (https://twitter.com/clownShowPony/status/831879711580160000). In accordance with the WSJ piece ten days before, one might assume that a similar mission utilizing commercial vehicles is also under consideration....
23 February. Strongly pro-commercial NASA liason Gene Autry resigns (https://twitter.com/nasawatch/status/835852041209720832) just six weeks after having been appointed (https://www.wired.com/2017/01/trump-names-former-climate-scientist-erik-noble-nasa-advisory-role/). He makes a cold parting statement about crewing EM-1 (http://www.space.com/35840-trump-nasa-liaison-departure-sls-orion.html): "Autry said he has faith that NASA, its vendors, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel and other reviewers will 'make a wise choice' about whether or not to add crew to Exploration Mission-1, or EM-1." ASAP's position can confidently be predicted to be negative.
24 February. NASA holds a press conference about launching a crew on EM-1 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42319.msg1646740#msg1646740) in 2019, without any mention of a commercially-based alternative.
26 February. Elon Musk tweets (https://twitter.com/elonmusk) about a SpaceX announcement at 1 PM PST the following day.
27 February. A scheduled House vote to pass S.442 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/442/text), the joint Senate-House NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017, expected to be uncontroversial, is suddenly postponed, apparently because of disputes with the White House and Justice Department* (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-vote-onnasa-authorization-bill-delayed) regarding three commercially oriented sections (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39540.msg1648686#msg1648686). Though pro-commercial, the provisions hardly threaten Orion/SLS, which is supported throughout the bill.
27 February. Elon Musk announces SpaceX's intention to fly a circum-lunar mission with two people aboard in 2018 (http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year).
Put yourself in Musk's shoes for moment. He was one of the few tech moguls to co-operate with Trump and has taken heat for it (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/elon-musk-s-trump-outreach-is-angering-the-resistance). There's lots of talk from the Trump transition team about supporting commercial space endeavors, but, when push comes to shove, he gets the cold shoulder. I'd be pretty ticked off. Wouldn't you?
So, my conclusions are:
1. Musk got played. Now it's no more Mr. Nice Guy, and that's why he was willing (and probably a little eager) to embarrass NASA by announcing SpaceX's circum-lunar mission. I hope Musk's approach works, but, as Eric Berger says (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/if-you-think-nasa-is-frustrated-with-spacex-youre-probably-right/), it's risky.
2. The results of the first round of the match between oldspace and newspace under Trump are in: newspace got shellacked (and there may not be many more rounds). You know all that stuff you heard about Trump's business-like approach, about promoting American industry, and so forth? Well, with respect to space policy, as they say in the President's native Queens, FUGGEDABOUDIT (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fuggedaboutit)!!!
* Headed up, of course, by Jeff Sessions, former senator from Alabama, which is the heart of the SLS empire.
EDIT: Added (after rsdavis9's like) footnote about Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Post by: bad_astra on 03/01/2017 02:02 pm
So anyone on board one of these things is a passenger (I think the word tourist is inappropriate), whether they are paid by SpaceX to be there or have paid to be there.
A passenger that has no specific destination and is along for the ride and sightseeing is a tourist.
Actually,
Tourist: a person who is traveling or visiting a place for pleasure.
If successful, the two of them will hold the altitude record currently held by the crew of Apollo 13. They'll be explorers.
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 03/01/2017 02:11 pm
Post by: uhuznaa on 03/01/2017 02:18 pm
Exactly, no controls for anyone to push, prod, twist or pull. So anyone in Dragon 2 is effectively a (well-heeled) passenger.
But there *is* something that sets an astronaut apart from a "mere" space tourist: EVA.
Ric
I would think that part of the package will be some deep familiarization with the craft anyway. Also I think that there WILL be some manual controls like attitude control. And in a pinch you also WILL want to be able to assure that the antenna points the right way to keep up communications. Note that neither SpaceX nor Musk have even touched the word "tourist" here.
I definitely would want to be able to do some troubleshooting, rebooting computers and so on. I doubt very much that anyone going for that would be happy with just being strapped in and being told to enjoy the ride.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/01/2017 02:20 pm
A passenger that has no specific destination and is along for the ride and sightseeing is a tourist.
Actually,
Tourist: a person who is traveling or visiting a place for pleasure.
But a tourist is unlikely to be familiar enough with their transportation to fix it if it breaks, which is why these are adventurers.
Plus tourists only travel to places that have been traveled to already, and deemed "safe enough". Being the first to do something, and in an unproven transport system (for it's application), is being an adventurer.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/01/2017 02:24 pm
If all these 'tourists' get out of it is a week of weightlessness, and peering at the Moon through the porthole, I think it would not be worth the money. Now, if they are trained to operate experiments located in the trunk it gets more interesting. And if there are cameras back there they would get a better view on their internal screens (Dragon 2 has great displays) than looking through a smudged window.I'd rather have an EVA thanks... ;)
Post by: CraigLieb on 03/01/2017 02:25 pm
The discussions about there not being enough demand for Falcon Heavy launches have now been put to rest. Plus, the business model has expanded in the near term to include private spaceflight for significant(?) profit. It also brings the re-use model into focus since this mission is not affordable without reuse.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/01/2017 02:29 pm
If all these 'tourists' get out of it is a week of weightlessness, and peering at the Moon through the porthole, I think it would not be worth the money. Now, if they are trained to operate experiments located in the trunk it gets more interesting. And if there are cameras back there they would get a better view on their internal screens (Dragon 2 has great displays) than looking through a smudged window.
We know that the passengers "know each other", so becoming founders of the 400000 Miles high club might be part of the motivation. In this case a pilot astronaut would be a real problem...
Post by: bad_astra on 03/01/2017 02:33 pm
I would think that part of the package will be some deep familiarization with the craft anyway. Also I think that there WILL be some manual controls like attitude control. And in a pinch you also WILL want to be able to assure that the antenna points the right way to keep up communications. Note that neither SpaceX nor Musk have even touched the word "tourist" here.
I definitely would want to be able to do some troubleshooting, rebooting computers and so on. I doubt very much that anyone going for that would be happy with just being strapped in and being told to enjoy the ride.
Troubleshooting means there is trouble. No one sane actively WANTS trouble on a flight like this. No one is going to need anyone to "turn it off and on again," either. Except for a few brief moments the Dragon will be in contact of Earth with very little delay time.
In any case, you're not going to be a red-shirt running around the warp core with a wrench or writing miracle code to fix something on the way out. "MoonDragon this is ground control. Funny thing! We forgot to write a landing engine sequence program. Imagine that? Well, in the pocket of your suit you'll find a series of notecards called 'Python for Novices' also, did you bring a leatherman tool?"
If you want trouble, go kayaking.
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/01/2017 02:47 pm
My opinion (of course)
The discussions about there not being enough demand for Falcon Heavy launches have now been put to rest. Plus, the business model has expanded in the near term to include private spaceflight for significant(?) profit. It also brings the re-use model into focus since this mission is not affordable without reuse.
Increasing the flight rate is so key to making reuse affordable.
I don't understand the debate on tourist versus astronaut. For the love of Pete, they'll be flying around the moon!!
For the first time since December 1972 someone has a realistic goal of going beyond low earth orbit. Enjoy it.
Post by: Surfdaddy on 03/01/2017 02:48 pm
So anyone on board one of these things is a passenger (I think the word tourist is inappropriate), whether they are paid by SpaceX to be there or have paid to be there.
A passenger that has no specific destination and is along for the ride and sightseeing is a tourist.
Actually,
Tourist: a person who is traveling or visiting a place for pleasure.
Astronaut and tourist are not mutually exclusive.
Post by: Elvis in Space on 03/01/2017 02:56 pm
Just wondering what they might actually do.
Post by: acsawdey on 03/01/2017 02:58 pm
If all these 'tourists' get out of it is a week of weightlessness, and peering at the Moon through the porthole, I think it would not be worth the money. Now, if they are trained to operate experiments located in the trunk it gets more interesting. And if there are cameras back there they would get a better view on their internal screens (Dragon 2 has great displays) than looking through a smudged window.
So, the question I have is: what is the largest telescope you could fit into Dragon 2's trunk? Point that at the back side of the moon and pipe the sensor data to the internal displays.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/01/2017 03:01 pm
Maybe this ultimately gets it's own thread, maybe I've missed the discussion elsewhere, but what will these passengers do during the trip? They are unlikely to be scientists so not much heavy science going on. It's an automated spacecraft so they won't have near the workload of an Apollo flight in that regard. There's no landing, orbiting, or EVA's to contend with. That leaves 8-10 days for CNN and selfies. How many times can you watch Apollo 13 and 2001?
Just wondering what they might actually do.
To answer this question one would really need to know what "they know each other" means. Are they a couple? Is this a spectacular honeymoon cruise?
Post by: Phil Stooke on 03/01/2017 03:06 pm
Note that I wouldn't be saying that about a future landing mission, where even amateurs can collect samples for scientific analysis back on Earth.
Post by: meberbs on 03/01/2017 03:12 pm
Eric Berger has a good piece on what parts of NASA may really be thinking about yesterday's announcement: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/if-you-think-nasa-is-frustrated-with-spacex-youre-probably-right/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/if-you-think-nasa-is-frustrated-with-spacex-youre-probably-right/)
Edit: clarified
I find that to be a rather negative article by Eric Berger, to be honest. At one point, in support of his overall argument, he quotes a certain Ms. Dittmar, who provides a negative view on Musk's endeavours. Only to reveal that Ms. Dittmar "serves as executive director of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, the organization formed by the principal contractors behind NASA's SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft".
Well shock and horror, the contractors building the SLS have bad things to say about SpaceX. What a surprise.
The general gist of it seems to be that NASA is bending over backwards for SpaceX despite SpaceX's commercial crew program slipping to 2018. No mention is made, however, of the fact that 2018 is still a year earlier than Boeing - a long established "old Space" company - can produce their version of a commercial crew vehicle.
I think you are being too harsh on Eric Berger here. He is not reporting on his opinions on this, but the opinion of NASA, and the attitudes and reasoning he described in the article certainly represent the feelings of at least some at NASA. His "argument" as you put it, is not that NASA shouldn't support SpaceX in this, it is that there are those in leadership at NASA that don't like this even though this kind of private use was part of the justification for how they structured commercial crew. He posted a response in the comments that helps clarify this:
Quote from: Eric Berger
There are things said publicly by NASA, and there are things said privately. I am fortunate to have some pretty good contacts high in NASA's administration who speak to me privately. They are not amused or enthused by this.
I will agree with you that a lot of younger engineers at NASA are very rah-rah when it comes to SpaceX. They see what the company is doing, and they love it. But, for the most part, they don't make the decisions.
Post by: bad_astra on 03/01/2017 03:21 pm
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 03/01/2017 03:23 pm
I don't understand why NASA would be butt hurt over a private person paying his/her own money to SpaceX for a trip to LEO, Lunar, or Mars.
Post by: DanielW on 03/01/2017 03:24 pm
Post by: Kansan52 on 03/01/2017 03:31 pm
Post by: jtrame on 03/01/2017 03:31 pm
Are they hams? Could be the greatest DX-pedition in history. :)
QSL. It might take a good size array like the moon bouncers use to reach them. At least on VHF - UHF.
Post by: Mongo62 on 03/01/2017 04:02 pm
There's no landing, orbiting, or EVA's to contend with. That leaves 8-10 days for CNN and selfies. How many times can you watch Apollo 13 and 2001?
Do we know that there would be no EVAs? How long would it take to train two paying passengers to do EVAs using SpaceX spacesuits? Doing an EVA while the Dragon is passing the Moon would be spectacular. Can you imagine floating in space next to the Dragon, watching the craters of the Moon sliding past, a few hundred km away?
Post by: rory on 03/01/2017 04:03 pm
There's no landing, orbiting, or EVA's to contend with. That leaves 8-10 days for CNN and selfies. How many times can you watch Apollo 13 and 2001?
Do we know that there would be no EVAs? How long would it take to train two paying passengers to do EVAs using SpaceX spacesuits? Doing an EVA while the Dragon is passing the Moon would be spectacular. Can you imagine floating in space next to the Dragon, watching the craters of the Moon sliding past, a few hundred km away?
SpaceX suits are for IVA, not EVA.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/01/2017 04:05 pm
There's no landing, orbiting, or EVA's to contend with. That leaves 8-10 days for CNN and selfies. How many times can you watch Apollo 13 and 2001?
Do we know that there would be no EVAs? How long would it take to train two paying passengers to do EVAs using SpaceX spacesuits? Doing an EVA while the Dragon is passing the Moon would be spectacular. Can you imagine floating in space next to the Dragon, watching the craters of the Moon sliding past, a few hundred km away?
D2 has no airlock, AFAIK.
Post by: Mongo62 on 03/01/2017 04:35 pm
There's no landing, orbiting, or EVA's to contend with. That leaves 8-10 days for CNN and selfies. How many times can you watch Apollo 13 and 2001?
Do we know that there would be no EVAs? How long would it take to train two paying passengers to do EVAs using SpaceX spacesuits? Doing an EVA while the Dragon is passing the Moon would be spectacular. Can you imagine floating in space next to the Dragon, watching the craters of the Moon sliding past, a few hundred km away?
D2 has no airlock, AFAIK.
Capture the cabin air with a pump, then just open the hatch? After the EVA is completed, close the hatch and return the air to the cabin.
Post by: vt_hokie on 03/01/2017 04:39 pm
Post by: Jim on 03/01/2017 04:39 pm
Capture the cabin air with a pump, then just open the hatch? After the EVA is completed, close the hatch and return the air to the cabin.
a. What pumps? Never been done in space before.
b. Not everything in the cabin is compatible with a vacuum.
c. Again, the suits are not EVA suits.
Post by: Negan on 03/01/2017 04:47 pm
Capture the cabin air with a pump, then just open the hatch? After the EVA is completed, close the hatch and return the air to the cabin.
a. What pumps? Never been done in space before.
b. Not everything in the cabin is compatible with a vacuum.
c. Again, the suits are not EVA suits.
How did Gemini do it?
Post by: Surfdaddy on 03/01/2017 04:51 pm
Capture the cabin air with a pump, then just open the hatch? After the EVA is completed, close the hatch and return the air to the cabin.
a. What pumps? Never been done in space before.
b. Not everything in the cabin is compatible with a vacuum.
c. Again, the suits are not EVA suits.
How did Gemini do it?
Everything in the cabin must have been compatible with a vacuum.
Post by: Negan on 03/01/2017 04:56 pm
Everything in the cabin must have been compatible with a vacuum.
Would be interesting to know what exactly SpaceX means by the when it says the Dragon 2 can operate in full vacuum.
Post by: DanielW on 03/01/2017 04:58 pm
Everything in the cabin must have been compatible with a vacuum.
Would be interesting to know what exactly SpaceX means by the when is says the Dragon 2 can operate in full vacuum.
When did SpaceX say that? What did I miss?
Post by: Eric Hedman on 03/01/2017 04:59 pm
If I remember correctly they just vented the cabin air before the EVAs and then refilled the cabin from on board supplies when done. A pump would probably have more mass than the lost cabin air for one EVA.
Capture the cabin air with a pump, then just open the hatch? After the EVA is completed, close the hatch and return the air to the cabin.
a. What pumps? Never been done in space before.
b. Not everything in the cabin is compatible with a vacuum.
c. Again, the suits are not EVA suits.
How did Gemini do it?
Post by: Negan on 03/01/2017 05:03 pm
Everything in the cabin must have been compatible with a vacuum.
Would be interesting to know what exactly SpaceX means by the when is says the Dragon 2 can operate in full vacuum.
When did SpaceX say that? What did I miss?
The exact words were from the source was "The suits and the vehicle itself will be rated for operation at
vacuum." so maybe the statement was misinterpreted by Wikipedia.
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-GReisman-20150227.pdf
Edit: IMO there's no way this would happen without a experienced astronaut doing it first so no way on this flight.
Post by: philw1776 on 03/01/2017 05:04 pm
I think you are being too harsh on Eric Berger here. He is not reporting on his opinions on this, but the opinion of NASA, and the attitudes and reasoning he described in the article certainly represent the feelings of at least some at NASA. His "argument" as you put it, is not that NASA shouldn't support SpaceX in this, it is that there are those in leadership at NASA that don't like this even though this kind of private use was part of the justification for how they structured commercial crew. He posted a response in the comments that helps clarify this:Quote from: Eric BergerThere are things said publicly by NASA, and there are things said privately. I am fortunate to have some pretty good contacts high in NASA's administration who speak to me privately. They are not amused or enthused by this.
I will agree with you that a lot of younger engineers at NASA are very rah-rah when it comes to SpaceX. They see what the company is doing, and they love it. But, for the most part, they don't make the decisions.
On one hand we're repeatedly told that NASA has little decision making control and that the administration & Congress "force" NASA admins to do stuff, e.g. SLS.
Now this.
Time for some senior NASA admins to take their pensions.
(FWIW I'm not a member of the Bash NASA standing army)
Post by: Lars-J on 03/01/2017 05:04 pm
[massive trim]
So, my conclusions are:
1. Musk got played. Now it's no more Mr. Nice Guy, and that's why he was willing (and probably a little eager) to embarrass NASA by announcing SpaceX's circum-lunar mission. I hope Musk's approach works, but, as Eric Berger says (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/if-you-think-nasa-is-frustrated-with-spacex-youre-probably-right/), it's risky.
[trim]
No, I don't agree with that. If anything, indications are that SpaceX gave the administration a heads up notice about this, which is what caused the request for the study of a manned EM-1 mission. So if correct, "crewed EM-1" is actually a response to SpaceX. Not the other way around.
Post by: DOCinCT on 03/01/2017 05:26 pm
Statement of Garrett RiesmanWhen did SpaceX say that? What did I miss?Everything in the cabin must have been compatible with a vacuum.Would be interesting to know what exactly SpaceX means by the when is says the Dragon 2 can operate in full vacuum.
Director of Crew Operations Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceXZ
Before the Subcommittee on Space,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
February 27, 2015
Post by: Survtech on 03/01/2017 06:18 pm
Can we do a back of the envelope calculation of the price? My gu is about $500 million...I'm going to estimate the total cost at around half of your calculation. My reasoning is that while Musk wouldn’t specify an exact price, he did say that the around-the-Moon mission could cost roughly the same or a bit more than a crewed trip to the International Space Station. NASA pays on the order of $81 million per seat and Soyuz has 3 seats so 3x $81 = $243 million.
Gesendet von meinem SM-T800 mit Tapatalk
Post by: dodo on 03/01/2017 06:23 pm
Quote
compatible with a vacuumQuestion: in the context of this discussion, the above presumably means also "capable of working at 3 degrees Kelvin", right?
I had a similar doubt when someone mentioned a telescope in the trunk...
Post by: dglow on 03/01/2017 06:25 pm
There's no landing, orbiting, or EVA's to contend with. That leaves 8-10 days for CNN and selfies. How many times can you watch Apollo 13 and 2001?
Just wondering what they might actually do.
Guess it depends whether they're actually watching the movie or just 'putting it on'.
I'm going there since others have broached the subject. Let's consider this seriously for a moment: what if the the two passengers are a couple so inclined?
Perhaps not for this first mission, but eventually, inevitably, it will happen. And humanity will be presented with its first child conceived outside the gravity well of Terra. Cue the Star Child references and social media explosion; this person will be an instant celebrity for life.
But clamor aside, such an event will be incredibly profound. Just contemplate it.
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/01/2017 06:31 pm
Livestream never worked...anyway this is the post-announcement thread.I haven't had time to think about this announcement until now. My initial reaction is to ask how SpaceX plans to prove its spacecraft before this flight. I would expect that certification to include a one-week crewed duration test in LEO, a high velocity reentry test, and a mission to test the necessary long-distance communications and tracking.
Ah ha, a link:
http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year
Our article:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/spacex-two-citizens-dragon-2-lunar-mission/
The flight could be an adventure. I hope it won't be a reckless adventure. (I have the same thoughts about the SLS/Orion inaugural crew proposal.)
- Ed Kyle
Post by: wolfpack on 03/01/2017 06:41 pm
How did Gemini do it?
Vent cabin to space, open doors, close doors, repressurize from LO2 stores. Oxygen has something like > 800:1 expansion ratio when going from liquid to gas.
Post by: meekGee on 03/01/2017 06:56 pm
What they meant is that the capsule and crew can continue to operate if the Dragon is unpressurized.Quotecompatible with a vacuumQuestion: in the context of this discussion, the above presumably means also "capable of working at 3 degrees Kelvin", right?
I had a similar doubt when someone mentioned a telescope in the trunk...
Where did 3 K come from?
Post by: Lobo on 03/01/2017 06:56 pm
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
This is very much in line of where companies like Space X are going to make their money. This is what commercial space should be outside of government.
According to the NSF article on this, Musk did offer those seats to NASA astronauts., and the tourists bumped to a later flight. So NASA could still be first.
Which is a smart move by Musk. Very subtly he gives them a conundrum. Do they stick with their hardware and let SpaceX and tourists beat them back to the Moon? Or do they put two of their astronauts on it, and then deal with the awkward political questions that creates?
It's a win for SpaceX either way. And either way it starts to turn up the heat on SLS and Orion. Which I've been saying is Musk's plan for a long time. He'll never -say- it, lest he creates enemies in NASA and in Congress, but he just puts the 800lb gorilla in the room that's impossible to ignore.
IMO, I think he's hoping to take over HSF for NASA, partly because I think he believes that government and Oldspace has just become too slow and beuracratic to effectively produce rockets and spacecraft anymore. And he thinks he can help move things along himself. And he also wants access to 39B and other KSC facilities for his long term Mars plans with ITS, along with 39A. But he'll need to gently "help" SLS and Orion out the door to facilitate that.
A big white rocket launching before SLS from NASA's own Kennedy Space Center will start creating those optics. Launching humans from KSC to Space before NASA does will further that. As will launching humans on their big white rocket from there around the Moon before SLS/Orion are able to. The nostalgia of doing it on the 50th anniversary of Apollo 8 won't hurt either.
I think he'll offer NASA the same conundrum later with ITS. Do they want to stick with their systems and have SpaceX and civilians go to Mars first? Or do they put their own astronauts on those first missions, and then deal with the political issue of the hardware that they've been working on for decades. But ITS will need to get further along before that happens. But I think this is the opening bid by Musk to start getting his own plans moving along.
Of course, this assumes no major setbacks with FH or Dragon 2.
Just my opinion. :)
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 03/01/2017 07:07 pm
Wouldn't it be awesome to have a ball of cameras follow the capsule about 50 feet farther back and away from the Moon, such that the capsule appeared a few degrees below the Moon horizon at perigee? Relay the entire spherical stream back to Earth, and folks can watch it with a VR headset. It'd feel like you were doing an EVA, during a close approach to the Moon, with something of human scale in the scene for perspective. Ideally there would be a window on the capsule through which we could see some portion of a person, moving around in there. The immersive feel of VR is a very good application for this.
That moment when the Earth rises over the horizon of the Moon will be perfect. If the Earth's face is well lit, then the spacecraft will be as well.
Post by: jcliving on 03/01/2017 07:10 pm
- Increases the number of flights by Falcon Heavy
- A beyond earth orbit mission
- proof of an additional use for dragon 2
A Private Tourist Moon Mission paid by the customer checks the following boxes
- Increases the number of flights by Falcon Heavy
- A beyond earth orbit mission
- proof of an additional use of dragon 2
- another proof point for crewed dragon
I stipulate that the checkbox lists above are not comprehensive, but there are enough items in the list to illustrate my point.
Post by: Lobo on 03/01/2017 07:16 pm
2. The results of the first round of the match between oldspace and newspace under Trump are in: newspace got shellacked (and there may not be many more rounds). You know all that stuff you heard about Trump's business-like approach, about promoting American industry, and so forth? Well, with respect to space policy, as they say in the President's native Queens, FUGGEDABOUDIT (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fuggedaboutit)!!!
I've been wondering about this myself. I think on this issue, the President is conflicted.
On one hand he's a businessman, and so unlike some long time politicians, he sees when things can be done cheaper and more efficiently.
other the other hand, he is a Nationalist. And NASA is a very historic and famous standard bearer for American pride and world leadership in areas of science and space exploration. They have a lot of "Brand Recognition", so to speak. And when they are doing noteworthy things, it's "America" doing those things in people's minds.
Not sure it's so much so with SpaceX, although they are an American Company so there is -some- of that. It's just not the same in people's minds as "NASA".
So this could be an instance where the President diverges from his business instincts, and goes with his Nationalistic ones? I've been wondering which way he might go, because of that.
Post by: meekGee on 03/01/2017 07:20 pm
This seems to be a very easy decision for Spacex. A Red Dragon mission in 2018 checks the following boxes with the entire cost being paid by Spacex.You should add to the first list:
- Increases the number of flights by Falcon Heavy
- A beyond earth orbit mission
- proof of an additional use for dragon 2
A Private Tourist Moon Mission paid by the customer checks the following boxes
- Increases the number of flights by Falcon Heavy
- A beyond earth orbit mission
- proof of an additional use of dragon 2
- another proof point for crewed dragon
I stipulate that the checkbox lists above are not comprehensive, but there are enough items in the list to illustrate my point.
- Mars EDL
- Interplanetary navigation
- Persistent science station / beacon on Mars surface
Post by: Lobo on 03/01/2017 07:23 pm
I've said this before but I'll say it again. I'd personally want at least one pilot/engineer along for the ride.
A lot can happen in seven days and I'd prefer to have someone who is able to manually execute course-correction burns and steer the thing through re-entry if the computers become balky or an error in the FHUS sends them on an unexpected and marginal trajectory (steeper re-entry corridor, for example). Then there is the issue of correct training to fix any fixable problems.
The NSF article by Chris said,
Quote
In a hastily arranged announcement, Elon Musk has revealed a plan to launch a Dragon 2 spacecraft on a circumlunar mission, with two paying customers.
Does that mean there will only be those two customers on the Dragon? Or that there will be two paying customers going along [with 1 or 2 SpaceX personnel]?
Did I miss some place it said the two customers would be the only two people on the capsule? If not, I'd think there'd be at least one SpaceX person on it. Should be adequate room for 3 people in a trip around the moon, or even 4 if a little more cramped.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/01/2017 07:24 pm
They could easily spin it by saying "We leave SpaceX to do a commercial Moon trip for tourists which NASA astronauts did 50 years ago, while the agency works on the more difficult mission to Mars"...
2. The results of the first round of the match between oldspace and newspace under Trump are in: newspace got shellacked (and there may not be many more rounds). You know all that stuff you heard about Trump's business-like approach, about promoting American industry, and so forth? Well, with respect to space policy, as they say in the President's native Queens, FUGGEDABOUDIT (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fuggedaboutit)!!!
I've been wondering about this myself. I think on this issue, the President is conflicted.
On one hand he's a businessman, and so unlike some long time politicians, he sees when things can be done cheaper and more efficiently.
other the other hand, he is a Nationalist. And NASA is a very historic and famous standard bearer for American pride and world leadership in areas of science and space exploration. They have a lot of "Brand Recognition", so to speak. And when they are doing noteworthy things, it's "America" doing those things in people's minds.
Not sure it's so much so with SpaceX, although they are an American Company so there is -some- of that. It's just not the same in people's minds as "NASA".
So this could be an instance where the President diverges from his business instincts, and goes with his Nationalistic ones? I've been wondering which way he might go, because of that.
Post by: Jim on 03/01/2017 07:30 pm
Did I miss some place it said the two customers would be the only two people on the capsule?
yes
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/01/2017 07:32 pm
The commercial market price for a Lunar free return was set several years ago at $150M per person for a 2 passenger flight (actually included a Pilot that rode along as well so total number of people on flight was 3 on a very cramped Soyuz). So that makes the revenue for this flight at that market price ~$300M. A FH price runs at $90-125M with a Crew Dragon at $70-90M. That puts the price of the components at $160-215M. Now add some amount for the minor modifications to Dragon for the Deep Space flight of ~$100M. This then gets you to a price of $260-315M.
So SpaceX could be offering to NASA to do such a flight at $300M. If this is the price point for 2 or 3 persons to a free return then SLS could be very dead politically at the level of the president. SLS/Orion program would need to show that it can accomplish much more and more quickly than the commercial industry such as a deep space habitat ride along mission for a multi-month stay in deep space. A BTW this is already in planning and is receiving some funding but its schedule is out mid to late 2020's.
But on the commercial side we only know that FH/Dragon can do a free return. What we do not know is can it achieve a Lunar orbit and then return. With all of the increased performance capabilities that Falcon has acheived in the last year and a half the values we are assuming for FH capabilities are definitely out of date. Meaning the FH/Dragon stack is possibly able to achieve Lunar orbit using the US for the Lunar orbit insertion and the on-board Dragon propellant for the return. Which then presupposes that for $300M for the manned mission and another $200M for the transport of a habitat or a cargo Dragon flight to the habitat to Lunar orbit (~12mt in size: 6mt of cargo for cargo Dragon) at a total per mission cost of $500M for 2 or 3 person stay of 6 months with continuous occupancy of the "station" at a total cost of about $1B/yr. That is 1/3 of cost of the SLS/Orion.
The political gears are turning in all different directions and we do not have a clue as to which way they will eventually mesh up.
Post by: Proponent on 03/01/2017 07:51 pm
What they meant is that the capsule and crew can continue to operate if the Dragon is unpressurized.Quotecompatible with a vacuumQuestion: in the context of this discussion, the above presumably means also "capable of working at 3 degrees Kelvin", right?
I had a similar doubt when someone mentioned a telescope in the trunk...
Where did 3 K come from?
3 K is the radiation temperature of the microwave background, the glow left over from the big bang. It's a temperature that might be approached in deepest, darkest intergalactic space. Things won't get that cold in cis-lunar space; I think you'd have to try pretty hard to get cooler than about ten times that.
Nitpick: Technically, it's 3 K or 3 kelvins (lower case), but no longer 3 degrees Kelvin.
Post by: gospacex on 03/01/2017 07:53 pm
What they meant is that the capsule and crew can continue to operate if the Dragon is unpressurized.Quotecompatible with a vacuumQuestion: in the context of this discussion, the above presumably means also "capable of working at 3 degrees Kelvin", right?
I had a similar doubt when someone mentioned a telescope in the trunk...
Where did 3 K come from?
Exactly. Some people think that "space is cold". Not so. If anything, space (vacuum) is a good thermal insulator. Only radiative heat transfer is possible.
When it comes to heat balance from the Sun, for a black body equilibrium temperature on earth orbit is -18 Celsius, IIRC.
Post by: mme on 03/01/2017 07:57 pm
These are adults and I assume they understand the risks they are taking and are self-aware enough to have thought this through. Yes, some people are not constitutionally fit for potentially dangerous situations. But lots of average Janes and Joes manage to SCUBA dive, fly experimental aircraft, rock climb, etc.
I think people are underestimating the capabilities of the "tourist" and over estimating need/value of bringing along Assistant Chief Engineer Jim Shimoda to rearrange the main computer's isoliner chips.
I assume the flight participants will be trained where the Ctl-Alt-Del keys are on the iPad, how to cycle through various comm options and how to wait for further instructions. I also assume there will be a three-ring binder that reminds them how to do these things.
Post by: acsawdey on 03/01/2017 07:58 pm
Quotecompatible with a vacuumQuestion: in the context of this discussion, the above presumably means also "capable of working at 3 degrees Kelvin", right?
I had a similar doubt when someone mentioned a telescope in the trunk...
I had not thought of that issue, but perhaps Planet Labs could whack together something workable that's a little bigger than the one used on their Dove sats.
Post by: georgegassaway on 03/01/2017 08:06 pm
Anyway, the mention of SpaceX spacesuits only being rated for IVA, not EVA, made me wonder about opening the hatch for a much better view, even putting their head outside, but not doing an external EVA. Sort of like David Scott's "stand up EVA" on Apollo-9, but not that far. Would need to minimize issues with overheating from direct sunlight, the flight approach to the moon and phase of the moon as they went by would dictate how well rolling away from the sun and still seeing the moon, would work out. If the IVA suits can't be warm enough in a vacuum, that would seem to be a problem for any crew on any mission, since loss of pressure is one of the main reasons for wearing an IVA suit anyway. I admit I may be missing some other major issues with looking out side of the hatch in a vacuum, wearing an IVA suit.
Not suggesting it would be a good idea. Particularly for passengers with limited training, doing it just for a lark.
Even with paying passengers , SpaceX does need to be responsible for their safety. Not "let them" do any risky thing they want.
As for modifying Dragon-2 for this, like replacing the hatch with a huge window. Nice theory. Hard to justify that for what may be a one-time-thing. The R&D and development time, hard to see that, or any other significant mods, in that timeframe. And by timeframe I do not mean 2018 (most who know SpaceX schedule history knowns that ain't happening). I mean their place in line, after the first couple of crewed missions for NASA, and meeting the NASA CC flight schedule beyond that.
Given what NASA has done for SpaceX (saving them from bankruptcy), they need to give priority to those flights, and give this private moon flight a lower priority so as not to interfere or delay CC any more than it otherwise would be.
This should not be allowed to "bump" or delay ANY NASA mission they are contracturally obligated to do. In theory, it would not. In reality...... not so sure. Can they produce an additional man-rated ready-for-space Dragon-2 without delaying any NASA Dragon-2's that may be needed according to schedule? So, they need to fit this in, somewhere, with whatever extra capacity they might have, if they have it. History does not show proof they have extra capacity, or schedule to have everything ready when everything needs to be ready (Landing Pad 2 not started yet as a current example, 39A taking so long as another example), so that is a concern.
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/01/2017 08:09 pm
Totally agreeing that depressurizing and opening the hatch for an EVA would be quite risky, especially for a "passenger" flight of untrained individuals (Yes, I know they will get some training. But this is not their profession, they will not know the systems and spacecraft as spacecraft commanders/pilots do.)They already scheduled the production of an extra D2 for Red Dragon which has now moved out to 2020 so there is an extra D2 in the schedule pipeline for this mission.
Anyway, the mention of SpaceX spacesuits only being rated for IVA, not EVA, made me wonder about opening the hatch for a much better view, even putting their head outside, but not doing an external EVA. Sort of like David Scott's "stand up EVA" on Apollo-9, but not that far. Would need to minimize issues with overheating from direct sunlight, the flight approach to the moon and phase of the moon as they went by would dictate how well rolling away from the sun and still seeing the moon, would work out. If the IVA suits can't be warm enough in a vacuum, that would seem to be a problem for any crew on any mission, since loss of pressure is one of the main reasons for wearing an IVA suit anyway. I admit I may be missing some other major issues with looking out side of the hatch in a vacuum, wearing an IVA suit.
Not suggesting it would be a good idea. Particularly for passengers with limited training, doing it just for a lark.
Even with paying passengers , SpaceX does need to be responsible for their safety. Not "let them" do any risky thing they want.
As for modifying Dragon-2 for this, like replacing the hatch with a huge window. Nice theory. Hard to justify that for what may be a one-time-thing. The R&D and development time, hard to see that, or any other significant mods, in that timeframe. And by timeframe I do not mean 2018 (most who know SpaceX schedule history knowns that ain't happening). I mean their place in line, after the first couple of crewed missions for NASA, and meeting the NASA CC flight schedule beyond that.
Given what NASA has done for SpaceX (saving them from bankruptcy), they need to give priority to those flights, and give this private moon flight a lower priority so as not to interfere or delay CC any more than it otherwise would be.
This should not be allowed to "bump" or delay ANY NASA mission they are contracturally obligated to do. In theory, it would not. In reality...... not so sure. Can they produce an additional man-rated ready-for-space Dragon-2 without delaying any NASA Dragon-2's that may be needed according to schedule? So, they need to fit this in, somewhere, with whatever extra capacity they might have, if they have it. History does not show proof they have extra capacity, or schedule to have everything ready when everything needs to be ready (Landing Pad 2 not started yet as a current example, 39A taking so long as another example), so that is a concern.
Post by: 2552 on 03/01/2017 08:17 pm
Post by: Phillip Clark on 03/01/2017 08:35 pm
How did Gemini do it?Vent cabin to space, open doors, close doors, repressurize from LO2 stores. Oxygen has something like > 800:1 expansion ratio when going from liquid to gas.
Remember that Gemini was designed for EVA work as part of the programme's objective. Is Dragon similarly designed? I am not sure that we know this for certain.
As for the spacesuits, they are like the ones that the Russiansand Chinese wear inside their spacecraft: intended to protect against depressurisation but NOT designed for EVA work.
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 03/01/2017 08:54 pm
Totally agreeing that depressurizing and opening the hatch for an EVA would be quite risky, especially for a "passenger" flight of untrained individuals (Yes, I know they will get some training. But this is not their profession, they will not know the systems and spacecraft as spacecraft commanders/pilots do.)They already scheduled the production of an extra D2 for Red Dragon which has now moved out to 2020 so there is an extra D2 in the schedule pipeline for this mission.
Anyway, the mention of SpaceX spacesuits only being rated for IVA, not EVA, made me wonder about opening the hatch for a much better view, even putting their head outside, but not doing an external EVA. Sort of like David Scott's "stand up EVA" on Apollo-9, but not that far. Would need to minimize issues with overheating from direct sunlight, the flight approach to the moon and phase of the moon as they went by would dictate how well rolling away from the sun and still seeing the moon, would work out. If the IVA suits can't be warm enough in a vacuum, that would seem to be a problem for any crew on any mission, since loss of pressure is one of the main reasons for wearing an IVA suit anyway. I admit I may be missing some other major issues with looking out side of the hatch in a vacuum, wearing an IVA suit.
Not suggesting it would be a good idea. Particularly for passengers with limited training, doing it just for a lark.
Even with paying passengers , SpaceX does need to be responsible for their safety. Not "let them" do any risky thing they want.
As for modifying Dragon-2 for this, like replacing the hatch with a huge window. Nice theory. Hard to justify that for what may be a one-time-thing. The R&D and development time, hard to see that, or any other significant mods, in that timeframe. And by timeframe I do not mean 2018 (most who know SpaceX schedule history knowns that ain't happening). I mean their place in line, after the first couple of crewed missions for NASA, and meeting the NASA CC flight schedule beyond that.
Given what NASA has done for SpaceX (saving them from bankruptcy), they need to give priority to those flights, and give this private moon flight a lower priority so as not to interfere or delay CC any more than it otherwise would be.
This should not be allowed to "bump" or delay ANY NASA mission they are contracturally obligated to do. In theory, it would not. In reality...... not so sure. Can they produce an additional man-rated ready-for-space Dragon-2 without delaying any NASA Dragon-2's that may be needed according to schedule? So, they need to fit this in, somewhere, with whatever extra capacity they might have, if they have it. History does not show proof they have extra capacity, or schedule to have everything ready when everything needs to be ready (Landing Pad 2 not started yet as a current example, 39A taking so long as another example), so that is a concern.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the plan to refit an already flown Dragon 2 for the Red Dragon mission?
I think it was posted here somewhere.
Post by: meekGee on 03/01/2017 09:00 pm
Post by: RoboGoofers on 03/01/2017 09:14 pm
I don't understand why people think there is the need for a pilot/flight engineer.
These are adults and I assume they understand the risks they are taking and are self-aware enough to have thought this through. Yes, some people are not constitutionally fit for potentially dangerous situations. But lots of average Janes and Joes manage to SCUBA dive, fly experimental aircraft, rock climb, etc.
I think people are underestimating the capabilities of the "tourist" and over estimating need/value of bringing along Assistant Chief Engineer Jim Shimoda to rearrange the main computer's isoliner chips.
I assume the flight participants will be trained where the Ctl-Alt-Del keys are on the iPad, how to cycle through various comm options and how to wait for further instructions. I also assume there will be a three-ring binder that reminds them how to do these things.
Furthermore, any crew sent along would be just as novice (with Dragon 2 and with cis Lunar) as the passengers, and any issues would be handled by the engineers at mission control (like with Apollo 13). The passengers will be able to follow mission control commands as well as crew would.
It's also more people to keep alive if something goes wrong.
The crew would be, basically, flight attendants.
Post by: Brovane on 03/01/2017 09:56 pm
Is, you have the issue of only two crew members. If you do anything more than just stick your head out you are doing a solo EVA essentially. You don't want both crew members leaving the Dragon while in orbit so you have one person at a time. With Gemini when NASA did solo EVA's the other crew member was not in a real good position to help if something went wrong. During Gemini-9, Stafford couldn't really help Cernan as he struggled through the EVA. During the EVA's for Apollo-15-17 at least they had 3 crew members so one of them was positioned at the open hatch to help the CMP as they retrieved the film. Not a good idea for a "spaceflight participant" to be conducting a solo EVA.
Post by: Khadgars on 03/01/2017 10:15 pm
Totally agreeing that depressurizing and opening the hatch for an EVA would be quite risky, especially for a "passenger" flight of untrained individuals (Yes, I know they will get some training. But this is not their profession, they will not know the systems and spacecraft as spacecraft commanders/pilots do.)They already scheduled the production of an extra D2 for Red Dragon which has now moved out to 2020 so there is an extra D2 in the schedule pipeline for this mission.
Anyway, the mention of SpaceX spacesuits only being rated for IVA, not EVA, made me wonder about opening the hatch for a much better view, even putting their head outside, but not doing an external EVA. Sort of like David Scott's "stand up EVA" on Apollo-9, but not that far. Would need to minimize issues with overheating from direct sunlight, the flight approach to the moon and phase of the moon as they went by would dictate how well rolling away from the sun and still seeing the moon, would work out. If the IVA suits can't be warm enough in a vacuum, that would seem to be a problem for any crew on any mission, since loss of pressure is one of the main reasons for wearing an IVA suit anyway. I admit I may be missing some other major issues with looking out side of the hatch in a vacuum, wearing an IVA suit.
Not suggesting it would be a good idea. Particularly for passengers with limited training, doing it just for a lark.
Even with paying passengers , SpaceX does need to be responsible for their safety. Not "let them" do any risky thing they want.
As for modifying Dragon-2 for this, like replacing the hatch with a huge window. Nice theory. Hard to justify that for what may be a one-time-thing. The R&D and development time, hard to see that, or any other significant mods, in that timeframe. And by timeframe I do not mean 2018 (most who know SpaceX schedule history knowns that ain't happening). I mean their place in line, after the first couple of crewed missions for NASA, and meeting the NASA CC flight schedule beyond that.
Given what NASA has done for SpaceX (saving them from bankruptcy), they need to give priority to those flights, and give this private moon flight a lower priority so as not to interfere or delay CC any more than it otherwise would be.
This should not be allowed to "bump" or delay ANY NASA mission they are contracturally obligated to do. In theory, it would not. In reality...... not so sure. Can they produce an additional man-rated ready-for-space Dragon-2 without delaying any NASA Dragon-2's that may be needed according to schedule? So, they need to fit this in, somewhere, with whatever extra capacity they might have, if they have it. History does not show proof they have extra capacity, or schedule to have everything ready when everything needs to be ready (Landing Pad 2 not started yet as a current example, 39A taking so long as another example), so that is a concern.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the plan to refit an already flown Dragon 2 for the Red Dragon mission?
I think it was posted here somewhere.
Correct, they were not manufacturing a new Dragon specifically for the Mars mission. It was to reuse one of the Dragons used for crew testing.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/01/2017 10:19 pm
Post by: alang on 03/01/2017 10:33 pm
In fact that could be a selling point: we take you there and back, we make that easy for you so that you have time to develop your skills to do other things. Going into space should be easy so we won't be hiring astronauts. Not only that we provide a new generation spacesuit to make an EVA easier.
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/01/2017 10:33 pm
Which answers in part why RD got delayed because the crew Dragon testing slipped out. The Dragon would not be available in time for the March-April-May 2018 Synod. It is still possible that the Lunar Dragon could still be that test Crew Dragon refurbished with updates for deep space. The timeline of 4Q 2018 fits with the CC program schedule slips.Totally agreeing that depressurizing and opening the hatch for an EVA would be quite risky, especially for a "passenger" flight of untrained individuals (Yes, I know they will get some training. But this is not their profession, they will not know the systems and spacecraft as spacecraft commanders/pilots do.)They already scheduled the production of an extra D2 for Red Dragon which has now moved out to 2020 so there is an extra D2 in the schedule pipeline for this mission.
Anyway, the mention of SpaceX spacesuits only being rated for IVA, not EVA, made me wonder about opening the hatch for a much better view, even putting their head outside, but not doing an external EVA. Sort of like David Scott's "stand up EVA" on Apollo-9, but not that far. Would need to minimize issues with overheating from direct sunlight, the flight approach to the moon and phase of the moon as they went by would dictate how well rolling away from the sun and still seeing the moon, would work out. If the IVA suits can't be warm enough in a vacuum, that would seem to be a problem for any crew on any mission, since loss of pressure is one of the main reasons for wearing an IVA suit anyway. I admit I may be missing some other major issues with looking out side of the hatch in a vacuum, wearing an IVA suit.
Not suggesting it would be a good idea. Particularly for passengers with limited training, doing it just for a lark.
Even with paying passengers , SpaceX does need to be responsible for their safety. Not "let them" do any risky thing they want.
As for modifying Dragon-2 for this, like replacing the hatch with a huge window. Nice theory. Hard to justify that for what may be a one-time-thing. The R&D and development time, hard to see that, or any other significant mods, in that timeframe. And by timeframe I do not mean 2018 (most who know SpaceX schedule history knowns that ain't happening). I mean their place in line, after the first couple of crewed missions for NASA, and meeting the NASA CC flight schedule beyond that.
Given what NASA has done for SpaceX (saving them from bankruptcy), they need to give priority to those flights, and give this private moon flight a lower priority so as not to interfere or delay CC any more than it otherwise would be.
This should not be allowed to "bump" or delay ANY NASA mission they are contracturally obligated to do. In theory, it would not. In reality...... not so sure. Can they produce an additional man-rated ready-for-space Dragon-2 without delaying any NASA Dragon-2's that may be needed according to schedule? So, they need to fit this in, somewhere, with whatever extra capacity they might have, if they have it. History does not show proof they have extra capacity, or schedule to have everything ready when everything needs to be ready (Landing Pad 2 not started yet as a current example, 39A taking so long as another example), so that is a concern.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the plan to refit an already flown Dragon 2 for the Red Dragon mission?
I think it was posted here somewhere.
Correct, they were not manufacturing a new Dragon specifically for the Mars mission. It was to reuse one of the Dragons used for crew testing.
Post by: meekGee on 03/01/2017 10:43 pm
Yeah, I know where it came from, I was protesting it...What they meant is that the capsule and crew can continue to operate if the Dragon is unpressurized.Quotecompatible with a vacuumQuestion: in the context of this discussion, the above presumably means also "capable of working at 3 degrees Kelvin", right?
I had a similar doubt when someone mentioned a telescope in the trunk...
Where did 3 K come from?
3 K is the radiation temperature of the microwave background, the glow left over from the big bang. It's a temperature that might be approached in deepest, darkest intergalactic space. Things won't get that cold in cis-lunar space; I think you'd have to try pretty hard to get cooler than about ten times that.
Nitpick: Technically, it's 3 K or 3 kelvins (lower case), but no longer 3 degrees Kelvin.
For a vehicle that's producing heat internally, and will only be out of direct solar insolation for minutes, "too cold" will not be a problem.
Temperature difference between light and dark side will be, as well as overall heat rejection - both part of the basic design of Dragon.
Post by: sanman on 03/01/2017 10:53 pm
Maybe this ultimately gets it's own thread, maybe I've missed the discussion elsewhere, but what will these passengers do during the trip? They are unlikely to be scientists so not much heavy science going on. It's an automated spacecraft so they won't have near the workload of an Apollo flight in that regard. There's no landing, orbiting, or EVA's to contend with. That leaves 8-10 days for CNN and selfies. How many times can you watch Apollo 13 and 2001?
Just wondering what they might actually do.
If it was me flying, I'd be giving live interviews in space during the trip. Goodness knows there'd be enough media queuing up to talk to you that it would fully occupy your time for the duration of the voyage.
Hopefully the communications link with Earth would be able to support live video-conferencing. It would also be interesting to see the communications lag that occurs at 250K miles out.
But I wonder what they'll be doing to simulate on advance the effects of a week-long journey, which is far different than a short trip to ISS. How do we know that a weeklong voyage won't leave the Dragon2 cabin filled with phlegm and saliva floating in the air? How do we know the 2 people won't end up with a bad case of cabin Fever 3 days in?
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/01/2017 10:58 pm
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
Post by: CNYMike on 03/01/2017 11:06 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/if-you-think-nasa-is-frustrated-with-spacex-youre-probably-right/
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/01/2017 11:08 pm
However; I don't see either of those fine men agreeing to do this. I think the very best American presenter for the job would be Miles O'Brien - pre-'Columbia' there was a very real chance he could have become the first journalist in Space in late 2003 or early 2004. And since there are no actual piloting or EVA tasks required for this mission, the fact that Miles O'Brien lost most of his left arm in an accident some years back need not be a show-stopper for him. On the contrary - it could provide inspiration for amputees everywhere. Most of us know an amputee in our lives, so it's not an affliction as such and is common. Miles is an experienced pilot, too. Perhaps he could accompany a wealthy person from Qatar, or from the UAE, and do the mission as a Freelance reporter/presenter for Al-Jazeera TV. Because I cannot see an American network or entity paying to put one of their own on such a flight.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/01/2017 11:15 pm
I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
Is there a forum/thread where you have outlined what you would like to see? Because you are right, you are not alone. But because I am excited where this type of activity takes us, I'm curious why it does not excite everyone.
And I'm not looking for a debate, but an education. Maybe call it "customer development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_Development)", and you represent a part of the customer base that has not yet expressed interest in this particular "feature".
Post by: Poole Amateur on 03/01/2017 11:16 pm
Post by: Jimmy Murdok on 03/01/2017 11:16 pm
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
NASA has had the resources to do what they did almost 50years ago, of course politics do not help the development of a dragon-soyuz equivalent, but could still could have been done after the Shuttle.
They need to look ahead further, this acusations with SpaceX are demoralizing. Put efforts and keep the politicians happy developing deep space habitats and reusable landers, but be imaginative on how to keep the pork jobs for useful stuff, make proposals that they cannot refuse.
There is real possibility of space tourists around the moon and we are unhappy? NASA should be doing it's own way without looking at the "infant terrible" that they have helped to create. We should be speaking about how to land and not about whom betrayed whom with the announcement.
Edit: some ortographics
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/01/2017 11:21 pm
As a Brit, I like your suggestion of James May and Brian Cox, but Miles is a brilliant communicator and space advocate. Would love to see him get his ride to space and share the experience with us all on a human level.Yes! O'Brien has done some Space reporting for a variety of sources in recent years - even for his former employers, CNN. And I've seen his former colleague John Zarella reporting Space issues on China's CCTV as well.
Post by: Poole Amateur on 03/01/2017 11:25 pm
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 03/01/2017 11:32 pm
Unfortunately, no one is even close to selling 'used usable spaceships' for that amount. ;)
Thus, seeing the price of a Lunar Flight come to a range where anyone feels that the cost of doing so has value to them as an individual is highly encouraging! It implies that the costs of flight that we spacefans have bemoaned for years are beginning to move from their prohibitive levels.
Much like Dennis Tito's ISS flight created the kind of public interest that, joined with the XPrize, resulted in the the recognition of a private spaceflight market; I expect that this flight will spark the kind of interest that will encourage new and unexpected developments in private spaceflight.
I can't wait to see what comes along as a result. It is sure to be interesting!
Post by: Kansan52 on 03/01/2017 11:39 pm
I'm excited about this mission. Having rich people help keep a space company in business does not make me feel disenfranchised. The costs do.
What does make sad is how politics stopped Apollo and the improvements to HSF that were in the pipeline.
For me, this trip shows a breakthrough. First it was the ISS. Now the Moon.
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/01/2017 11:44 pm
I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
Is there a forum/thread where you have outlined what you would like to see?
Not entirely, but a bit of it is here, from 2010:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19548.msg531215#msg531215
Post by: TomH on 03/01/2017 11:49 pm
....I am excited where this type of activity takes us, I'm curious why it does not excite everyone.
It puzzles me as well. This is not meant to be unkind to any particular person, but I think there is a certain elitism in play, the thought that this type of to boldly go where no one has gone before is only the realm of specialists. The primo national parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite were opened when railroad barons built lines into these remote places and catered to the very wealthy. Sure, explorers and trappers were the first, but the pathway that allowed everyone in was established by the wealthy.
Military spending enables cutting edge technology in aeronautics. New developments then enable technology to trickle down to general aviation. This, however, enables a larger base of more streamlined and efficient engineering to develop. This more streamlined and more economically efficient base is then able to be a platform for even more advanced technology to arise, which is primarily paid for in military spending.
The US government, via missile programs, then NASA, pioneered space exploration. Companies like Hughes (DirecTV) have profited from that. Their participation helped build a technology and manufacturing base. NASA has been invaluable in enabling SpaceX to get to where it is, but the ability of SpaceX to apply business principles to a now more common technology has driven efficiency and deflated costs. The fact that common people (albeit rich) are now entering the equation is a good thing. It is a part of a natural cycle of advancement and progress. It is a milestone marker that access to space is becoming more prevalent. It will help build a technological and economic base that will allow humanity to reach the Red Planet. It is time to let go of elite persons being the only ones allowed access to space.
Post by: jcliving on 03/01/2017 11:49 pm
This seems to be a very easy decision for Spacex. A Red Dragon mission in 2018 checks the following boxes with the entire cost being paid by Spacex.You should add to the first list:
- Increases the number of flights by Falcon Heavy
- A beyond earth orbit mission
- proof of an additional use for dragon 2
A Private Tourist Moon Mission paid by the customer checks the following boxes
- Increases the number of flights by Falcon Heavy
- A beyond earth orbit mission
- proof of an additional use of dragon 2
- another proof point for crewed dragon
I stipulate that the checkbox lists above are not comprehensive, but there are enough items in the list to illustrate my point.
- Mars EDL
- Interplanetary navigation
- Persistent science station / beacon on Mars surface
I agree those are good editions to the list for Red Dragon. There is more technical achievement value for the Red Dragon, but your additions just increase the cost differential between the two missions.
Post by: mme on 03/02/2017 12:03 am
I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.If this were SpaceX's end goal and business plan, I would be disappointed. But to me it's just a stepping stone. Someone is footing the bill for development and proving of Dragon's BEO applications.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
And there may, or may not, be political reasons they are doing this as well. I don't buy into that too much. I assume it's basically paid for development and additional testing of a general purpose BEO capsule.
OK, I'm not sure if it's technically BEO, but it's B-LEO at least.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/02/2017 12:30 am
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19548.msg531215#msg531215
I read it, and I agree that building a follow-on space station to support the expansion of humanity out into space would be a good idea.
The devil is in the details of course, and the sequence of events that allow that. I look forward to chatting about this on another thread.
Thanks!
Post by: Lars-J on 03/02/2017 12:58 am
I'm often wrong but if you are paying that kind of change for this kind of flight then the only way not to be seen as spam in a can is to conduct an EVA.
In fact that could be a selling point: we take you there and back, we make that easy for you so that you have time to develop your skills to do other things. Going into space should be easy so we won't be hiring astronauts. Not only that we provide a new generation spacesuit to make an EVA easier.
I'm not sure how to make it much clearer than others have, but NO. There will be no Dragon EVAs. While not impossible to build into a Dragon-like spacecraft, it would be a significant redesign that would cost $$$ and lots of time, something not in plenty of supply. Dragon is a people/cargo carrier. That is all.
Landing on the moon would be a selling point too, but that ain't happening here either. ;)
Post by: Lars-J on 03/02/2017 01:14 am
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19548.msg531215#msg531215
I read it, and I agree that building a follow-on space station to support the expansion of humanity out into space would be a good idea.
The devil is in the details of course, and the sequence of events that allow that. I look forward to chatting about this on another thread.
I don't really see that type of Battlestar Galactica research exploration is feasible, but I just think its great that we actually have multiple ideas about human spaceflight now competing in the open. SpaceX has one idea. Blue Origin another. NASA has... a complicated set of ideas. ;) May the best one idea win.
Post by: Doesitfloat on 03/02/2017 01:17 am
I'm not saying it has to be a Spacex lander, but if they lower the cost enough someone will make it into an amusement park. :D
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 01:19 am
I don't really see that type of Battlestar Galactica research exploration is feasible,
I hate it when people call it that. Makes it sound like it has to be the size of Texas and cost 100 trillion dollars.
To make a long story short, it's about 7 SLS launches. What was there, about 30 for ISS, of which something like 25 were STS launches, not including Russian crew and resupply during the process?
Post by: meekGee on 03/02/2017 01:21 am
I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....
If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!
But there is context. This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi. And they're using this as a very obvious way to fund one of the steps of the program. Not even a necessary distraction (like, for example, the commsats are), but a bone-fide step they'd have to do anyway on the way to Mars. (fly humans in cis-lunar space for various periods)
So unless you think SpaceX will go gold-blind, forget about Mars, and spend the rest of their corporate lives flying rich people around the moon, I don't have a problem with this little project.
Post by: AncientU on 03/02/2017 01:52 am
I don't really see that type of Battlestar Galactica research exploration is feasible,
I hate it when people call it that. Makes it sound like it has to be the size of Texas and cost 100 trillion dollars.
To make a long story short, it's about 7 SLS launches. What was there, about 30 for ISS, of which something like 25 were STS launches, not including Russian crew and resupply during the process?
Seven SLS launches... plus the cost of building the station, which hasn't even been designed. We're still talking about a few tens of $Billions and a couple decades. NASA has made zero progress in that direction in the seven years since you proposed it, and not because it isn't a good idea.
Next natural (and parallel) steps as I see them:
Bigelow putting up a BA-330, hopefully not attached to the ISS -- two scheduled by 2020.
New Glenn and ITS getting their methane engines -- next 1-2 years.
ULA flying IVF demo and first ACES -- early 2020s.
Masten making headway on Xeus...
There is a natural and healthy role for NASA in all of this.
Post by: Danderman on 03/02/2017 02:08 am
I would bet my last dollar that there will not be a SpaceX tourist mission around the Moon launched in 2018. Could there be one later? Sure, much later. My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
Post by: Brovane on 03/02/2017 02:09 am
This announcement and Musk's Mars colonization plan are apparently straining his relationship with NASA. I stumbled on this article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/if-you-think-nasa-is-frustrated-with-spacex-youre-probably-right/
The author of this article has spent to much time trying to read between the lines of what NASA has said and not enough time paying attention to what NASA actually has said.
Post by: AS-503 on 03/02/2017 02:11 am
Though I am skeptical that SpaceX will manage to send two people around the moon in the time frame announced, I wonder whether this announcement might finally get Congress's attention (of course, I thought that would happen after Musk's Mars announcement at the IAC).
Here's a guess: NASA starts talking more about a cis-lunar hab, proudly announcing that, thanks to the ISS model it pioneered, the hab will be launched by NASA (on SLS, of course), while the commercial sector will handle logistics. Orion isn't canceled outright -- it's still meant to be some kind of back-up or to figure in some nebulous Mars architecture, but it's de-emphasized and begins to fade away*. Maybe EUS gets put on hold indefinitely.
Some plan is put in place to build up the cis-lunar hab over the years, justifying continued SLS launches at a glacial pace. The necessary cadence of launches to maintain safety can be de-emphasized, because the lanuches carry hardware only, no people.
* Orion is built by Lockheed Martin in Colorado. It's been noted before that the first concession the Obama administration to Congress in the fight over the FY 2011 NASA budget was to rescind its proposed cancellation of Orion; it was suggested then that this was related to the fact that of the states receiving major funding through Orion/SLS, Colorado was among the most Democratic. From the Trump administration's point of view now, Colorado committed the sin of not voting for Trump in 2016.
EDIT: Added footnote about politics of Orion. Footnote added after cro-magnon gramps liked the post, so the like may not apply to the footnote.
Lockheed Martin/Orion is not exclusively Colorado and given LM is a major defense contractor and the current president wants to increase military spending...I don't think your "political" hunch is correct.
Post by: AS-503 on 03/02/2017 02:20 am
I've said this before but I'll say it again. I'd personally want at least one pilot/engineer along for the ride.
A lot can happen in seven days and I'd prefer to have someone who is able to manually execute course-correction burns and steer the thing through re-entry if the computers become balky or an error in the FHUS sends them on an unexpected and marginal trajectory (steeper re-entry corridor, for example). Then there is the issue of correct training to fix any fixable problems.
There is no way a human pilot can "steer" a manned space craft manually through re-entry (limiting g loads, structural loads, thermal loads). If the systems are not able to do it automatically how can these "offline" systems give the pilot the critical data he/she would need for this already impossible task? There is no stick-and-rudder approach to re-entry.
Post by: Norm38 on 03/02/2017 02:25 am
What is the ROI on this adventure versus 3 cores lifting three satellites?
I don't doubt their will. I doubt their resources and the will of their customers.
Post by: rockets4life97 on 03/02/2017 02:29 am
What is the ROI on this adventure versus 3 cores lifting three satellites?
Re-use of FH cores and Dragon 2 should make the ROI high. I expect the adventurers are paying a premium as well such that the profit from this launch is higher than your average GTO satellite launch.
Post by: AncientU on 03/02/2017 02:41 am
My initial response: this is FUD.
I would bet my last dollar that there will not be a SpaceX tourist mission around the Moon launched in 2018. Could there be one later? Sure, much later. My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
They are just using the same definition of late 2018 as Gerst a few days ago*.
I'd take the bet if it was who flies crew around the Moon first... (including the Trampoline man)
*At 4:00:
Here is a recording of the teleconference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEoiWTo0E9Y
Post by: Lars-J on 03/02/2017 03:10 am
My initial response: this is FUD.
I would bet my last dollar that there will not be a SpaceX tourist mission around the Moon launched in 2018. Could there be one later? Sure, much later. My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
I look forward to see you yelling FUD at any NASA schedule and announcement. Slipping schedules and changing priorities is not unique to SpaceX. (Asteroid redirect, looking in your direction)
Post by: meberbs on 03/02/2017 03:14 am
My initial response: this is FUD.I interpret your first sentence as your response being you spreading fear uncertainty and doubt. Because I certainly don't see how SpaceX announcing that they have paying passengers around the moon does that. You also failed to use any actual facts in your response.
I would bet my last dollar that there will not be a SpaceX tourist mission around the Moon launched in 2018. Could there be one later? Sure, much later. My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
Why could they not meet the schedule in 2018? If nothing major goes wrong, Dragon will have flown crew to the station twice by the end of 2018. I count 3 other Falcon Heavy flights by the end of 2018 scheduled, which is reasonable for crew rating given the very high commonality with Falcon 9.
The 2018 schedule is the "everything goes right" schedule that SpaceX always uses. If there are any failures, or new issues in testing for commercial crew, this date will move. Even regular launch scheduling delays could push it to early 2019, but I am not seeing any reason that it could not be done in that general time frame barring major failures.
Post by: kch on 03/02/2017 03:18 am
There is no way a human pilot can "steer" a manned space craft manually through re-entry (limiting g loads, structural loads, thermal loads). If the systems are not able to do it automatically how can these "offline" systems give the pilot the critical data he/she would need for this already impossible task? There is no stick-and-rudder approach to re-entry.
Somewhere, Gordon Cooper is laughing his [posterior] off at that ... ;)
Post by: Mongo62 on 03/02/2017 03:23 am
There is a test flight of Falcon Heavy coming up, which is required before the Air Force STP-2 launch can happen. But the Falcon Heavy fairing-interior mounting hardware does not match the Cargo Dragon mounting hardware, and a fairing is required by the Air Force.
The fairing itself is not a problem, there is apparently plenty of room for the Cargo Dragon (and trunk?) inside it.
But the existing mounting hardware is a show-stopper. Designing and fabricating a one-off set of mounting hardware to hold the Cargo Dragon for just this flight would be too expensive. Unless... can an additional adapter to fit the Cargo Dragon trunk to the existing Falcon Heavy mounting hardware be fabricated and tested, in time to be ready for the test flight, preferably by the fourth quarter of this year? Basically a truncated cone, with the proper connections on both sides. It's possible that the design work for this might already be underway, we do not know how long it's been since the lunar mission was given the go-ahead, and this issue is the obvious long pole at this point.
Post by: Jim on 03/02/2017 03:26 am
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/02/2017 03:28 am
If anything, it's fearless, confident, and (over-?)optimistic.
Post by: AncientU on 03/02/2017 03:34 am
I think that most people would agree that a test flight of Falcon Heavy putting an unmanned Cargo Dragon in a trajectory around the Moon would be a very good thing to do before a manned Crew Dragon is sent to the Moon and back.
There is a test flight of Falcon Heavy coming up, which is required before the Air Force STP-2 launch can happen. But the Falcon Heavy fairing-interior mounting hardware does not match the Cargo Dragon mounting hardware, and a fairing is required by the Air Force.
The fairing itself is not a problem, there is apparently plenty of room for the Cargo Dragon (and trunk?) inside it.
But the existing mounting hardware is a show-stopper. Designing and fabricating a one-off set of mounting hardware to hold the Cargo Dragon for just this flight would be too expensive. Unless... can an additional adapter to fit the Cargo Dragon trunk to the existing Falcon Heavy mounting hardware be fabricated and tested, in time to be ready for the test flight, preferably by the fourth quarter of this year? Basically a truncated cone, with the proper connections on both sides. It's possible that the design work for this might already be underway, we do not know how long it's been since the lunar mission was given the go-ahead, and this issue is the obvious long pole at this point.
A FH test flight around the Moon was my suggestion, too, a couple weeks before the latest announcement (after Red Dragon postponement to 2020). I still think it a good idea for the FH Demo flight. Question is whether the standard upper stage with fairing, demonstrated numerous times on F9, would be sufficient for STP-2. Loading and vibration differences might be significant enough that the FH demo needs to fly with a fairing.
Post by: Danderman on 03/02/2017 04:13 am
I look forward to see you yelling FUD at any NASA schedule and announcement. Slipping schedules and changing priorities is not unique to SpaceX. (Asteroid redirect, looking in your direction)
NASA normally does not have to use FUD to limit competition as IBM did. However, they may have done so in the past, especially during the 1990s when private companies were considering SSTO designs; the failed X-33 program may have been an expensive but successful FUD tactic.
Post by: Danderman on 03/02/2017 04:20 am
I interpret your first sentence as your response being you spreading fear uncertainty and doubt. Because I certainly don't see how SpaceX announcing that they have paying passengers around the moon does that. You also failed to use any actual facts in your response.
Why could they not meet the schedule in 2018?
Let me quote Wikipedia to provide some actual facts:
By August 2008, SpaceX were aiming for the first launch of Falcon 9 in Q2 2009, and "Falcon 9 Heavy would be in a couple of years." Speaking at the 2008 Mars Society Conference, Elon Musk also said that a hydrogen-fuelled upper stage would follow 2–3 years later (notionally 2013).
8) 8) 8)
SpaceX were targeting late 2012 for pad integration of the Falcon Heavy demonstration rocket at its west-coast launch location, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, followed by first launch in 2013.
8) 8) 8)
The first launch from the Cape Canaveral east-coast launch complex was planned for late 2013 or 2014
8) 8) 8)
By September 2015, impacted by the failure of Falcon 9 Flight 19 that June, SpaceX rescheduled the maiden Falcon Heavy flight for April/May 2016, but by February 2016 had moved that back to late 2016. The flight was now to be launched from the refurbished Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A. In August 2016, the demonstration flight was moved to early 2017 and further missions are rescheduled accordingly.
:-* :-* :-*
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/02/2017 04:37 am
My initial response: this is FUD.Okay, 10:1 odds (in my favor). Will you accept? Payable in food or beverage.
I would bet my last dollar that there will not be a SpaceX tourist mission around the Moon launched in 2018. Could there be one later? Sure, much later. My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
Post by: mikelepage on 03/02/2017 04:56 am
....I am excited where this type of activity takes us, I'm curious why it does not excite everyone.
It puzzles me as well. This is not meant to be unkind to any particular person, but I think there is a certain elitism in play, the thought that this type of to boldly go where no one has gone before is only the realm of specialists. The primo national parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite were opened when railroad barons built lines into these remote places and catered to the very wealthy. Sure, explorers and trappers were the first, but the pathway that allowed everyone in was established by the wealthy.
Military spending enables cutting edge technology in aeronautics. New developments then enable technology to trickle down to general aviation. This, however, enables a larger base of more streamlined and efficient engineering to develop. This more streamlined and more economically efficient base is then able to be a platform for even more advanced technology to arise, which is primarily paid for in military spending.
The US government, via missile programs, then NASA, pioneered space exploration. Companies like Hughes (DirecTV) have profited from that. Their participation helped build a technology and manufacturing base. NASA has been invaluable in enabling SpaceX to get to where it is, but the ability of SpaceX to apply business principles to a now more common technology has driven efficiency and deflated costs. The fact that common people (albeit rich) are now entering the equation is a good thing. It is a part of a natural cycle of advancement and progress. It is a milestone marker that access to space is becoming more prevalent. It will help build a technological and economic base that will allow humanity to reach the Red Planet. It is time to let go of elite persons being the only ones allowed access to space.
Well said.
I'd only make a slightly different analogy, imagine that you've invested in a company to build a bridge across some deep impassable gorge, and then you find out that one of your fellow co-investors in the bridge has this burning desire to get to the other side of the bridge, eat some broccoli, and do cartwheels while whistling yankee doodle, your response is probably "well, that seems kind of pointless to me, but I thank you for co-investing in this bridge."
Point being that the explosion of use-cases occurs every time someone builds a bridge (in this case, from one side of Earth's gravity well to the other), and you don't have to think every use-case is worthwhile to be supportive of what they represent.
Post by: Danderman on 03/02/2017 05:10 am
My initial response: this is FUD.Okay, 10:1 odds (in my favor). Will you accept? Payable in food or beverage.
I would bet my last dollar that there will not be a SpaceX tourist mission around the Moon launched in 2018. Could there be one later? Sure, much later. My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
How much would you have bet in 2012 that FH would fly in 2014?
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/02/2017 06:01 am
I think that most people would agree that a test flight of Falcon Heavy putting an unmanned Cargo Dragon in a trajectory around the Moon would be a very good thing to do before a manned Crew Dragon is sent to the Moon and back.
Yes, with you so far.
Quote
But the existing mounting hardware is a show-stopper. Designing and fabricating a one-off set of mounting hardware to hold the Cargo Dragon for just this flight would be too expensive. Unless... can an additional adapter to fit the Cargo Dragon trunk to the existing Falcon Heavy mounting hardware be fabricated and tested
Sorry, you've lost me. Excuse my ignorance, but isn't FH S2 basically a F9 S2? Why is it different to mount a Dragon on a FH compared to what SpaceX already does with the F9?
Post by: meekGee on 03/02/2017 06:08 am
Who the F cares?My initial response: this is FUD.Okay, 10:1 odds (in my favor). Will you accept? Payable in food or beverage.
I would bet my last dollar that there will not be a SpaceX tourist mission around the Moon launched in 2018. Could there be one later? Sure, much later. My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
How much would you have bet in 2012 that FH would fly in 2014?
They're a few years late to being a few decades early.
Put differently, how much was even this delayed timeline likely in 2000?
You seem to think you're the only one who notices delays.
Chill. Round the moon tourism will become a thing, and add revenue. It's a good thing. Red Dragon will fly in 2020, and will likely have larger scope now.
Not fast enough? Sadly you're out of alternatives.
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/02/2017 06:18 am
Hmmm... Not sure I would have! But given your response, I take it that you think they have at least a 9% chance, then! :DMy initial response: this is FUD.Okay, 10:1 odds (in my favor). Will you accept? Payable in food or beverage.
I would bet my last dollar that there will not be a SpaceX tourist mission around the Moon launched in 2018. Could there be one later? Sure, much later. My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
How much would you have bet in 2012 that FH would fly in 2014?
Post by: darkenfast on 03/02/2017 06:18 am
"Waah! It's shouldn't be rich people! It should be someone from Category X that I like better and paid for by someone else!" "Waah! They can't do it without a professional astronaut!" Waah! They're just tourists!" "Waah! It's too dangerous! Let's sneer at it and maybe it'll go away!"
I wonder if the same thing happened on, say, oceanographic forums condemning Cameron for going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench as a TOURIST? Probably did, if the same kind of people are on there. Or let's pile on anyone who pays a bunch of money to jump out of a balloon in the Stratosphere: "Waah! That should only be done by professional test pilots!".
What is the matter here? It's their money, not yours. Someone is helping push BEO flight along and some of you are acting like they are killing babies or something.
I'd go in a heartbeat. Crowdfunding, anybody?
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/02/2017 06:19 am
My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
I disagree. They have paying customers, who have already put down sizeable deposits, and as others have said a trip around the moon is a good stepping stone towards SpaceX's Mars ambitions - not least by demonstrating to NASA (and anyone else) that they are capable of human spaceflight beyond LEO.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/02/2017 06:28 am
Wow. I can't remember hearing so much whining in a thread in a long time in NSF. Two people are going to PAY SpaceX for a trip around the Moon!Ha ha! Excellent. You tell 'em. I for one, don't have a problem with this at all. And as for James Cameron and his trench dive - yes; he was criticized by some sniffy scientists who accused him of treating the dive as trivial adventure, etc - which is complete B.S. And worse than that, some Hoaxtards were saying Cameron faked the whole thing because he's a special effects expert! Heh - I'd love some of these comedians to try saying it to his face...
"Waah! It's shouldn't be rich people! It should be someone from Category X that I like better and paid for by someone else!" "Waah! They can't do it without a professional astronaut!" Waah! They're just tourists!" "Waah! It's too dangerous! Let's sneer at it and maybe it'll go away!"
I wonder if the same thing happened on, say, oceanographic forums condemning Cameron for going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench as a TOURIST? Probably did, if the same kind of people are on there. Or let's pile on anyone who pays a bunch of money to jump out of a balloon in the Stratosphere: "Waah! That should only be done by professional test pilots!".
What is the matter here? It's their money, not yours. Someone is helping push BEO flight along and some of you are acting like they are killing babies or something.
I'd go in a heartbeat. Crowdfunding, anybody?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/02/2017 06:31 am
Energia - 0 tonnes, the Polyus launch failed, would have had a potential payload of 100 tonnes
That was a simple software error that caused Polyus to fire in the opposite direction it was supposed to. I have no doubt that Energia had the potential to launch 88 t to LEO, as demonstrated by it launching Buran into orbit. The press release said "most powerful". Taking that literally, power is measured in Watts, not kg. The power in Watts of a rocket is F*v/2 where F is the thrust (in Newtons) and v is the exhaust speed (in m/s). So rocket power is directly proportional to its thrust for a constant exhaust speed. The same can not be said for payload mass where a host of other factors need to be considered.
Quote
Energia + Buran - 0 comparing apples to apples the Buran was part of the launch vehicle and carried no payload on its first launch, would have had a potential payload of 30 tonnes
Buran was the payload! Energia is not like the Space Shuttle where the only payload that could be carried was in the cargo bay. Energia could carry Buran or a very large payload like Polyus.
Quote
Saturn V - 140 tonnes
That is the Initial Mass in Low Earth Orbit (IMLEO). That is not the potential payload that could be carried, which is 118 t.
Quote
Falcon 9 - 54 tonnes
Should be Falcon Heavy in expendable mode. That is the potential payload. It may never carry 54 t, just like Falcon 9 has never carried its full payload of 22.8 t or even got close to it. The same should be said for Energia. It worked and it had a potential payload of 88 t.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/02/2017 06:38 am
Any other sources saying that? If true I guess that makes the full price several hundred million dollars? May be as much as $0.5B ?
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/02/2017 06:42 am
Russians could do this mission, too, on a similar timescale. The Soviets basically did it (with turtles) with a orbital-module-less Soyuz on top of a Proton. And that China could easily do it. And that China already did it in subscale a few years ago.
Post by: meberbs on 03/02/2017 06:55 am
I look forward to see you yelling FUD at any NASA schedule and announcement. Slipping schedules and changing priorities is not unique to SpaceX. (Asteroid redirect, looking in your direction)
NASA normally does not have to use FUD to limit competition as IBM did. However, they may have done so in the past, especially during the 1990s when private companies were considering SSTO designs; the failed X-33 program may have been an expensive but successful FUD tactic.
The only one using FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) here is you, you appear not to even understand the meaning of these words every time you accuse SpaceX of FUD, which is basically as opposite as possible to what they are doing.
I interpret your first sentence as your response being you spreading fear uncertainty and doubt. Because I certainly don't see how SpaceX announcing that they have paying passengers around the moon does that. You also failed to use any actual facts in your response.
Why could they not meet the schedule in 2018?
Let me quote Wikipedia to provide some actual facts:
(trimmed for length)
That trimmed portion is really, truly not relevant. It can be summarized as: SpaceX found that launching a Falcon Heavy is a bit more complicated than just strapping boosters together, which combined with the lack of reason to prioritize it (few launches, and other priorities) has led to it being pushed back a few years, with unrelated issues (launch failures) being major drivers of the most recent delays.
None of this provides any evidence that they won't make their current schedule or at least something close to it. (I already said that this is obviously the best case schedule and there are various reasons it could slip, and probably will slip some. I don't see any high probability of major issues at this point, the relevant systems are far along in development.)
Post by: jpo234 on 03/02/2017 06:58 am
I interpret your first sentence as your response being you spreading fear uncertainty and doubt. Because I certainly don't see how SpaceX announcing that they have paying passengers around the moon does that. You also failed to use any actual facts in your response.
Why could they not meet the schedule in 2018?
Let me quote Wikipedia to provide some actual facts:
By August 2008, SpaceX were aiming for the first launch of Falcon 9 in Q2 2009, and "Falcon 9 Heavy would be in a couple of years." Speaking at the 2008 Mars Society Conference, Elon Musk also said that a hydrogen-fuelled upper stage would follow 2–3 years later (notionally 2013).
8) 8) 8)
SpaceX were targeting late 2012 for pad integration of the Falcon Heavy demonstration rocket at its west-coast launch location, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, followed by first launch in 2013.
8) 8) 8)
The first launch from the Cape Canaveral east-coast launch complex was planned for late 2013 or 2014
8) 8) 8)
By September 2015, impacted by the failure of Falcon 9 Flight 19 that June, SpaceX rescheduled the maiden Falcon Heavy flight for April/May 2016, but by February 2016 had moved that back to late 2016. The flight was now to be launched from the refurbished Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A. In August 2016, the demonstration flight was moved to early 2017 and further missions are rescheduled accordingly.
:-* :-* :-*
The difference is, that the past examples you cite were for PowerPoint and paper rockets. The hardware required for the moon mission is well into and beyond the "bending metal" stage.
(https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/wp-content/uploads/sites/230/2016/06/KSC-20160621-PH_SPX01_0002-1024x683.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/zPdInH5.jpg)
Post by: jpo234 on 03/02/2017 07:05 am
Wow. I can't remember hearing so much whining in a thread in a long time in NSF. Two people are going to PAY SpaceX for a trip around the Moon!
"Waah! It's shouldn't be rich people! It should be someone from Category X that I like better and paid for by someone else!" "Waah! They can't do it without a professional astronaut!" Waah! They're just tourists!" "Waah! It's too dangerous! Let's sneer at it and maybe it'll go away!"
I wonder if the same thing happened on, say, oceanographic forums condemning Cameron for going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench as a TOURIST? Probably did, if the same kind of people are on there. Or let's pile on anyone who pays a bunch of money to jump out of a balloon in the Stratosphere: "Waah! That should only be done by professional test pilots!".
What is the matter here? It's their money, not yours. Someone is helping push BEO flight along and some of you are acting like they are killing babies or something.
I'd go in a heartbeat. Crowdfunding, anybody?
If you look for (uninformed) whining, read this: Money Won't Save SpaceX's Moon Tourists If Something Goes Wrong (http://gizmodo.com/money-wont-save-spacexs-moon-tourists-if-something-goes-1792864750)
Post by: jpo234 on 03/02/2017 07:27 am
Wow. I can't remember hearing so much whining in a thread in a long time in NSF. Two people are going to PAY SpaceX for a trip around the Moon!
"Waah! It's shouldn't be rich people! It should be someone from Category X that I like better and paid for by someone else!" "Waah! They can't do it without a professional astronaut!" Waah! They're just tourists!" "Waah! It's too dangerous! Let's sneer at it and maybe it'll go away!"
I wonder if the same thing happened on, say, oceanographic forums condemning Cameron for going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench as a TOURIST? Probably did, if the same kind of people are on there. Or let's pile on anyone who pays a bunch of money to jump out of a balloon in the Stratosphere: "Waah! That should only be done by professional test pilots!".
What is the matter here? It's their money, not yours. Someone is helping push BEO flight along and some of you are acting like they are killing babies or something.
I'd go in a heartbeat. Crowdfunding, anybody?
Just remember this: Space tourist dispute deepens (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1310410.stm)
NASA threw a tantrum when Dennis Tito flew to the ISS.
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/02/2017 07:31 am
Hi Steven. The Atlas numbers would be the lift off thrust but don't they throttle up shortly after? Might be wrong
As a basis of comparison, I'm using the lift-off thrust. Maximum thrust will be higher, but depends on the height the vehicle reaches, the throttle settings used and the thrust profile of any solid motors.
For this mission - I would propose an Expedition by all willing and able NSF members to be together at KSC or nearby it for the launch of this Mission To The Moon. What do you guys think of that? I would dearly love to meet Chuck Longton, Chris Bergin, Steve Pietrobon, Space Ghost1962 etc - just for example - and indeed anyone else who thinks they could make it there.
Thanks for the invitation, but I'll be at home, covering the launch for NSF. :-) It will be interesting to see if the TV channels will be covering the launch.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/02/2017 07:34 am
It will be interesting to see if the TV channels will be covering the launch.
Doubt it. Today we have webcasts.
Post by: tea monster on 03/02/2017 07:35 am
Having said that, it is true that if something does go wrong out beyond Luna, then nobody is going to be able to zoom out and save them - but space is dangerous, something that we all know here and that the people who put their money down probably know as well.
As to the argument that "NASA should be doing this", I'm sure that they want to. They wanted to go to Mars in the 80's and I'm sure that if Congress had given them the money, they would have made it. NASA never got the funding, so they didn't go, and Congress still displays little intention of changing their minds.
Will the Falcon Heavy get to the moon on time? Maybe. It might be delayed. Everyone, including NASA, suffers from delays. I'd rather they delay the flight a year or so than fly before they are ready. We all know what what can happen when that occurs.
Musk, for whatever faults you want to find with him, is the only person who has both the will and the ability to push us out past Earth orbit.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/02/2017 07:40 am
Musk, for whatever faults you want to find with him, is the only person who has both the will and the ability to push us out past Earth orbit.
If this was true, I would be truly terrified. He is the one most visible right now, but I'm sure there are others.
Post by: Surfdaddy on 03/02/2017 08:01 am
I grew up in the 1960's. I didn't miss a launch of a manned mission. I watched breathlessly as Apollo 11 descended to the Moon.
I've waited DECADES to see something happen beyond Earth orbit.
At the rate NASA has been going, full of bureaucracy and micromanaged by Congress, I won't live long enough to see anything happen at Mars other than a few rovers.
SpaceX is a breath of fresh air. If they can reignite interest in space, great. And if it takes them to send the first humans out of low Earth orbit, then good for them as well.
Post by: Pipcard on 03/02/2017 08:27 am
But this is the first time humans are going to go beyond LEO since 1972.It will be interesting to see if the TV channels will be covering the launch.
Doubt it. Today we have webcasts.
Post by: AS-503 on 03/02/2017 09:36 am
There is no way a human pilot can "steer" a manned space craft manually through re-entry (limiting g loads, structural loads, thermal loads). If the systems are not able to do it automatically how can these "offline" systems give the pilot the critical data he/she would need for this already impossible task? There is no stick-and-rudder approach to re-entry.
Somewhere, Gordon Cooper is laughing his [posterior] off at that ... ;)
The context here is re-entry from BEO. Does the laughing still apply? ;)
Post by: guckyfan on 03/02/2017 09:40 am
Except I remember from the early days that entry is passively stable. So once you are on a survivable reentry path you can do with complete computer failure. The parachutes can be manually activated in that situation.
Post by: AS-503 on 03/02/2017 10:11 am
The key point seems to be to me at least. There are no longer wires going from a switch to an engine. The whole thing is hooked up to a computer. As long as the computer works, a human has nothing to do. When it does not work, there is nothing a human can do.
Except I remember from the early days that entry is passively stable. So once you are on a survivable reentry path you can do with complete computer failure. The parachutes can be manually activated in that situation.
Your statement says "once your one a survivable path", at what point in a BEO reentry with computer failure are you on a survivable path? ;)
If you watch the NASA Apollo era video that was posted on page 8 (reply 158) of this thread, you will see how the BEO reentry is controlled by the computer. Small-ish errors in the reentry corridor angle which may or may not be discernible by a human pilot with no computer will most likely result in excessive g/structural/thermal loads (too steep) or skipping off the atmosphere (too shallow). Also the steering (pitch/yaw/roll) done by the computer provides the necessary/correct cross-range for landing accuracy. The human pilot could not carry that task out with a high level of reliability.
Personally I am very excited for this crewed proposal, but I will not argue for the case of having the humans in the loop to provide BEO reentry back up. Its kind of like that argument about having the Falcon 9 landing being dynamically controlled with feedback from the ASDS in real-time vs. the autonomous way it is actually done.
Post by: guckyfan on 03/02/2017 10:23 am
Your statement says "once your one a survivable path", at what point in a BEO reentry with computer failure are you on a survivable path? ;)
If you watch the NASA Apollo era video that was posted on page 8 (reply 158) of this thread, you will see how the BEO reentry is controlled by the computer.
With Apollo 13 they were able to hit the reentry corridor manually. The point I was trying to make is, this is no longer possible with the electronics controlling everything. There is no point in having a pilot.
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 03/02/2017 10:24 am
There is no way a human pilot can "steer" a manned space craft manually through re-entry (limiting g loads, structural loads, thermal loads). If the systems are not able to do it automatically how can these "offline" systems give the pilot the critical data he/she would need for this already impossible task? There is no stick-and-rudder approach to re-entry.
Somewhere, Gordon Cooper is laughing his [posterior] off at that ... ;)
Well, I think the center of gravity of Mercury was the same as the geometric center so it would not have been possible to alter the trajectory by rolling the spacecraft. Gordo flipped switches in the right order when the automatic sequencer went down before entry. However, I do recall Mike Collins writing that he was prepared to take manual control over the roll sequence of the CM if the computer malfunctioned on entry on Apollo 11.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/02/2017 10:38 am
I'm not so sure that Dragon's flight controls would work in the event that the GNC system went down. From what I saw of the roll-out presser, Dragon Mk2 looks a lot more glass-and-software with very few physical controls. I mean, I'd like to assume that GNC and flight control are on separate, redundant circuits that talk but are not one and the same (so that one dying doesn't kill the other) but I don't know that for certain.
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 11:58 am
I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....
If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!
But there is context. This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi.
I don't like their Mars plans either. They're focued on colinization which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program. We're on about step three.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/02/2017 12:01 pm
Wow. I can't remember hearing so much whining in a thread in a long time in NSF. Two people are going to PAY SpaceX for a trip around the Moon!
"Waah! It's shouldn't be rich people! It should be someone from Category X that I like better and paid for by someone else!" "Waah! They can't do it without a professional astronaut!" Waah! They're just tourists!" "Waah! It's too dangerous! Let's sneer at it and maybe it'll go away!"
I wonder if the same thing happened on, say, oceanographic forums condemning Cameron for going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench as a TOURIST? Probably did, if the same kind of people are on there. Or let's pile on anyone who pays a bunch of money to jump out of a balloon in the Stratosphere: "Waah! That should only be done by professional test pilots!".
What is the matter here? It's their money, not yours. Someone is helping push BEO flight along and some of you are acting like they are killing babies or something.
I'd go in a heartbeat. Crowdfunding, anybody?
I'm thinking crowd funding of some creative sort is maybe how elon gets his 10b to build ITS. Not sure what it is yet but crowd funding does amazing things these days.
Post by: Mongo62 on 03/02/2017 12:18 pm
But the existing mounting hardware is a show-stopper. Designing and fabricating a one-off set of mounting hardware to hold the Cargo Dragon for just this flight would be too expensive. Unless... can an additional adapter to fit the Cargo Dragon trunk to the existing Falcon Heavy mounting hardware be fabricated and tested
Sorry, you've lost me. Excuse my ignorance, but isn't FH S2 basically a F9 S2? Why is it different to mount a Dragon on a FH compared to what SpaceX already does with the F9?
The second stage itself is basically the same, as far as I know, but when a fairing is used, as is required for the test flight by the Air Force, the Dragon can no longer be mounted directly to the second stage. There is mounting hardware inside the fairing, which has a smaller diameter than the second stage, and does not fit the Dragon's mounting points (which is designed to fit the second stage).
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/02/2017 12:19 pm
Post by: ugordan on 03/02/2017 12:53 pm
The second stage itself is basically the same, as far as I know, but when a fairing is used, as is required for the test flight by the Air Force, the Dragon can no longer be mounted directly to the second stage.
Is this a statement of fact or an assumption?
I do agree with your point that trying to fly a Dragon on the inaugural FH flight would go against qualifying the fairing for the (likely higher) max Q environment than on a single stick F9, which would kind of defeat the purpose of the demo flight when it comes to USAF. I guess it boils down to what kind of risk USAF would be willing to take. I personally don't see Dragon on FH-01 happening, but I've been proven wrong before.
Post by: cscott on 03/02/2017 01:42 pm
And the NSFers were making their points to argue that dragon wouldn't be on top of the falcon heavy demo flight. This news from Elon strongly implies the opposite.
I'm not saying who was right and wrong, but I wouldn't treat either option as gospel yet. Unless someone can dig up an authoritative source.
Post by: mme on 03/02/2017 01:57 pm
I think that has more to do with the effects of the tourist on the safety and operation of the ISS and any extra burdens for NASA than the concept of space tourists in general. NASA may or may not be a fan of the private cislunar (circumlunar?) mission but it's not effecting NASA operations or astronauts....
What is the matter here? It's their money, not yours. Someone is helping push BEO flight along and some of you are acting like they are killing babies or something.
I'd go in a heartbeat. Crowdfunding, anybody?
Just remember this: Space tourist dispute deepens (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1310410.stm)
NASA threw a tantrum when Dennis Tito flew to the ISS.
Post by: mme on 03/02/2017 02:13 pm
I think the solution to the problem is to just accept that Dragon launches don't count toward AF acceptance. I doubt using a custom PF would count anyway and it seems like just asking for trouble IMO.But the existing mounting hardware is a show-stopper. Designing and fabricating a one-off set of mounting hardware to hold the Cargo Dragon for just this flight would be too expensive. Unless... can an additional adapter to fit the Cargo Dragon trunk to the existing Falcon Heavy mounting hardware be fabricated and tested
Sorry, you've lost me. Excuse my ignorance, but isn't FH S2 basically a F9 S2? Why is it different to mount a Dragon on a FH compared to what SpaceX already does with the F9?
The second stage itself is basically the same, as far as I know, but when a fairing is used, as is required for the test flight by the Air Force, the Dragon can no longer be mounted directly to the second stage. There is mounting hardware inside the fairing, which has a smaller diameter than the second stage, and does not fit the Dragon's mounting points (which is designed to fit the second stage).
Post by: ugordan on 03/02/2017 02:17 pm
I think the solution to the problem is to just accept that Dragon launches don't count toward AF acceptance.
That's not really a "solution" for the topic of this thread if you consider the limited number of flights FH can realistically have by the time the end-of-2018 timeframe comes. People didn't start invoking Dragon on the FH demo for no particular reason, but as a means to make that schedule somewhat more realistic.
Some things to consider:
1. FH won't fly from 39A until 40 is back in action.
2. 40 repairs were basically on hold until 39A became operational.
3. because of 2. IMHO it's very optimistic to expect 40 to be rebuilt by even late summer.
4. Despite many past claims on production rate of vehicles, it's still obvious that production is lagging and the only way they can get several flight cores in the launch pipeline is if Something Bad happens and there's a launch campaign standdown. Case in point - Iridium at VAFB.
5. Each FH requires 3 first stage acceptance campaigns at McGregor, which will inevitably have to compete with single cores for their non-shrinking manifest.
All of this combined suggests the number of FHs launched in the next 2 years will be low, even if we assume no major snags during the inaugural campaign. This leaves very few opportunities to test a Dragon 2 with a BEO-like reentry velocity. As for the recent comments about increased production rate later this year, we've heard it all before. Seeing is believing.
Post by: douglas100 on 03/02/2017 02:22 pm
One significant difference between Apollo and Dragon Mk2 is that the Apollo autopilot and flight control systems, although linked, went through different systems. The manual flight controls would operate even in the event of a navigation computer failure.
I'm not so sure that Dragon's flight controls would work in the event that the GNC system went down. From what I saw of the roll-out presser, Dragon Mk2 looks a lot more glass-and-software with very few physical controls. I mean, I'd like to assume that GNC and flight control are on separate, redundant circuits that talk but are not one and the same (so that one dying doesn't kill the other) but I don't know that for certain.
The important thing is that the computers don't go down. Without them you don't get home. There are no manual controls on Dragon unlike Mercury. All control inputs go though computers.
There are a few other critical systems for navigation, particularly star trackers and the IMU, (also, of course, communications.) The technology for these things has come on a lot since Apollo. And you would expect a lot of redundancy in these systems.
There is nothing for the crew to do on this flight as far as navigation is concerned. The spacecraft can do a lot of it autonomously along with ground command. The crew might have the option of choosing the attitude to get a better view during the flight, but that would have nothing to do with navigation.
Post by: envy887 on 03/02/2017 02:34 pm
I think the solution to the problem is to just accept that Dragon launches don't count toward AF acceptance.
That's not really a "solution" for the topic of this thread if you consider the limited number of flights FH can realistically have by the time the end-of-2018 timeframe comes. People didn't start invoking Dragon on the FH demo for no particular reason, but as a means to make that schedule somewhat more realistic.
Some things to consider:
1. FH won't fly from 39A until 40 is back in action.
2. 40 repairs were basically on hold until 39A became operational.
3. because of 2. IMHO it's very optimistic to expect 40 to be rebuilt by even late summer.
4. Despite many past claims on production rate of vehicles, it's still obvious that production is lagging and the only way they can get several flight cores in the launch pipeline is if Something Bad happens and there's a launch campaign standdown. Case in point - Iridium at VAFB.
5. Each FH requires 3 first stage acceptance campaigns at McGregor, which will inevitably have to compete with single cores for their non-shrinking manifest.
All of this combined suggests the number of FHs launched in the next 2 years will be low, even if we assume no major snags during the inaugural campaign. This leaves very few opportunities to test a Dragon 2 with a BEO-like reentry velocity. As for the recent comments about increased production rate later this year, we've heard it all before. Seeing is believing.
Falcon 9 Block 5 can almost certainly launch Dragon 2 around the Moon if it doesn't need to carry any payload and they are willing to throw the booster away. No need for FH for Dragon test flights.
Post by: ugordan on 03/02/2017 02:43 pm
Falcon 9 Block 5 can almost certainly launch Dragon 2 around the Moon if it doesn't need to carry any payload and they are willing to throw the booster away. No need for FH for Dragon test flights.
You're making this statement based on what numbers? What is implied by no payload? An empty shell with nothing but RCS and comms? Does launching a boilerplate shell make an accurate test of TPS and reentry performance as the energy to dissipate per surface area goes up linearly with mass, E=(mv*v)/2?
Post by: envy887 on 03/02/2017 03:00 pm
Advertised payload to GTO of 8,300 kg (presumably GTO-1800). That corresponds to 6,850 kg to TLI, which is right around where a dry Dragon 2 is estimated. Certainly more than a boilerplate.Falcon 9 Block 5 can almost certainly launch Dragon 2 around the Moon if it doesn't need to carry any payload and they are willing to throw the booster away. No need for FH for Dragon test flights.
You're making this statement based on what numbers? What is implied by no payload? An empty shell with nothing but RCS and comms? Does launching a boilerplate shell make an accurate test of TPS and reentry performance as the energy to dissipate per surface area goes up linearly with mass, E=(mv*v)/2?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/02/2017 03:02 pm
You think he hasnt thought about steps four through fourteen?I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....
If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!
But there is context. This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi.
I don't like their Mars plans either. They're focued on colinization which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program. We're on about step three.
Post by: Negan on 03/02/2017 03:05 pm
Edit: He certainly feels the heat shield is already up to the task of lunar return. How many times has a heat shield failed (other than Columbia which was for a very specific reason.)? This whole must do a full on free return test is FUD.
Post by: rakaydos on 03/02/2017 03:09 pm
Something I dont understand is what is wrong with skipping off? Sure, in Apollo they had to discrd their life support equipment and power supply, and thus could not survive "going around for another pass", but Dragon for the most part doesnt have that problem with the Trunk.The key point seems to be to me at least. There are no longer wires going from a switch to an engine. The whole thing is hooked up to a computer. As long as the computer works, a human has nothing to do. When it does not work, there is nothing a human can do.
Except I remember from the early days that entry is passively stable. So once you are on a survivable reentry path you can do with complete computer failure. The parachutes can be manually activated in that situation.
Your statement says "once your one a survivable path", at what point in a BEO reentry with computer failure are you on a survivable path? ;)
If you watch the NASA Apollo era video that was posted on page 8 (reply 158) of this thread, you will see how the BEO reentry is controlled by the computer. Small-ish errors in the reentry corridor angle which may or may not be discernible by a human pilot with no computer will most likely result in excessive g/structural/thermal loads (too steep) or skipping off the atmosphere (too shallow). Also the steering (pitch/yaw/roll) done by the computer provides the necessary/correct cross-range for landing accuracy. The human pilot could not carry that task out with a high level of reliability.
Personally I am very excited for this crewed proposal, but I will not argue for the case of having the humans in the loop to provide BEO reentry back up. Its kind of like that argument about having the Falcon 9 landing being dynamically controlled with feedback from the ASDS in real-time vs. the autonomous way it is actually done.
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 03:12 pm
You think he hasnt thought about steps four through fourteen?I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....
If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!
But there is context. This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi.
I don't like their Mars plans either. They're focued on colinization which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program. We're on about step three.
Thought about, maybe, but without plans to implement.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/02/2017 03:12 pm
Something I dont understand is what is wrong with skipping off? Sure, in Apollo they had to discrd their life support equipment and power supply, and thus could not survive "going around for another pass", but Dragon for the most part doesnt have that problem with the Trunk.The key point seems to be to me at least. There are no longer wires going from a switch to an engine. The whole thing is hooked up to a computer. As long as the computer works, a human has nothing to do. When it does not work, there is nothing a human can do.
Except I remember from the early days that entry is passively stable. So once you are on a survivable reentry path you can do with complete computer failure. The parachutes can be manually activated in that situation.
Your statement says "once your one a survivable path", at what point in a BEO reentry with computer failure are you on a survivable path? ;)
If you watch the NASA Apollo era video that was posted on page 8 (reply 158) of this thread, you will see how the BEO reentry is controlled by the computer. Small-ish errors in the reentry corridor angle which may or may not be discernible by a human pilot with no computer will most likely result in excessive g/structural/thermal loads (too steep) or skipping off the atmosphere (too shallow). Also the steering (pitch/yaw/roll) done by the computer provides the necessary/correct cross-range for landing accuracy. The human pilot could not carry that task out with a high level of reliability.
Personally I am very excited for this crewed proposal, but I will not argue for the case of having the humans in the loop to provide BEO reentry back up. Its kind of like that argument about having the Falcon 9 landing being dynamically controlled with feedback from the ASDS in real-time vs. the autonomous way it is actually done.
trunk has solar power?
Post by: envy887 on 03/02/2017 03:12 pm
Something I dont understand is what is wrong with skipping off? Sure, in Apollo they had to discrd their life support equipment and power supply, and thus could not survive "going around for another pass", but Dragon for the most part doesnt have that problem with the Trunk.The key point seems to be to me at least. There are no longer wires going from a switch to an engine. The whole thing is hooked up to a computer. As long as the computer works, a human has nothing to do. When it does not work, there is nothing a human can do.
Except I remember from the early days that entry is passively stable. So once you are on a survivable reentry path you can do with complete computer failure. The parachutes can be manually activated in that situation.
Your statement says "once your one a survivable path", at what point in a BEO reentry with computer failure are you on a survivable path? ;)
If you watch the NASA Apollo era video that was posted on page 8 (reply 158) of this thread, you will see how the BEO reentry is controlled by the computer. Small-ish errors in the reentry corridor angle which may or may not be discernible by a human pilot with no computer will most likely result in excessive g/structural/thermal loads (too steep) or skipping off the atmosphere (too shallow). Also the steering (pitch/yaw/roll) done by the computer provides the necessary/correct cross-range for landing accuracy. The human pilot could not carry that task out with a high level of reliability.
Personally I am very excited for this crewed proposal, but I will not argue for the case of having the humans in the loop to provide BEO reentry back up. Its kind of like that argument about having the Falcon 9 landing being dynamically controlled with feedback from the ASDS in real-time vs. the autonomous way it is actually done.
Dragon needs the trunk for power and cooling. It can't survive very long without it, although I haven't seen a number for exactly how long.
Post by: meekGee on 03/02/2017 03:17 pm
So you don't like the Mars plan since it is too far-reaching, and you don't like this plan since it is too near sighted.I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....
If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!
But there is context. This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi.
I don't like their Mars plans either. They're focued on colinization which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program. We're on about step three.
Hard man to please.
What is it that you want them to aim at?
Post by: RoboGoofers on 03/02/2017 03:21 pm
The important thing is that the computers don't go down. Without them you don't get home. There are no manual controls on Dragon unlike Mercury. All control inputs go though computers.
There are a few other critical systems for navigation, particularly star trackers and the IMU, (also, of course, communications.) The technology for these things has come on a lot since Apollo. And you would expect a lot of redundancy in these systems.
There is nothing for the crew to do on this flight as far as navigation is concerned. The spacecraft can do a lot of it autonomously along with ground command. The crew might have the option of choosing the attitude to get a better view during the flight, but that would have nothing to do with navigation.
I doubt they'll even have that. There's only the moon and earth too look at. SpaceX mission planners will have all the maneuvers for the best views planned out ahead of time.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/02/2017 03:22 pm
trunk has solar power?
My understanding was that the Dragon Mk2 trunk was a very minimalist affair and that the spacecraft itself was considered to have sufficient battery power for the entire of an ISS crew rotation + margin. If that is still the plan, then this mission will use a non-stock trunk.
Post by: mme on 03/02/2017 03:23 pm
We're talking across each other. I am not opposed to using Dragon on the demo flight. I'm opposed to creating special PF to add an unnecessary fairing around the Dragon in the hope that the AF would still count the demo as a qualification flight. More mass, more separation events, more complexity and may not even qualify in the AF's eyes since it's not the PF they'd use. My "solution" is prioritizing what is more urgent and if Dragon is more urgent than a flight that counts toward AF acceptance, so be it.I think the solution to the problem is to just accept that Dragon launches don't count toward AF acceptance.
That's not really a "solution" for the topic of this thread if you consider the limited number of flights FH can realistically have by the time the end-of-2018 timeframe comes. People didn't start invoking Dragon on the FH demo for no particular reason, but as a means to make that schedule somewhat more realistic.
Some things to consider:
...
All of this combined suggests the number of FHs launched in the next 2 years will be low, even if we assume no major snags during the inaugural campaign. This leaves very few opportunities to test a Dragon 2 with a BEO-like reentry velocity. As for the recent comments about increased production rate later this year, we've heard it all before. Seeing is believing.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/02/2017 03:26 pm
Falcon 9 Block 5 can almost certainly launch Dragon 2 around the Moon if it doesn't need to carry any payload and they are willing to throw the booster away. No need for FH for Dragon test flights.
But this would significantly increase the price tag of the moon cruise, wouldn't it?
Post by: Comga on 03/02/2017 03:29 pm
Wow. I can't remember hearing so much whining in a thread in a long time in NSF. Two people are going to PAY SpaceX for a trip around the Moon!
"Waah! It's shouldn't be rich people! It should be someone from Category X that I like better and paid for by someone else!" "Waah! They can't do it without a professional astronaut!" Waah! They're just tourists!" "Waah! It's too dangerous! Let's sneer at it and maybe it'll go away!"
I wonder if the same thing happened on, say, oceanographic forums condemning Cameron for going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench as a TOURIST? Probably did, if the same kind of people are on there. Or let's pile on anyone who pays a bunch of money to jump out of a balloon in the Stratosphere: "Waah! That should only be done by professional test pilots!".
What is the matter here? It's their money, not yours. Someone is helping push BEO flight along and some of you are acting like they are killing babies or something.
I'd go in a heartbeat. Crowdfunding, anybody?
Bravo!
All this fussing. Let's apply "Dog Rules" as in "Why does a dog lick his..... parts? Because he can."
Once Falcon Heavy is demonstrated, and SpaceX is ready, or has flow, a passenger mission (The term "crewed" is so clumsy.) to the ISS, there isn't that much else required for a Zond/Apollo 13 circumlunar mission.
A couple of wealthy and adventurous people talking to Space Adventures approach SpaceX with enough money to make it worthwhile. (2*${50+?}M?). What is Musk going to say? No?
He informs NASA. (I know second hand that the mission plan was know a week ahead of time.) NASA puts on a show of their own. Lots of people there and their supporters aren't happy. (They won't be happy when China gets to the Moon while we are still doing PowerPoints about our #JourneyToMars, but they will face that when it comes.) Everyone draws smiley faces.
People scoff at SpaceX's schedule. It slips. Endless debates ensue about what to call the "fliers". They debate if circumlunar is reall BEO or just BLEO. People post "better" mission designs. People assume that SpaceX is careless, or hasn't thought of obvious issues. They want their preferred type of people to fly, preferably a random choice where they have P=10^-7 chance to go instead of zero. Cry me a river.
Other talk about EVAs and SEVAs and telescopes and surface probes, lunar satellites, companion satellites. All way more than what's available and likely. They say the passengers will be bored. That it's a one-off and no one will care after the first. Simonyi went to the ISS TWICE. I personally know people who have been to the summit of Everest multiple times. These experiences are not just for bragging rights. Anything this big is an incomparable adventure and will generate a lineup of applicants, even if it involves sitting in a can for a week.
This is great. It's a flight beyond LEO. It is an adventure and a spectacle. I wish them all well.
Post by: douglas100 on 03/02/2017 03:32 pm
trunk has solar power?
My understanding was that the Dragon Mk2 trunk was a very minimalist affair and that the spacecraft itself was considered to have sufficient battery power for the entire of an ISS crew rotation + margin. If that is still the plan, then this mission will use a non-stock trunk.
Half the trunk will be covered by solar cells.
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--BN3w0lcM--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/v6wr96kznig7na8msfbs.jpg (https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--BN3w0lcM--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/v6wr96kznig7na8msfbs.jpg)
Post by: manoweb on 03/02/2017 03:33 pm
So for this trip, I hope the participants won't have to go through more than a few days of training, and that they won't be forced to conduct lame science experiments on board unless they like to perform the usual tricks with water bubbles etc. I wonder what kind of food they will eat, just freeze dried stuff or they will have some sort of oven to hat up real meals? Will they be allowed to carry any nice bottle (or pouch) of wine to celebrate? Will they have to wear the spacesuit at all times or only for takeoff and landing? What kind of internet bandwidth will they have, and will they bring their own devices (phones, tablets, laptops) or they will have to use the Dragon screens for that? It's funny to think that Dragon would provide wi-fi access. If so, what kind of network will they use? To me these are important questions, and the fact that in the next several months we might have answers, is so exciting.
Post by: manoweb on 03/02/2017 03:42 pm
- will this orbit be just an elliptical Earth Orbit that is big enough that it crosses the Moon's path? Or the Moon plays a fundamental role in the trajectory? (I have seen a drawing of the trajectory that looks like an "8" loop)
- would it be possible to make the mission go back and forth Earth and Moon multiple times (assuming the Astronauts had enough food/water etc) or this option requires a different launch profile? (I think that the Moon orbiting around Earth, so changing relative position, will be a challenge, but I cannot quantify if there might be ways to compensate)
Post by: envy887 on 03/02/2017 03:43 pm
Falcon 9 Block 5 can almost certainly launch Dragon 2 around the Moon if it doesn't need to carry any payload and they are willing to throw the booster away. No need for FH for Dragon test flights.
But this would significantly increase the price tag of the moon cruise, wouldn't it?
It would be a test flight. No people on board. I don't think it would be a great idea, especially if a reuseable FH can get a better test flight; but it's a possible option.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/02/2017 03:46 pm
These are in fact technical questions, not personal considerations:
- will this orbit be just an elliptical Earth Orbit that is big enough that it crosses the Moon's path? Or the Moon plays a fundamental role in the trajectory? (I have seen a drawing of the trajectory that looks like an "8" loop)
- would it be possible to make the mission go back and forth Earth and Moon multiple times (assuming the Astronauts had enough food/water etc) or this option requires a different launch profile? (I think that the Moon orbiting around Earth, so changing relative position, will be a challenge, but I cannot quantify if there might be ways to compensate)
It will probably look like this (Credit: Circumlunar Free Return Trajectory by Robert A. Braeunig (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/free-return.htm)):
(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif)
Edit: Make sure the simulation is properly credited.
Post by: Danderman on 03/02/2017 03:47 pm
That trimmed portion is really, truly not relevant. It can be summarized as: SpaceX found that launching a Falcon Heavy is a bit more complicated than just strapping boosters together, which combined with the lack of reason to prioritize it (few launches, and other priorities) has led to it being pushed back a few years, with unrelated issues (launch failures) being major drivers of the most recent delays.
Let me prequote you from a few years from now:
"SpaceX found that flying beyond Earth orbit" was a bit more complicated than just pushing an object deeper into space".
Note that I am not saying that SpaceX won't do all sorts of great things in the future (fingers crossed), I am saying that this particular announcement is not likely to result in a flown mission anywhere close to 2018, or that the mission as announced is likely to morph into something else as time passes.
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 03/02/2017 03:55 pm
Something I dont understand is what is wrong with skipping off?
Because after skipping off, when you come back down (if you come back down at all) it will be somewhere you did not plan for and there will be no recovery ship. Might even be some nasty place. And you might come in too steep the second time and burn up.
Post by: bad_astra on 03/02/2017 04:09 pm
Yes - an EVA of any kind on a mission such as this is a complete non-starter, a non-issue. And just reiterating for the nth time, for those who didn't see earlier posts - James Cameron absolutely is not involved in any space missions for the forseeable future - he's making 'Avatar' sequels for the next few years.
But a filmaker going up there would definitely be able to recoup some of the cost of the journey, if not recouping it. 10 days of weightless flight, close shots of the moon. The public interest. It would add up.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/02/2017 04:11 pm
Didn't Musk already say this would be the first Dragon to go beyond LEO?
Does anyone have a source for this? I'd be very nervous about sending people - especially paying customers - beyond LEO if SpaceX hasn't done it before. Surely they have to test beyond LEO that their navigation, tracking, comms, maybe radiation effects etc are all ok first?
Edit: typo
Post by: bad_astra on 03/02/2017 04:16 pm
Post by: Kansan52 on 03/02/2017 04:24 pm
Post by: Danderman on 03/02/2017 04:25 pm
I'm honestly very surprised at the level of risk-aversion and negativity to this idea.
The idea of sending tourists beyond LEO on a very early FH mission is not wise.
First off, sending anyone with no prior spaceflight experience on a prolonged mission where there is no possibility of early return is perilous. If the crew were all experienced, that would be "safer".
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
Third, FH with its 27 engines needs to be fully tested before putting crew on it, and ultimately tourists.
One mitigation approach that I happen to really like (for obvious reasons) is to fly a tourist mission to ISS, and then have the Dragon rendezvous and dock with an upper stage orbited by a FH. The additional performance from this approach may allow the Dragon to contain enough prop to enter and leave lunar orbit.
Post by: Negan on 03/02/2017 04:41 pm
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 03/02/2017 04:45 pm
If someone wants to do it, I don't see why NASA or FAA or even SpaceX would prevent them. If I had the money I would go the the Moon, or better yet a Red Dragon or Mars 500. You can be bored and uncomfortable or dead on Earth or in Space.
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/02/2017 04:46 pm
I'm honestly very surprised at the level of risk-aversion and negativity to this idea.
I have no problem with the risk, worst case scenario we lose a couple of nonessential billionaires. SpaceX would most likely weather the storm. Negativity is relative, more like dismay at turning a tool in to a toy.
Matthew
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/02/2017 04:46 pm
I'm honestly very surprised at the level of risk-aversion and negativity to this idea.
The idea of sending tourists beyond LEO on a very early FH mission is not wise.
First off, sending anyone with no prior spaceflight experience on a prolonged mission where there is no possibility of early return is perilous. If the crew were all experienced, that would be "safer".
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
Third, FH with its 27 engines needs to be fully tested before putting crew on it, and ultimately tourists.
One mitigation approach that I happen to really like (for obvious reasons) is to fly a tourist mission to ISS, and then have the Dragon rendezvous and dock with an upper stage orbited by a FH. The additional performance from this approach may allow the Dragon to contain enough prop to enter and leave lunar orbit.
I agree with your 3 points, however, I don't believe the late 2018 schedule.
I think the 3 points will be addressed to a reasonable level before the flight actually happens.
Post by: Negan on 03/02/2017 04:48 pm
The biggest risk IMO is the ECLSS failing or being inefficient for the task.
How many days did commercial crew spec for the ECLSS? Hard to believe that it would be the absolute minimum.
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/02/2017 04:49 pm
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
Short answer would be experience, more exhausting engineering, design and testing.
There is a reason why most things from NASA work the first time and cost a ton.
Post by: manoweb on 03/02/2017 04:52 pm
It will probably look like this:
(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif)
wonderful. Could you explain the graphic? Does each step of the animation represent a constant time? If so, how much? The lunar fly by will be extremely quick compared to the whole trip, I knew that, but I did not know it would be *that* small, just 3-4 hours maybe?
What program did you use for that, do you have the source code? Thank you
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 04:52 pm
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
Abort modes.
Can't do that after TLI.
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 03/02/2017 04:54 pm
The biggest risk IMO is the ECLSS failing or being inefficient for the task.
How many days did commercial crew spec for the ECLSS? Hard to believe that it would be the absolute minimum.
I heard it was originally 7 humans for 2 weeks, and be on station unmanned for two years (lifeboat). But that is the safety of LEO. We all know Gremlins live in space.
Now we do know for sure that 4 humans and cargo is the Norm for Crew Dragon. Not sure about toilet though, or any ECLSS backups.
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 04:57 pm
So you don't like the Mars plan since it is too far-reaching, and you don't like this plan since it is too near sighted.I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....
If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!
But there is context. This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi.
I don't like their Mars plans either. They're focued on colinization which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program. We're on about step three.
Hard man to please.
What is it that you want them to aim at?
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
Post by: Danderman on 03/02/2017 04:59 pm
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
What NASA is planning to do is a topic for another thread. Remember, it is the same NASA that put live crew on the first shuttle.
Post by: DaveJ576 on 03/02/2017 05:00 pm
Wow. I can't remember hearing so much whining in a thread in a long time in NSF. Two people are going to PAY SpaceX for a trip around the Moon!Unfortunately, NSF will only allow me to "Like" this once!
"Waah! It's shouldn't be rich people! It should be someone from Category X that I like better and paid for by someone else!" "Waah! They can't do it without a professional astronaut!" Waah! They're just tourists!" "Waah! It's too dangerous! Let's sneer at it and maybe it'll go away!"
I wonder if the same thing happened on, say, oceanographic forums condemning Cameron for going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench as a TOURIST? Probably did, if the same kind of people are on there. Or let's pile on anyone who pays a bunch of money to jump out of a balloon in the Stratosphere: "Waah! That should only be done by professional test pilots!".
What is the matter here? It's their money, not yours. Someone is helping push BEO flight along and some of you are acting like they are killing babies or something.
I'd go in a heartbeat. Crowdfunding, anybody?
For pity's sake, have we all become so inured to the concept that NASA is the end-all and be-all of human spaceflight that we have forgotten that this is a PRIVATE venture? Repeat this as often as necessary: "SpaceX isn't NASA!" SpaceX can do whatever they want with whoever they want as long as they are using PRIVATE money and they don't endanger the public. My hat is off to them for having the vision, resources, and most importantly the WILL to make us a multi-planet species, three qualities that politics and a fickle public will prevent NASA from having anytime in the near future. Go for it SpaceX! I hope it goes well, but I will still support you if it doesn't.
Post by: RonM on 03/02/2017 05:04 pm
So you don't like the Mars plan since it is too far-reaching, and you don't like this plan since it is too near sighted.I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....
If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!
But there is context. This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi.
I don't like their Mars plans either. They're focued on colinization which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program. We're on about step three.
Hard man to please.
What is it that you want them to aim at?
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
Reasonable, but you're stuck with government funded missions and we've seen over the decades that it's not a priority. Commercial space activity has to make a profit somewhere or be a nonprofit funded by billionaires. So, to get anywhere in space these days will require tourists and billionaire pet projects. Maybe mining one day to support colonies.
Post by: Negan on 03/02/2017 05:05 pm
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
What NASA is planning to do is a topic for another thread. Remember, it is the same NASA that put live crew on the first shuttle.
Who do you think the FAA is going to look to for guidance on this?
Post by: philw1776 on 03/02/2017 05:06 pm
How close does the capsule get to the Moon surface on a free-return trajectory?
Wouldn't it be awesome to have a ball of cameras follow the capsule about 50 feet farther back and away from the Moon, such that the capsule appeared a few degrees below the Moon horizon at perigee? Relay the entire spherical stream back to Earth, and folks can watch it with a VR headset. It'd feel like you were doing an EVA, during a close approach to the Moon, with something of human scale in the scene for perspective. Ideally there would be a window on the capsule through which we could see some portion of a person, moving around in there. The immersive feel of VR is a very good application for this.
That moment when the Earth rises over the horizon of the Moon will be perfect. If the Earth's face is well lit, then the spacecraft will be as well.
I like the idea. My thoughts were send a drone in the trunk and let the crew operate it.
Probably not gonna happen as SpaceX would have concerns that accidentally crashing the drone into a draco thruster or worst of all a communications antenna could lead to loss of crew.
Post by: Negan on 03/02/2017 05:09 pm
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
Short answer would be experience, more exhausting engineering, design and testing.
There is a reason why most things from NASA work the first time and cost a ton.
So in this case SpaceX and the people who are going are just capitalizing on the great oversight job NASA has done on commercial crew.
Post by: meekGee on 03/02/2017 05:15 pm
The problem is that most things worked the first time for SpaceX too.Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
Short answer would be experience, more exhausting engineering, design and testing.
There is a reason why most things from NASA work the first time and cost a ton.
They broke later. Much like has happened with NASA hardware (and pretty much everyone else)
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/02/2017 05:16 pm
We should all keep in mind though that the two individuals that are paying for this trip would know the story of Apollo 13, and would be aware that there would be no equal level of potential support (i.e. no lunar module for instance as a refuge) in case something went wrong. They are going into this with their eyes wide open.
So are they expecting a true tourist flight, where everything has been proven? No.
These individuals, whoever they are, are willing to take substantial risks in order to do something that will go down in the history books - either because they were a success, or a failure.
SpaceX knows this too. It's a risk for them, especially since even though this effort is not related to what they plan to do regarding Mars, it will be connected in the mind of the public.
So really the question should be whether we should be encouraging and supporting assumed risk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_risk)? There are many sports we enjoy where the likelihood of death and injury is part of the "excitement", so how is this any different? It's not. It's just new, and in a new realm that previously was reserved for governments and science.
If the goal is to expand humanity out into space, and I would argue that is the only reason to have a government human spaceflight program, then this type of activity is important. Does it check all the boxes for all the activities everyone wants? No, but then again we're not paying for it - private citizens are.
And isn't that the real reason we should be cheering for this to succeed?
My $0.02
Post by: meekGee on 03/02/2017 05:19 pm
What is more interplanetary than ITS?So you don't like the Mars plan since it is too far-reaching, and you don't like this plan since it is too near sighted.I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....
If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!
But there is context. This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi.
I don't like their Mars plans either. They're focued on colinization which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program. We're on about step three.
Hard man to please.
What is it that you want them to aim at?
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
Do you really think it'll only fly to Mars?
No 6-month trips to NEOs? That's something NASA should be doing - using ITS for exactly what you want.
But ITS will only come into being in the context of a Mars colonization plan. It sure as hell didn't come into being as an evolution of planetary probes or ISS LEO flights.
Post by: jimvela on 03/02/2017 05:21 pm
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
This isn't a zero-sum game, despite what some people assert.
Having paying customers fund development accelerates everything, which can be an enabler for more exploration and science.
In the not too terribly distant past, I was on vacation at my houseboat at lake Powell. We came across a lady walking along the docks gossiping on an early iridium phone. One of my good friends and colleagues was utterly disgusted with this. His initial reaction was complete horror- how could someone "misuse" something as grand as a satellite network for something as repugnant (to him) as gossip?
The answer shocked him- "That's what we build this stuff for- so everyone that can afford it uses it, letting us have more capability to do those things that *you* want to do."
Keep the faith, bud- there's room in this game to do science, exploration, and any matter of goofing off. This isn't a bad thing, its a really, really good next step.
Post by: mme on 03/02/2017 05:23 pm
SpaceX stated:I'm honestly very surprised at the level of risk-aversion and negativity to this idea.
The idea of sending tourists beyond LEO on a very early FH mission is not wise.
First off, sending anyone with no prior spaceflight experience on a prolonged mission where there is no possibility of early return is perilous. If the crew were all experienced, that would be "safer".
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
Third, FH with its 27 engines needs to be fully tested before putting crew on it, and ultimately tourists.
One mitigation approach that I happen to really like (for obvious reasons) is to fly a tourist mission to ISS, and then have the Dragon rendezvous and dock with an upper stage orbited by a FH. The additional performance from this approach may allow the Dragon to contain enough prop to enter and leave lunar orbit.
Quote
Once operational Crew Dragon missions are underway for NASA, SpaceX will launch the private mission on a journey to circumnavigate the moon and return to Earth.
This mission is gated by operational crew missions to the ISS. So the Dragon 2 will have had an in flight abort and at least 3 orbital flights at that point, two of those with crew. You can argue it will lack BEO experience if you assume that the crewed cislunar flight is the first time Dragon is sent cislunar. But I think it's hard to argue the Dragon 2 will be untested at that time.
Post by: Proponent on 03/02/2017 05:23 pm
For the most part, I'm going on this article (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/02/27/spacex-transport-private-parties-around-moon/98472346/) in Florida Today:
* Launch from LC-39A (obviously);
* 2 people;
* 300,000-400,000 miles, i.e., 480,000-640,000 km (presumably, distance from Earth);
* Those aboard will travel "will travel faster and farther into the solar system than any before them";
* Week-long trip;
* Not a one-time thing
To aid in speculation about flight paths, I attach a figure from the paper attached to this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31487.msg1043318#msg1043318), which shows flight times as a function of periselenum radius (recall that that moon's equatorial radius is about 1738 km) for in-plane free-return trajectories. I'm sure it's the circum-lunar curve for co-rotating injection (SpaceX can't launch West from LC-39A!) that applies: the "cis-lunar" trajectories are those that pass in front of the moon rather than behind it, even though their apogees lie beyond the moon's orbit.
Post by: DnA915 on 03/02/2017 05:28 pm
Do the buyers of this trip get to keep the Dragon 2 that they fly in? I can't tell you how amazing it would be to me to have a Dragon capsule in my Great room. When people come over I can casually mention that "Oh yeah, the wife and I flew around the moon on that last year"
Post by: jpo234 on 03/02/2017 05:31 pm
It will probably look like this:
(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif)
wonderful. Could you explain the graphic? Does each step of the animation represent a constant time? If so, how much? The lunar fly by will be extremely quick compared to the whole trip, I knew that, but I did not know it would be *that* small, just 3-4 hours maybe?
What program did you use for that, do you have the source code? Thank you
Sorry, I can't take credit for this. It's from Circumlunar Free Return Trajectory (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/free-return.htm) by Robert A. Braeunig . I will modify the original post to make sure that this is correctly credited.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/02/2017 05:41 pm
It will probably look like this:
(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif)
wonderful. Could you explain the graphic? Does each step of the animation represent a constant time? If so, how much? The lunar fly by will be extremely quick compared to the whole trip, I knew that, but I did not know it would be *that* small, just 3-4 hours maybe?
What program did you use for that, do you have the source code? Thank you
Sorry, I can't take credit for this. It's from Circumlunar Free Return Trajectory (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/free-return.htm) by Robert A. Braeunig . I will modify the original post to make sure that this is correctly credited.
The only thing the animation is missing is probable couple of LEO orbits before TLI to check out equipment.
Post by: virnin on 03/02/2017 05:42 pm
Sorry, can't support your crowd funding for your trip around the Moon. Still working on getting mine started!
Pretty sure PowerBall is my only option! And no, that is NOT my retirement plan too. ;)
Post by: bad_astra on 03/02/2017 05:49 pm
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
What NASA is planning to do is a topic for another thread. Remember, it is the same NASA that put live crew on the first shuttle.
And it worked. And NASA got things done, back then.
The problem with spaceflight is not that we run the risk of losing lives. This sounds crass but we should have lost MANY more by now.
Dragon 2 will have had a test flight by then. So will Falcon Heavy. The life support for this mission need be no more complicated than a minisub with extra fans. We're talking about two people in a capsule built for 7.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/02/2017 05:49 pm
It will probably look like this:
(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif)
wonderful. Could you explain the graphic? Does each step of the animation represent a constant time? If so, how much? The lunar fly by will be extremely quick compared to the whole trip, I knew that, but I did not know it would be *that* small, just 3-4 hours maybe?
What program did you use for that, do you have the source code? Thank you
Sorry, I can't take credit for this. It's from Circumlunar Free Return Trajectory (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/free-return.htm) by Robert A. Braeunig . I will modify the original post to make sure that this is correctly credited.
The only thing the animation is missing is probable couple of LEO orbits before TLI to check out equipment.
Quote from: Robert A. Braeunig
Translunar Injection, or TLI, is a propulsive maneuver used to set a spacecraft on a trajectory that will arrive at the Moon. Prior to TLI the spacecraft is in a low circular parking orbit around Earth. In this example, we have assumed a parking orbit altitude of 185 kilometers and a TLI delta-v of 3,150 m/s.
So, the LEO orbits are there, just not part of the simulation.
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 05:53 pm
What is more interplanetary than ITS?
What I described in the link posted upthread.
Quote
Do you really think it'll only fly to Mars?
I really think it won't fly at all. At least, not in any configuration even remotely like the video they provided.
Post by: philw1776 on 03/02/2017 05:53 pm
So you don't like the Mars plan since it is too far-reaching, and you don't like this plan since it is too near sighted.I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....
If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!
But there is context. This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi.
I don't like their Mars plans either. They're focued on colinization which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program. We're on about step three.
Hard man to please.
What is it that you want them to aim at?
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
Your goals are congruent with much of what NASA aims for and does and ESA. They're doing well from my view.
If that does not suffice "Be Like Musk" and start your own spaceflight company embracing your goals.
Musk is spending his daily life and personal wealth to achieve his dream, not yours.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/02/2017 06:02 pm
Post by: manoweb on 03/02/2017 06:06 pm
Sorry, I can't take credit for this.
Oh wait I was not asking about credits, just if you had a model that was possible to tweak. However the page you linked specifies each time slot is four hours. So it seems correct to think the lunar fly by will only last about 4 hours, taking only one slot of the total 38 that I counted in the animation (for a total of around 6 days)
Post by: meberbs on 03/02/2017 06:11 pm
For Falcon Heavy they had to increase structural strength for the core, and build a pad capable of supporting it.
That trimmed portion is really, truly not relevant. It can be summarized as: SpaceX found that launching a Falcon Heavy is a bit more complicated than just strapping boosters together, which combined with the lack of reason to prioritize it (few launches, and other priorities) has led to it being pushed back a few years, with unrelated issues (launch failures) being major drivers of the most recent delays.
Let me prequote you from a few years from now:
"SpaceX found that flying beyond Earth orbit" was a bit more complicated than just pushing an object deeper into space".
Note that I am not saying that SpaceX won't do all sorts of great things in the future (fingers crossed), I am saying that this particular announcement is not likely to result in a flown mission anywhere close to 2018, or that the mission as announced is likely to morph into something else as time passes.
To send a spacecraft to the moon that was originally designed with BEO in mind, after said spacecraft has been tested in LEO they will have to....? without an explanation, you are just handwaving and spreading FUD.
Also, I don't think you understand how your post sounds to me (and presumably others), so let me paraphrase you:
Let me prequote you 2 and a half years from now: "They were six months late, how dare anyone consider this a success. This proves they can't do anything right"
Or preferably within a few posts from now: "I'm sorry for being rude, I'll stop spreading FUD now. Here is a timeline of probable events that shows how I think this mission will be delayed until (insert reasoned date, or an explanation of what this mission could morph to)."
Edit: 1 and a half -> 2 and a half, because I can't do simple math
Post by: dror on 03/02/2017 06:12 pm
Put Dragon under a fairing on FH and get two tests for the price of one...
Dragon in a fairing is not a good idea. Too much one off work would have to be done
Post by: jcliving on 03/02/2017 06:48 pm
I'm honestly very surprised at the level of risk-aversion and negativity to this idea.
I have no problem with the risk, worst case scenario we lose a couple of nonessential billionaires. SpaceX would most likely weather the storm. Negativity is relative, more like dismay at turning a tool in to a toy.
Matthew
I agree with you. The same billionaires could die free climbing a vertices face. Climbing without a rope is dangerous. As long as the customers truly understand the risk, I am fine with anything that happens. People need to stop being a nanny to consenting adults!!
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/02/2017 06:52 pm
Thanks, I was playing "catch-up" and must have missed Jim's comment...Put Dragon under a fairing on FH and get two tests for the price of one...Dragon in a fairing is not a good idea. Too much one off work would have to be done
Post by: jcliving on 03/02/2017 06:54 pm
So you don't like the Mars plan since it is too far-reaching, and you don't like this plan since it is too near sighted.I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....
If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!
But there is context. This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi.
I don't like their Mars plans either. They're focued on colinization which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program. We're on about step three.
Hard man to please.
What is it that you want them to aim at?
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
The problem is that only governments and very affluent companies can fund true science without a commercial return. Tourism can be funded by the public. Currently, it is limited to very affluent members of the public. This mission will fund progress toward Red Dragon and other scientific mission accelerating projects. Since it is not government funded, it is not an either or proposition. You should be cheering them on with a silly grin on your face.
Post by: envy887 on 03/02/2017 07:04 pm
Thanks, I was playing "catch-up" and must have missed Jim's comment...Put Dragon under a fairing on FH and get two tests for the price of one...Dragon in a fairing is not a good idea. Too much one off work would have to be done
Also, Dragon on FH goes through a different acceleration profile and atmospheric environment than it does on F9. They wouldn't be testing a real launch if it's in a fairing.
Post by: manoweb on 03/02/2017 07:07 pm
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/836781408823742464 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/836781408823742464)
Informed speculation as to who one of @ElonMusk's passengers *might* be on @SpaceX moon trip: investor Steve Jurvetson @dfjsteve
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 07:10 pm
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
The problem is that only governments and very affluent companies can fund true science without a commercial return.
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Quote
Tourism can be funded by the public. Currently, it is limited to very affluent members of the public. This mission will fund progress toward Red Dragon and other scientific mission accelerating projects.
I don't see this getting applied to any scientific missions.
Quote
Since it is not government funded, it is not an either or proposition.
Unfortunately, I think you're wrong. Look at the first couple of pages of discussion on this thread for evidence that you're wrong.
Quote
You should be cheering them on with a silly grin on your face.
I'll watch the mission, but this sort of thing benefits a very small number of people, and only for a short time.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/02/2017 07:11 pm
Having another customer for Dragon 2 besides CC is very important as a business.
It can fund you over a "hump" in your finances. It makes you less dependent on your sole customer that you had before. It inspires new customers to join the ranks, because the second one is there, and its NOT a government customer. You're then not as much "under their thumb".
Also, funding for CRS/CC has always been under constant attack from those who say that there will never be a true HSF or commercial market, that its all a shell to "steal" funding away from govt HSF primes.
This move potentially reverses the argument. And even if it succeeds, certain ones like Shelby will still maintain that its insufficient as an alternative for a host of reasons, so it will take a while for this "alternative fact" to go away.
add:
I think we'll see a handful of American tourists. Then perhaps a few govt "missions". Then about two dozen foriegn nationals wanting to be the first of their nationality beyond the moon - about 1/3rd of them from China.
Post by: as58 on 03/02/2017 07:18 pm
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
The problem is that only governments and very affluent companies can fund true science without a commercial return.
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Can you clarify what "this" is?
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 07:20 pm
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
The problem is that only governments and very affluent companies can fund true science without a commercial return.
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Can you clarify what "this" is?
The next steps - all the steps that are between what we are doing now, and colonization of another planet. There's probably a century or more of that - if we try. And we aren't. And neither is SpaceX.
Post by: Danderman on 03/02/2017 07:20 pm
I agree. There is a place where tourists could go in the near future, called "LEO". There is probably enough LEO tourism market to support SpaceX for a long time to come.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/02/2017 07:31 pm
"Having another customer for Dragon 2 besides CC is very important as a business."Agree.
I agree. There is a place where tourists could go in the near future, called "LEO". There is probably enough LEO tourism market to support SpaceX for a long time to come.
However, and trust me on this, they are quite different categories of "customers", and the impact of this difference cannot be understated.
It puts certain countries into a bind. Like again take China - there are 4 I *personally know* that will easily do it, but the Chinese govt would want to have Chinese taikonauts on Chinese vehicles do it first.
Do you understand the strange situation this puts them into? And there are five other cases from other nationalities ... like this.
Post by: Surfdaddy on 03/02/2017 07:35 pm
But SpaceX is quite vulnerable to
a) NASA funding and congressional and administration whims; and
b) FUD and politicking from other entrenched interests.
Perhaps the tougher part of the Mars colonization is not even technological, it is funding.
You don't want to count on NASA for all of that.
Elon is wise to find various ways to diversify the funding model for SpaceX so that if the governmental support evaporates significantly, he can continue his mission at some reasonable pace.
The launching of satellites isn't really "directly" relevant to Mars colonization any more than lunar tourism missions. Yet I'm not seeing complaints that launching satellites is a deviation from their mission.
Bot the satellite launches and the lunar tourism
a) Give additional experience and knowledge to SpaceX; and
b) Offer diversity of funding to their eventual goals.
That's why those who want science and interplanetary travel to be done, instead, should not be unhappy. In this context, this "tourist" exercise is *completely consistent* with SpaceX's goal of Mars colonization.
Post by: Negan on 03/02/2017 07:35 pm
Does anyone see any value in this tweet by @nasawatch:
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/836781408823742464 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/836781408823742464)
Informed speculation as to who one of @ElonMusk's passengers *might* be on @SpaceX moon trip: investor Steve Jurvetson @dfjsteve
Pretty good resume for some joy seeking tourist without a clue.
Post by: Lars-J on 03/02/2017 07:37 pm
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Can you clarify what "this" is?
The next steps - all the steps that are between what we are doing now, and colonization of another planet. There's probably a century or more of that - if we try. And we aren't. And neither is SpaceX.
Uh-huh. ::) I'm glad you can speak so authoritatively on their steps. So it all boils down to dismissing other ideas just because they don't follow your master plan?
Of course their colonization plan is wildly optimistic and ambitious. But... even if it fails, we will learn a lot. Lots of "steps" will be explored. And without any tax dollars being spent on it (so far), that's a good return on investment for humanity no matter the outcome. If it is a failure, the pieces of that failure will be a leap forward that would otherwise not have happened.
Try seeing the glass as half full instead. ITS and New Glenn would allow someone to build that slightly movable research space station of yours in years/months instead of decades.
Post by: envy887 on 03/02/2017 07:40 pm
Does anyone see any value in this tweet by @nasawatch:
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/836781408823742464 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/836781408823742464)
Informed speculation as to who one of @ElonMusk's passengers *might* be on @SpaceX moon trip: investor Steve Jurvetson @dfjsteve
Pretty good resume for some joy seeking tourist without a clue.
That's fairly safe speculation. From 2012:
Quote
Jurvetson, a board member of both SpaceX and Tesla, talked about why he invested in Musk's companies when the entrepreneur was out of money and the rest of the world thought Musk was crazy.
The answer: Jurvetson wants to fly to the moon.
http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jurvetson-spacex-elon-musk-2012-9
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 07:49 pm
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Can you clarify what "this" is?
The next steps - all the steps that are between what we are doing now, and colonization of another planet. There's probably a century or more of that - if we try. And we aren't. And neither is SpaceX.
Uh-huh. ::) I'm glad you can speak so authoritatively on their steps. So it all boils down to dismissing other ideas just because they don't follow your master plan?
Of course their colonization plan is wildly optimistic and ambitious. But... even if it fails, we will learn a lot.
And waste a lot of time, and possibly kill a lot of people, and possibly put a black eye on space exploration for decades.
Quote
Lots of "steps" will be explored. And without any tax dollars being spent on it (so far), that's a good return on investment for humanity no matter the outcome. If it is a failure, the pieces of that failure will be a leap forward that would otherwise not have happened.
Try seeing the glass as half full instead. ITS and New Glenn would allow someone to build that slightly movable research space station of yours in years/months instead of decades.
That slightly moveable station was supposed to go to Mars. And seven SLS launches need not take any longer than 7 STS launches.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/02/2017 07:54 pm
Agree that it's unfortunate that government isn't acting as government should.Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
The problem is that only governments and very affluent companies can fund true science without a commercial return.
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Can you clarify what "this" is?
The next steps - all the steps that are between what we are doing now, and colonization of another planet. There's probably a century or more of that - if we try. And we aren't. And neither is SpaceX.
However, there are many who vote who appear to not want to pay for HSF at any price.
Suggest that this will force a reconsideration. Because they'll have to decide soon, who does exploration and why?
Which countries and indivduals and credits get awards for doing so.
I've watched Emirates Mars/"HOPE" Mission come into existence as a US university lab got approached by a foreign govt to design, instrument and manage a mission - as a means to "jump start" a country into space.
Uh-huh. ::) I'm glad you can speak so authoritatively on their steps. So it all boils down to dismissing other ideas just because they don't follow your master plan?
Of course their colonization plan is wildly optimistic and ambitious. But... even if it fails, we will learn a lot. Lots of "steps" will be explored. And without any tax dollars being spent on it (so far), that's a good return on investment for humanity no matter the outcome. If it is a failure, the pieces of that failure will be a leap forward that would otherwise not have happened.
Try seeing the glass as half full instead. ITS and New Glenn would allow someone to build that slightly movable research space station of yours in years/months instead of decades.
And the role for govt in doing it will shift. What many fear is a complete and utter "back out" that will cause a massive RIF. A not unreasonable conclusion with some of what I've heard.
But that's because we have spent too long not reconciling govt role, that it may face such a sudden change.
We can't blithely build intentionally overexpensive vehicles as "jobs programs" to force markets like space from happening forever. There's got to be a middle ground, we just might take the long way round the barn ... to get there.
The road we were on with an infrequently flown Orion/SLS did not lead to a safe situation either.Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Can you clarify what "this" is?
The next steps - all the steps that are between what we are doing now, and colonization of another planet. There's probably a century or more of that - if we try. And we aren't. And neither is SpaceX.
Uh-huh. ::) I'm glad you can speak so authoritatively on their steps. So it all boils down to dismissing other ideas just because they don't follow your master plan?
Of course their colonization plan is wildly optimistic and ambitious. But... even if it fails, we will learn a lot.
And waste a lot of time, and possibly kill a lot of people, and possibly put a black eye on space exploration for decades.
Quote
After you spend the 2-5 years changing the logistics to allow it...QuoteLots of "steps" will be explored. And without any tax dollars being spent on it (so far), that's a good return on investment for humanity no matter the outcome. If it is a failure, the pieces of that failure will be a leap forward that would otherwise not have happened.
Try seeing the glass as half full instead. ITS and New Glenn would allow someone to build that slightly movable research space station of yours in years/months instead of decades.
That slightly moveable station was supposed to go to Mars. And seven SLS launches need not take any longer than 7 STS launches.
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/02/2017 08:01 pm
Ill take this bet! SpaceX will send people at least to lunar distance by the end of 2020. Deal?
That trimmed portion is really, truly not relevant. It can be summarized as: SpaceX found that launching a Falcon Heavy is a bit more complicated than just strapping boosters together, which combined with the lack of reason to prioritize it (few launches, and other priorities) has led to it being pushed back a few years, with unrelated issues (launch failures) being major drivers of the most recent delays.
Let me prequote you from a few years from now:
"SpaceX found that flying beyond Earth orbit" was a bit more complicated than just pushing an object deeper into space".
Note that I am not saying that SpaceX won't do all sorts of great things in the future (fingers crossed), I am saying that this particular announcement is not likely to result in a flown mission anywhere close to 2018, or that the mission as announced is likely to morph into something else as time passes.
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/02/2017 08:02 pm
It's very much in the natural order of things: For example,You should be cheering them on with a silly grin on your face.I'll watch the mission, but this sort of thing benefits a very small number of people, and only for a short time.
Amundsen reached the South Pole as a one-off stunt, just for a day or so, in 1911 (think Apollo).
Byrd flew over (but did not stop) at the South Pole in 1929. This is like the SpaceX mission - no stopping, unlike the mission before, but using newer technology. He took a photographer along, basically the same as a tourist with no responsibility for operating the plane. None of them spent years training for arctic traverses by sled, as had been needed before.
By 1956, existing commercial technology and understanding had improved enough to allow more-or-less stock planes to stop at the South Pole. Now people could (and did) start a crewed base, which remains a crewed research station to this day.
So basically (a) first you do it as an (expensive) stunt, then (b) you can at least get there by commercial means, then (c) commercial means get good enough to establish a base. We are now at step (b), which we were not a week ago.
Post by: Danderman on 03/02/2017 08:04 pm
Ill take this bet! SpaceX will send people at least to lunar distance by the end of 2020. Deal?
2020 is much more likely than 2018.
Also "people" <> "tourists".
Post by: feynmanrules on 03/02/2017 08:07 pm
So you don't like the Mars plan since it is too far-reaching, and you don't like this plan since it is too near sighted.
Hard man to please.
What is it that you want them to aim at?
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
Cash Flow + Growth = More investment.
Exploration is great and we're doing that... we could do more certainly but when an investment returns immediate cash it will automatically get more. The speed and size of cash return mass is what improves tech and drives down costs. This is 100% the reason spacex is a for-profit company, to maximize this investment today.
Tourism starts with the wealthiest, tell their friends who are slightly-less wealthy... drives up demand which you convert to deposits, which de-risks more investment. Rinse repeat.
Parallel example... I'm not a huge fan of snapchat, facebook or even broadcast.com... but their existence sped up a lot of other good things. There's plenty of evidence showing which works faster and it's not close... not always better, but much better on average and ain't close either.
Maybe you're saying that larry page or steve jurvetson is not your Zefram Cochrane? Or you're just seeing one side of capitalism while you check your email and use your indoor plumbing. In either case not understanding the sadness.
to get back on topic, even if you're gung-ho for pure science and exploration missions... NASA and spacex are collaborating and sharing data on many of these missions (again to accelerate each others progress). How is it possibly bad if NASA gets even a small fraction of data from spacex cislunar or mars missions? that's expensive knowledge which can be 100% used for science obtained at tiny cost to NASA.
my .02 but I don't see a lot of reasons to be anything but optimistic here.
Post by: mme on 03/02/2017 08:08 pm
Quote
We are excited to announce that SpaceX has been approached to fly two private citizens on a trip around the moon late next year. They have already paid a significant deposit to do a moon mission.
Quote
Once operational Crew Dragon missions are underway for NASA, SpaceX will launch the private mission on a journey to circumnavigate the moon and return to Earth.
My understanding from reporting on the call is that they paid a lot of money for this mission, not bargain basement prices. I'm really struggling with all the hand wringing over SpaceX securing another funding source to finish the Dragon 2 capsule. We want less expensive HSF, right? So tell me again how people throwing money at SpaceX for HSF is a bad thing and not the next logical step? Especially since we have no idea what NASA's priorities will be moving forward.
As for IST being a silly pipe dream, I've been hearing that about SpaceX every single step along the way. They'll never get to orbit. They'll never get a 9 engine rocket to work. They'll never deliver cargo. They'll never make a dent in the GTO market. They'll never recover a booster. We're a month away from resolving the "they'll never re-fly a booster..."
IST may be unlikely, but I'd bet on it flying before relying on any President and Congress [1] funding a realistic plan to get to Mars at even the boots and flags level. And good luck with any next administration embracing any previous administration's grand vision. Welcome to the new Victorian era where gentlemen-engineer billionaires are our best hope at a sustainable presence in space...
[1] This is NOT a commentary on Trump, Obama, Shelby or any specific politician. It is the nature of 4 year election cycles, budgets and a highly contentious 2 party system.
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/02/2017 08:21 pm
The Soviets did this with Zond and turtles. The Chinese even did this with a subscale version of their capsule with plants and bacteria as passengers. SpaceX is doing it with billionaires (who might end up doing their own experiments, by the way!).
I think the passengers could survive a ballistic reentry from the Moon, too. 20 gees for less than a minute (i.e. Zond 5 ballistic entry) are survivable if you're sitting in the right position.
I give pretty high probability of mission success. Better than 90%.
Post by: dror on 03/02/2017 08:26 pm
I'm honestly very surprised at the level of risk-aversion and negativity to this idea.
I have no problem with the risk, worst case scenario we lose a couple of nonessential billionaires. SpaceX would most likely weather the storm. Negativity is relative, more like dismay at turning a tool in to a toy.
Matthew
worst case scenario SpaceX does not weather the storm.
The question "Does it worth the risk?" does not relate to the nonessential billionaires.
So, does it worth the risk?
Post by: Kansan52 on 03/02/2017 09:13 pm
For me, it is breaking the shackles that started with Apollo, we can't do something because of the risk. This is about the risk is worth the reward. The reward is going forward; blazing the trail.
If it fails, there will be plenty of people that say 'Told you so'. Success will means we have broken the shackles.
Post by: AC in NC on 03/02/2017 09:45 pm
I have no problem with the risk, worst case scenario we lose a couple of nonessential billionaires. SpaceX would most likely weather the storm. Negativity is relative, more like dismay at turning a tool in to a toy.
Worst case scenario SpaceX does not weather the storm. The question "[Is] it worth the risk?" does not relate to the nonessential billionaires. So, [is] it worth the risk?
SpaceX entire reason for being requires successfully overcoming risks far greater than this one. And loss of life is I believe expected by everyone. The greatest risk (launch) already has the abort mitigation which is believed to have been able to successfully handle AMOS6. When ready to do so, they've got bigger problems if they can't throw some billionaires around the moon without something worse than a successful abort during ascent.
It's a very reasonable shakeout test and paid for to boot at the sole cost of the delta bad-publicity risk from losing civilians or going earlier than they otherwise would.
Post by: AncientU on 03/02/2017 10:07 pm
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
The problem is that only governments and very affluent companies can fund true science without a commercial return.
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Can you clarify what "this" is?
The next steps - all the steps that are between what we are doing now, and colonization of another planet. There's probably a century or more of that - if we try. And we aren't. And neither is SpaceX.
I believe that this (private/public partnership model) is the only ride that NASA will ever be able to afford if it wants to do real exploration (such as a surface search for life on every potential body in the solar system) and colonization. It doesn't have to take a century, either. NASA has had the technical capability to go to Mars, for instance, or build a permanently-inhabited Moon base for a half century -- problem is that the government-only model has proven to NOT WORK. Russia has had the same capability and a dictatorial form of government -- again, doesn't work. ESA, same... China, same, though they are now headed that way.
What this adventure does, is demystify the 'space-is-hard, only governments can do it' aura that vested interests have promoted for self-enrichment/power; it shows that not only test pilots and a handful of other hand-selected individuals who 'have the right stuff' can go into space. Now we can finally (yeah!!!) stop hearing about the World's most powerful rocket, going further into the depths of space than mankind has ever gone before. Going to the Moon is child's play on the scale of what there is to do in space, just as going 3,600 'miles' beyond low Earth orbit is an embarrassing stunt if you've spent $Billions to get there.
You have no basis for saying SpaceX isn't taking those steps... and won't. You (and I) know several other nations who certainly aren't -- that is who you (and I) should rail against.
Post by: Danderman on 03/02/2017 10:14 pm
What this adventure does, is demystify the 'space-is-hard, only governments can do it' aura that vested interests have promoted for self-enrichment/power; it shows that not only test pilots and a handful of other hand-selected individuals who 'have the right stuff' can go into space.
first off, space is hard.
Secondly, SpaceX has plenty of potential to send tourists around the Moon, but it is just plain stupid to expect them to do it in 2018. Let's see Dragon 2 fly to LEO a few times, and see FH fly a few payloads before risking the company on a stunt.
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 10:23 pm
You have no basis for saying SpaceX isn't taking those steps... and won't.
Then why do none of their announcements or promotional materials talk about them?
Post by: AncientU on 03/02/2017 10:24 pm
What this adventure does, is demystify the 'space-is-hard, only governments can do it' aura that vested interests have promoted for self-enrichment/power; it shows that not only test pilots and a handful of other hand-selected individuals who 'have the right stuff' can go into space.
first off, space is hard.
Secondly, SpaceX has plenty of potential to send tourists around the Moon, but it is just plain stupid to expect them to do it in 2018. Let's see Dragon 2 fly to LEO a few times, and see FH fly a few payloads before risking the company on a stunt.
Apparently, it's not as hard as NASA and its controllers make it out to be.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/02/2017 10:25 pm
Good luck in trying to prove a negative.You have no basis for saying SpaceX isn't taking those steps... and won't.
Then why do none of their announcements or promotional materials talk about them?
Post by: QuantumG on 03/02/2017 10:27 pm
Also, anyone mention Space Adventures on this thread yet? I saw some public information on Twitter that fits with what I've heard from them privately for years, so I guess their involvement is official now? Or still not quite?
Post by: AncientU on 03/02/2017 10:28 pm
You have no basis for saying SpaceX isn't taking those steps... and won't.
Then why do none of their announcements or promotional materials talk about them?
The September reveal was this and only this... recall a big-ass carbon composite tank, for instance, or a methlox engine firing, or a mission called Red Dragon?
Steps. (That is what they look like, unlike #JourneytoMars Public Affairs propaganda.)
Privately funded.
Post by: AncientU on 03/02/2017 10:40 pm
SpaceX has been pretty explicit that they're not doing any of the "other stuff" for colonization. They figure if you can get people there the rest will follow.
Also, anyone mention Space Adventures on this thread yet? I saw some public information on Twitter that fits with what I've heard from them privately for years, so I guess their involvement is official now? Or still not quite?
It would make lots of sense for a commercial space tourism company to be the coordinator of such services, just as other companies are consolidating cubesats and small spacecraft for purchased launches. Likewise, Bigelow or someone hired by his company becomes the broker for crew and logistics to his stations.
Model might be optimum, come to think of it...
(Getting people -- and 100+ tonne payloads -- to the surface, that is.)
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 10:47 pm
SpaceX has been pretty explicit that they're not doing any of the "other stuff" for colonization. They figure if you can get people there the rest will follow.
Really? How do they plan to verify that Mars is likely devoid of existing life *after* they've already colonized it, and what would they do about NOT going there in the first place if indigenous life is found there later?
Post by: AncientU on 03/02/2017 10:51 pm
SpaceX has been pretty explicit that they're not doing any of the "other stuff" for colonization. They figure if you can get people there the rest will follow.
Really? How do they plan to verify that Mars is likely devoid of existing life *after* they've already colonized it, and what would they do about NOT going there in the first place if indigenous life is found there later?
This sounds exactly like the discussions that go on in reviews for certain USG projects that I've done... people continually pointing out why things cannot be done (and sending the people actually doing work off on inane scavenger hunts) instead of working to figure out how to pool talents assembled to overcome the obstacles.
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 10:58 pm
SpaceX has been pretty explicit that they're not doing any of the "other stuff" for colonization. They figure if you can get people there the rest will follow.
Really? How do they plan to verify that Mars is likely devoid of existing life *after* they've already colonized it, and what would they do about NOT going there in the first place if indigenous life is found there later?
This sounds exactly like the discussions that go on in reviews for certain USG projects that I've done... people continually pointing out why things cannot be done (and sending the people actually doing work off on inane scavenger hunts) instead of working to figure out how to pool talents assembled to overcome the obstacles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection)
"Planetary protection is a guiding principle in the design of an interplanetary mission, aiming to prevent biological contamination of both the target celestial body and the Earth in the case of sample-return missions. Planetary protection reflects both the unknown nature of the space environment and the desire of the scientific community to preserve the pristine nature of celestial bodies until they can be studied in detail."
So, when is this detailed studying going to be done sufficiently to lift planetary protection guidelines for Mars, who is going to do that studying, how will they do it, and how will we know that what they've done is sufficient?
Post by: AncientU on 03/02/2017 11:01 pm
SpaceX has been pretty explicit that they're not doing any of the "other stuff" for colonization. They figure if you can get people there the rest will follow.
Really? How do they plan to verify that Mars is likely devoid of existing life *after* they've already colonized it, and what would they do about NOT going there in the first place if indigenous life is found there later?
This sounds exactly like the discussions that go on in reviews for certain USG projects that I've done... people continually pointing out why things cannot be done (and sending the people actually doing work off on inane scavenger hunts) instead of working to figure out how to pool talents assembled to overcome the obstacles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection)
"Planetary protection is a guiding principle in the design of an interplanetary mission, aiming to prevent biological contamination of both the target celestial body and the Earth in the case of sample-return missions. Planetary protection reflects both the unknown nature of the space environment and the desire of the scientific community to preserve the pristine nature of celestial bodies until they can be studied in detail."
So, when is this detailed studying going to be done sufficiently to lift planetary protection guidelines for Mars, who is going to do that studying, how will they do it, and how will we know that what they've done is sufficient?
The same way we'll know before Europa lander heads to that Jovian Moon.
(I don't hear NASA stopping Culbertson from funding that mission because of planetary protection*.)
* I personally think that p-p is one of those inane scavenger hunts...
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 03/02/2017 11:58 pm
How do [SpaceX] plan to verify that Mars is likely devoid of existing life *after* they've already colonized it, and what would they do about NOT going there in the first place if indigenous life is found there later?
SpaceX would go to Mars whether or not indigenous life was found there. Quite rightly in my view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection)
"Planetary protection is a guiding principle in the design of an interplanetary mission, aiming to prevent biological contamination of both the target celestial body and the Earth in the case of sample-return missions. Planetary protection reflects both the unknown nature of the space environment and the desire of the scientific community to preserve the pristine nature of celestial bodies until they can be studied in detail."
So, when is this detailed studying going to be done sufficiently to lift planetary protection guidelines for Mars, who is going to do that studying, how will they do it, and how will we know that what they've done is sufficient?
The desires of the scientific community are not the be-all and end-all. Such desires are routinely ignored by the rest of society in all kinds of areas. There are other priorities. NASA's current guidelines (not law, by the way) were developed with only the input of the scientific community. NASA is already aware that the guidelines will need to be changed if manned missions are on the horizon. At such a point other voices will be heard, especially the proponents of such missions. There may well be a row, but my money's on the HSF proponents to come out on top!
Post by: QuantumG on 03/03/2017 12:03 am
Really? How do they plan to verify that Mars is likely devoid of existing life *after* they've already colonized it, and what would they do about NOT going there in the first place if indigenous life is found there later?
I care about people on Mars more than microbes. Marginally.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/03/2017 12:16 am
So, when is this detailed studying going to be done sufficiently to lift planetary protection guidelines for Mars, who is going to do that studying, how will they do it, and how will we know that what they've done is sufficient?
Definitely a bridge to be crossed, and how we do it will set a precedent.
And we already have analogs here on Earth that tell us when isolated species are contaminated with foreign species there can be unanticipated consequences - and some pretty severe.
Being someone from Earth that is looking for a place to make humanity multi-planetary (for those that come after me of course), I'm not as worried about contaminating Mars since it's highly unlikely that higher forms of life currently exist there. What I'm more concerned about is potential life on Mars contaminating Earth.
Post by: philw1776 on 03/03/2017 12:16 am
SpaceX has been pretty explicit that they're not doing any of the "other stuff" for colonization. They figure if you can get people there the rest will follow.
Really? How do they plan to verify that Mars is likely devoid of existing life *after* they've already colonized it, and what would they do about NOT going there in the first place if indigenous life is found there later?
This sounds exactly like the discussions that go on in reviews for certain USG projects that I've done... people continually pointing out why things cannot be done (and sending the people actually doing work off on inane scavenger hunts) instead of working to figure out how to pool talents assembled to overcome the obstacles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection)
"Planetary protection is a guiding principle in the design of an interplanetary mission, aiming to prevent biological contamination of both the target celestial body and the Earth in the case of sample-return missions. Planetary protection reflects both the unknown nature of the space environment and the desire of the scientific community to preserve the pristine nature of celestial bodies until they can be studied in detail."
So, when is this detailed studying going to be done sufficiently to lift planetary protection guidelines for Mars, who is going to do that studying, how will they do it, and how will we know that what they've done is sufficient?
PP is the greatest threat to human expansion. It's a last gasp religious incantation designed to firewall human missions should someone overcome the supposed quantum barriers erected by governmentalists.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2017 12:39 am
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28499.0
Post by: Tuts36 on 03/03/2017 12:45 am
There will come a day when NASA no longer requires cargo to be shipped to the ISS, because the ISS will be judged too old & decrepit to continue operating. SpaceX is wise to explore ALL possible sources of future revenue, even if tourists / stunt missions are considered frivolous in some circles.
Post by: Danderman on 03/03/2017 01:55 am
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/03/2017 02:06 am
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/03/2017 02:09 am
It honestly never even crossed my mind that this group would be against planetary protection. Heck, it was even a major part of Star Trek.If understood by the most extreme position, it makes any crewed mission to the surface of Mars impossible. You really never thought that a bunch of space geeks wouldn't like that?
Post by: jongoff on 03/03/2017 02:09 am
SpaceX has been pretty explicit that they're not doing any of the "other stuff" for colonization. They figure if you can get people there the rest will follow.
Also, anyone mention Space Adventures on this thread yet? I saw some public information on Twitter that fits with what I've heard from them privately for years, so I guess their involvement is official now? Or still not quite?
I have heard rumors, but no solid confirmation. But it does make a lot of sense if they are involved.
~Jon
Post by: Req on 03/03/2017 02:32 am
It honestly never even crossed my mind that this group would be against planetary protection. Heck, it was even a major part of Star Trek.If understood by the most extreme position, it makes any crewed mission to the surface of Mars impossible. You really never thought that a bunch of space geeks wouldn't like that?
Regardless of what any of us may think, you only need to take a look at our track record for respecting the macroscopic life that we know exists right here on Earth for cues as to how we will prioritize the bacteria and whatnot that may or may not exist on Mars once we have the capability to send humans there. We destroy life that hasn't been characterized yet all the time, uncaring as to what scientific breakthroughs it may hold, as a matter of course, for nothing more than to clear land or sell wood.
Post by: maitri982 on 03/03/2017 02:37 am
SpaceX has been pretty explicit that they're not doing any of the "other stuff" for colonization. They figure if you can get people there the rest will follow.
Really? How do they plan to verify that Mars is likely devoid of existing life *after* they've already colonized it, and what would they do about NOT going there in the first place if indigenous life is found there later?
This sounds exactly like the discussions that go on in reviews for certain USG projects that I've done... people continually pointing out why things cannot be done (and sending the people actually doing work off on inane scavenger hunts) instead of working to figure out how to pool talents assembled to overcome the obstacles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection)
"Planetary protection is a guiding principle in the design of an interplanetary mission, aiming to prevent biological contamination of both the target celestial body and the Earth in the case of sample-return missions. Planetary protection reflects both the unknown nature of the space environment and the desire of the scientific community to preserve the pristine nature of celestial bodies until they can be studied in detail."
So, when is this detailed studying going to be done sufficiently to lift planetary protection guidelines for Mars, who is going to do that studying, how will they do it, and how will we know that what they've done is sufficient?
Just like we have done with earth?
Post by: DanielW on 03/03/2017 02:42 am
It honestly never even crossed my mind that this group would be against planetary protection. Heck, it was even a major part of Star Trek.If understood by the most extreme position, it makes any crewed mission to the surface of Mars impossible. You really never thought that a bunch of space geeks wouldn't like that?
Regardless of what any of us may think, you only need to take a look at our track record for respecting the macroscopic life that we know exists right here on Earth for cues as to how we will prioritize the bacteria and whatnot that may or may not exist on Mars once we have the capability to send humans there.
I honestly have no idea how to take that. We have both poachers and massive international efforts to save various species. Well maybe massive is not the right word but certainly earnest.
The way I look at it there isn't any potential life on Mars that is worth delaying colonization over. Not because any possible life is worthless, but because proving a negative is nigh on impossible and the effort needed to study and catalog the whole planet is going to take a colony to do anyway. If anything is found appropriate measures can be taken to see that it survives us.
I think I can guarantee, however, that this circumnavigation of the moon will in no way endanger any possible life forms on Mars.
Post by: Lars-J on 03/03/2017 02:54 am
It honestly never even crossed my mind that this group would be against planetary protection. Heck, it was even a major part of Star Trek.
First, a significant portion of star trek fans don't like the prime directive. ;)
Planetary protection taken to an absurd degree is nothing I support. (i.e. we can never land on Mars until ... what?)
Reasonable planetary protection, however, is something else. If alien life is there, it needs to be protected and studied. Something best done be actual scientist on the ground. Odds are IMO decent that martian life - if present - would not be discovered until we actually have boots on the ground.
Post by: Req on 03/03/2017 02:57 am
I honestly have no idea how to take that. We have both poachers and massive international efforts to save various species. Well maybe massive is not the right word but certainly earnest.
This is basically my point by bringing up our track record. These earnest efforts are more or less completely meaningless. We're currently in the midst of a new mass extinction as a direct result of motivations that have historically far outweighed any mitigating factors, despite that fact that the likely consequences are known and shouted from on high constantly. The mitigation crowd just isn't able to make a value proposition that outweighs that of the status quo.
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/03/2017 03:10 am
Planetary protection taken to an absurd degree is nothing I support. (i.e. we can never land on Mars until ... what?)
Until we learn enough to answer that question.
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/03/2017 03:12 am
This is basically my point by bringing up our track record. These earnest efforts are more or less completely meaningless.
Not true. Many species formerly near extinction were saved with such efforts. The most famous is the bald eagle, of course.
Post by: Surfdaddy on 03/03/2017 03:16 am
So, when is this detailed studying going to be done sufficiently to lift planetary protection guidelines for Mars, who is going to do that studying, how will they do it, and how will we know that what they've done is sufficient?
We will NEVER know for sure. The alternative is to never go.
Post by: Comga on 03/03/2017 03:20 am
SpaceX has been pretty explicit that they're not doing any of the "other stuff" for colonization. They figure if you can get people there the rest will follow.
Also, anyone mention Space Adventures on this thread yet? I saw some public information on Twitter that fits with what I've heard from them privately for years, so I guess their involvement is official now? Or still not quite?
Yes. FutureSpaceTourist posted a tweet from Alan Boyle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42421.msg1647982#msg1647982) saying
".@SpaceAdventures has an intriguing comment on @SpaceX's circumlunar mission, saying it can't comment on its clients' plans prematurely."
It seems to be trying to leave the impression that they have brokered the deal, or at least had some part in it.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/03/2017 03:21 am
Planetary protection taken to an absurd degree is nothing I support. (i.e. we can never land on Mars until ... what?)
Until we learn enough to answer that question.
I think the problem today is that we don't know what "enough" is. A standard would help, but we're dealing with the first time that humans are trying to land on a planet with some semblance of an atmosphere.
There are places on Earth that we haven't yet explored, and we keep finding new forms of life, so is Mars off limits until we've surveyed every square inch, and down hundreds of feet?
Speaking of which, 12 humans spent time on our Moon, so I would imagine that we're not as concerned about extra-terrestrial contamination of airless locations in space?
Post by: Comga on 03/03/2017 03:31 am
"Having another customer for Dragon 2 besides CC is very important as a business."Agree.
I agree. There is a place where tourists could go in the near future, called "LEO". There is probably enough LEO tourism market to support SpaceX for a long time to come.
However, and trust me on this, they are quite different categories of "customers", and the impact of this difference cannot be understated.
It puts certain countries into a bind. Like again take China - there are 4 I *personally know* that will easily do it, but the Chinese govt would want to have Chinese taikonauts on Chinese vehicles do it first.
Do you understand the strange situation this puts them into? And there are five other cases from other nationalities ... like this.
Extend this back to NASA.
Imagine it's one year from now, March 2018. SpaceX has flow the Heavy, sent Dragon2 to the ISS robotically, performed the in-flight abort. Maybe they fly a couple of cargo missions with D2. However, NASA keeps pushing out the date for sending up the first crew to the ISS as they tweak the requirements and request more reviews and repetitions of previous tests. (They's already had SpaceX add a fourth parachute and change from land to ocean landings.)
A scheduled flight around the moon would act somewhat as a limiter. If NASA were to keep fussing with the plan, they risk having SpaceX fly the first "crewed" mission on their own. That would look pretty silly, being upstaged not just by Falcon Heavy vs SLS, but then with the commercial use of the NASA funded D2. How will it look with great nations trailing a guy who started 15 years earlier with a couple of hundred million dollars?
edit: Hey guys, Aren't Mars and planetary protection a bit off-topic for a thread on a circumlunar mission?
Post by: Lars-J on 03/03/2017 03:35 am
Planetary protection taken to an absurd degree is nothing I support. (i.e. we can never land on Mars until ... what?)
Until we learn enough to answer that question.
Then we will never answer that question, because an argument could always be made that there is some kind of life that we have not yet detected, because we are looking in the wrong spot or looking for the wrong thing.
If that is what you mean, then you never want humans on Mars. Then you should just be honest and state it.
But this is going waaay off topic, this was about a lunar flyby, not a Mars landing/colonization. I'm happy to argue this elsewhere, if a better thread exist.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/03/2017 06:12 am
It honestly never even crossed my mind that this group would be against planetary protection. Heck, it was even a major part of Star Trek.
Look up manifest destiny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny). These arguments are its revival. For the record: I think that settling the solar system is humanities manifest destiny.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/03/2017 06:50 am
Quote from: AmericaSpace
However, in recent comments provided to AmericaSpace, SpaceX revealed that its plans for the lunar voyage have been under consideration for at least the past two years. More intriguingly, “additional requests” for other private flights were also made, with Monday’s announced mission “and at least one more” having emerged relatively recently.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/03/2017 08:00 am
Agreed Lars way OT, that's why I offered the thread I had started about Mars a page back so that we can continue that important scientific discussion there to express opinions that would leave us in a quandary...Planetary protection taken to an absurd degree is nothing I support. (i.e. we can never land on Mars until ... what?)
Until we learn enough to answer that question.
Then we will never answer that question, because an argument could always be made that there is some kind of life that we have not yet detected, because we are looking in the wrong spot or looking for the wrong thing.
If that is what you mean, then you never want humans on Mars. Then you should just be honest and state it.
But this is going waaay off topic, this was about a lunar flyby, not a Mars landing/colonization. I'm happy to argue this elsewhere, if a better thread exist.
Post by: jarnu on 03/03/2017 10:18 am
Quote
Agreed Lars way OT, that's why I offered the thread I had started about Mars a page back so that we can continue that important scientific discussion there to express opinions that would leave us in a quandary...
Done! Thanks for that thread. (I hope bringing that old one up with new info will help the discussion here): https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28499.msg1649637#msg1649637
something very recent and on topic, somehow:
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/836937305201885186
https://twitter.com/RobertTBigelow/status/836938597181726720
CisLunar 1000: Bigelow: it can be ready by the end of 2020 (the year, not the decade). Well, I hope everybody will join the train because it seems to be ready (at least the demand for such a 'train').
Edit (see below): My apologies, thanks for the links.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/03/2017 10:50 am
Bigelow has released some nice graphics of ACES propolling a lunar outpost, which are posted on the above thread here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38769.msg1648750#msg1648750).
Please let's keep this thread just on SpaceX's lunar mission.
Post by: JamesH65 on 03/03/2017 01:28 pm
Ill take this bet! SpaceX will send people at least to lunar distance by the end of 2020. Deal?
2020 is much more likely than 2018.
Also "people" <> "tourists".
Nope. Tourists are people.
Anyone who ever sets foot in a Dragon and takes off is a person, they are also by some people definitions, tourist, or commuters. Because Dragon is autonomous, they are not pilots. They are using Dragon to get somewhere, it's just a transport mechanism.
For a circumlunar trip, it's really not relevant who is on board, because the amount of work they can do is the amount of work they can do, who ever they are. It's not as is they are going to be doing major scientific work - that much better done by computers/sensors suites anyway.
So, who do you send when it really doesn't matter who , what or how qualified they are?
I'd send the one who pays more towards the trip. Because money does not grow on trees.
Of course, there are rather sad arguments above that it's all a complete waste and the time should be better spent on something else. Well, the Dragon needs to be tested BEO (that could be done autonomously of course), so any trip like this is going to produce results of some description. Just like every space probe ever has returned information.
So, do you send it off empty, or with someone on board who has contributed a large amount of cash to the trip.
To me, the answer is blatantly obvious.
Take the money.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/03/2017 01:35 pm
Personally I'm also heartened by non-specialists without years of training being able to go. Ok, right now you have to be really wealthy but so it was with aviation or automobiles (as they then were!). We know it will get cheaper. Much better it starts than not at all.
Post by: Jim on 03/03/2017 01:37 pm
It honestly never even crossed my mind that this group would be against planetary protection. Heck, it was even a major part of Star Trek.
Yes, and there is something wrong with people openly dismissing it. It is just plain wrong.
Post by: Comga on 03/03/2017 02:22 pm
It honestly never even crossed my mind that this group would be against planetary protection. Heck, it was even a major part of Star Trek.
Yes, and there is something wrong with people openly dismissing it. It is just plain wrong.
But planetary protection is completely irrelevant for a "crewed circumlunar mission" which is the subject of this thread.
Please take this stuff elsewhere.
--
(Edit: Chris note: - As above. Any more and they will be removed to keep this thread on topic. We have other threads).
Post by: pikawaka on 03/03/2017 02:53 pm
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/03/2017 03:11 pm
So on the topic of secondary payloads, could this be related to any of the Lunar X Prize competitors that have booked launches with SpaceX? Have secondary payloads ever been deployed from Dragon, or Falcon S2 on a Dragon launch? If rideshare is possible here, I'd think there are a lot of people who would pay to get a cubesat or the like on this flight.
The partial failure of crs? was a ride share that didn't get deployed because of 1 merlin engine failed.
Post by: bob the martian on 03/03/2017 09:29 pm
So these guys may not be The Right Stuff; neither am I, nor I suspect most of the people reading this thread. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to fly if the opportunity presented itself?
I don't expect it to happen in 2018, because SpaceX never met a deadline it didn't miss. But I expect it to happen eventually (2020, potentially). If SpaceX didn't have so many successful flights under their belt, I'd dismiss it as nothing more than an empty PR stunt, but by now they've proven they're in this business for real. They routinely overpromise on dates, but they've delivered on the technology so far.
Re: safety - I feel confident that both the passengers and SpaceX will be signing a warehouse's worth of contracts and waivers so that everybody understands exactly who's liable for what in case things go pear-shaped. The passengers will receive what SpaceX considers sufficient training for this flight, and no doubt there will be a very specific list of thou shalt nots to minimize risks, and get an army of lawyers to sign off on everything. This is going to be new territory for SpaceX so the chance of failure is not low. But they have enough experience under their belts that I'm confident they know what most of the risks are and will do their best to mitigate them. ECLSS and power are the open questions right now. If they can't answer them by 2018, then they won't fly.
I don't expect it to advance the cause of colonization, which I think is a pipe dream anyway. But if it spurs advancements in HSF exploration, hey, now we're talking. I've long been critical of the manned side of NASA because it's clear that our national HSF program has no purpose other than to perpetuate itself, and because you don't need to send people to do basic exploration, and because the cost for sending people has traditionally been so huge. But if SpaceX can start sending people around the freaking Moon for a fraction of what it would take a national program to do? Then it's not so much of a problem anymore. If it takes tourism to pave the road for more "serious" endeavors, then yay tourism.
Post by: toruonu on 03/03/2017 09:35 pm
FFS, people die because they fell out of their chair etc, death is a natural part and I would much rather die in a space exploration mission than because some drunk driver T-boned my car. Safety is an aspect and yes, it's somewhat an important one, but it's not a goal in and of itself. It's like trying to design a perfectly secure computer network. The only one is a turned off computer that is in a faraday box enclosed in an artificial diamond and has no outside connectivity. Yet it's also totally useless.
If private citizens who are aware of the risks choose to go on a mission and are paying a premium mission price for it that also has R&D merit for SpaceX future goals, then I'd say smack them on the booster and light the candle. I'd even approve of this being the actual FH demo mission, but probably NASA would stain its pants and withdraw CC plans or smth like that so it's not commercially right now the best choice.
Seriously, people need to re-find the adventure component in their life and understand that stuff moves along way faster if it fails along the way (it means you test the boundary conditions actually) and we tend to learn more from failures than we do from successes. I think Gwynne said at some point that she was surprised nothing had blown up yet (that was about a year before CRS-7) and that it meant they weren't pushing hard enough. THAT is the right attitude.
We have a massive overpopulation issue here so humans are actually an expendable resource AS LONG as they agree to it and understand that this is a realistic outcome. I fully support FAA etc looking out for the general public who do not make the call about taking a risk of a rocket falling on their head etc, but if someone volunteered to fly on the very first flight of a booster and it's not a guaranteed suicide run, then go. I can also fully understand that a public body like NASA has to explain why they would be risking funded missions that have a high risk of failure and death as they are publicly funded, but a private company and a private customer with their own funds shouldn't face this scrutiny at all. Heck, there might even be a market for one-way splash trips to moon when you feel like you've had enough of this life and have the money.
And while the rant is on, the whole planetary protection we could just agree to leave to other solar systems for now. We're pretty sure there is no intelligent life happening in this one (not even sure about Earth right now) so we just need to have a couple of backup copies and if some microbes have a problem with that, then tough luck, research possibilities will be much better once we're on-site and can dig up more stuff and once someone gets infected by a space bug. If anything, the only actual planetary protection should be applied to Earth from returning vehicles ("Andromeda strain anyone?"). But that's off-topic for this mission.
At least from my point of view, this is an excellent mission and I hope they will branch it to a full service regular flights allowing to fund their other endeavours and reducing fixed costs per flight therefore bringing down the generic cost to space for other missions (including full science and exploration).
Post by: Danderman on 03/03/2017 09:42 pm
In the NASA world, risk has a political context, so that proposals which are politically incorrect are often deemed "too risky", whereas programs where funding is spent in the correct political districts are allowed to proceed. So, risk is in the eye of the beholder at times.
However, putting humans on FH and Dragon 2 within the next 18 months for a lunar mission is crazy risky. So much so that it won't actually happen.
But, the proposal will create some FUD at NASA concerning the future of SLS.
Post by: rpapo on 03/03/2017 09:53 pm
Although NASA may seem risk adverse, they are the ones who put people on the first ever STS launch.That was NASA in 1981, years before Challenger, decades before Columbia, and not all that long after Apollo. The general attitude of NASA as an institution was far less risk-averse in those days. People (and Congress) didn't seem too worried that NASA would make a serious mistake, in spite of Apollo 1, the near disaster of Apollo 13 and the problems with Skylab.
[added later] For that matter, American society in general was far less risk averse in those days than what it has become since, though from where I sit, that has been a continuous and fairly steady progression (or regression) since around the close of World War II.
Post by: toruonu on 03/03/2017 10:00 pm
Although NASA may seem risk adverse, they are the ones who put people on the first ever STS launch.
Not that fluent in shuttle capabilities, would the shuttle even have been able to do a solo mission?
Quote
In the NASA world, risk has a political context, so that proposals which are politically incorrect are often deemed "too risky", whereas programs where funding is spent in the correct political districts are allowed to proceed. So, risk is in the eye of the beholder at times.
True, and I agree that part of NASA risk aversion is politics. But bureaucracy and trying to make everything super safe ground the whole space exploration down. At least that's what we from across the pond see it... Exploration is about risk. If at least a third of the people going up don't die, then you're probably not pushing hard enough. That's at least my stance on this.
Quote
However, putting humans on FH and Dragon 2 within the next 18 months for a lunar mission is crazy risky. So much so that it won't actually happen.
As I said, I'd happily see crew on FH demo flight assuming they volunteer to be there and there is a reasonable chance of success (SpaceX wouldn't launch if there weren't a reasonable chance of success as who wants to throw away perfectly good hardware). Why waste a mission with mass simulators if you can have fun too.
Quote
But, the proposal will create some FUD at NASA concerning the future of SLS.
Considering the cost and that this is a social project, not really a serious effort with concrete plans and missions I'd say good riddance if it does end up killing SLS...
Post by: Negan on 03/03/2017 10:03 pm
However, putting humans on FH and Dragon 2 within the next 18 months for a lunar mission is crazy risky. So much so that it won't actually happen.
So let's put the 2018 date aside. Are you saying that if Dragon flies crew twice to the ISS successfully and FH flies twice successfully, the lunar mission still can't happen?
Post by: Brovane on 03/04/2017 12:19 am
When test pilots get killed in a aircraft crash, it is just treated as the price of aerospace progress and life moves on. Astronaut(s) die in a spacecraft incident and everybody thinks that is the end of the world and progress should come to a halt because somebody might die. ???
Let's get this out of the way right now, as Commercial space flight becomes a reality and we start private Commercial space flights into space, people are going to die. Pushing Aerospace hardware to the limits is a risky business. Sending two humans on a Circumlunar mission using a Dragon spacecraft and an FH is pushing Aerospace hardware to the limits.
Post by: joek on 03/04/2017 12:29 am
SpaceX entire reason for being requires successfully overcoming risks far greater than this one. And loss of life is I believe expected by everyone. The greatest risk (launch) already has the abort mitigation which is believed to have been able to successfully handle AMOS6. When ready to do so, they've got bigger problems if they can't throw some billionaires around the moon without something worse than a successful abort during ascent.
It's a very reasonable shakeout test and paid for to boot at the sole cost of the delta bad-publicity risk from losing civilians or going earlier than they otherwise would.
Unfortunately--or maybe fortunately, depending on your POV--it's not entirely up to SpaceX and those billionaire passengers. Still lots of hoops they are going to have to jump through to make this happen; the technical parts may be the least of their challenges.[1]
[1] I count somewhere between "more than two hands" and a "butt-load" worth of regulations or interpretations of regulations or we-gotta-write-new-regulations-because-there-aren't-any-that-cover-this that they are going to have to thread or nail for this happen.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/04/2017 01:11 am
Article with some new bits (http://www.americaspace.com/2017/03/02/spacexs-private-lunar-mission-in-work-for-last-two-years-other-opportunities-on-horizon/)Quote from: AmericaSpaceHowever, in recent comments provided to AmericaSpace, SpaceX revealed that its plans for the lunar voyage have been under consideration for at least the past two years. More intriguingly, “additional requests” for other private flights were also made, with Monday’s announced mission “and at least one more” having emerged relatively recently.
Matches what/when I heard it too. And a Founders Fund guy once blabbed at a bar much earlier about this. One never takes these kind of things seriously until a company actually publicly releases information. Two times earlier had heard such would be released ... and then it wasn't.
Also, it really isn't the best optics to do a release with FH/D2 not yet flying. As many of you probably know/guess.
But these are peculiar times. Have no doubt they can bring it off. But ...
Post by: Danderman on 03/04/2017 01:40 am
However, putting humans on FH and Dragon 2 within the next 18 months for a lunar mission is crazy risky. So much so that it won't actually happen.
So let's put the 2018 date aside. Are you saying that if Dragon flies crew twice to the ISS successfully and FH flies twice successfully, the lunar mission still can't happen?
Clearly, there would be a much better chance of mission success by the time that 4 test missions had flown.
However, my feeling is that in the time it would take to mount those missions, the desire to simply fly tourists around the Moon would transmogrify into something else, perhaps a serious effort to pursue LEO space tourism.
Post by: Danderman on 03/04/2017 01:41 am
Speaking about risk aversion.
When test pilots get killed in a aircraft crash, it is just treated as the price of aerospace progress and life moves on. Astronaut(s) die in a spacecraft incident and everybody thinks that is the end of the world and progress should come to a halt because somebody might die. ???
Let's get this out of the way right now, as Commercial space flight becomes a reality and we start private Commercial space flights into space, people are going to die. Pushing Aerospace hardware to the limits is a risky business. Sending two humans on a Circumlunar mission using a Dragon spacecraft and an FH is pushing Aerospace hardware to the limits.
This is written several years after a crash of SpaceShip Two basically stopped that company dead in its tracks for a while.
Post by: Brovane on 03/04/2017 02:02 am
SpaceX entire reason for being requires successfully overcoming risks far greater than this one. And loss of life is I believe expected by everyone. The greatest risk (launch) already has the abort mitigation which is believed to have been able to successfully handle AMOS6. When ready to do so, they've got bigger problems if they can't throw some billionaires around the moon without something worse than a successful abort during ascent.
It's a very reasonable shakeout test and paid for to boot at the sole cost of the delta bad-publicity risk from losing civilians or going earlier than they otherwise would.
Unfortunately--or maybe fortunately, depending on your POV--it's not entirely up to SpaceX and those billionaire passengers. Still lots of hoops they are going to have to jump through to make this happen; the technical parts may be the least of their challenges.[1]
[1] I count somewhere between "more than two hands" and a "butt-load" worth of regulations or interpretations of regulations or we-gotta-write-new-regulations-because-there-aren't-any-that-cover-this that they are going to have to thread or nail for this happen.
The regulations already exist for Private Human space flight. Why do you think the FAA will need to write new regulations?
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-12-15/pdf/E6-21193.pdf (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-12-15/pdf/E6-21193.pdf)
Post by: meekGee on 03/04/2017 02:15 am
However, putting humans on FH and Dragon 2 within the next 18 months for a lunar mission is crazy risky. So much so that it won't actually happen.
So let's put the 2018 date aside. Are you saying that if Dragon flies crew twice to the ISS successfully and FH flies twice successfully, the lunar mission still can't happen?
Clearly, there would be a much better chance of mission success by the time that 4 test missions had flown.
However, my feeling is that in the time it would take to mount those missions, the desire to simply fly tourists around the Moon would transmogrify into something else, perhaps a serious effort to pursue LEO space tourism.
And what is a "serious effort to pursue LEO space tourism." - visits to the ISS or a different station? How is one more serious than the other?
Failure is always an option. You don't have to play.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/04/2017 02:16 am
A combination of design flaw and crew error caused that accident. Design changes and training should prevent that type of accident from happening again. The flights of Spaceship 1 years ago showed some control issues for the design that were corrected for Spaceship 2. Going foward; I hope that the hybrid propulsion system doesn't cause errors - in the early days, there were of course two people killed on the ground in it's early testing phases. There has been some risk and there will continue to be risk, and some of that risk has been retired. Only operational maturity will iron out most of the 'bugs'.However, putting humans on FH and Dragon 2 within the next 18 months for a lunar mission is crazy risky. So much so that it won't actually happen.
So let's put the 2018 date aside. Are you saying that if Dragon flies crew twice to the ISS successfully and FH flies twice successfully, the lunar mission still can't happen?
Clearly, there would be a much better chance of mission success by the time that 4 test missions had flown.
However, my feeling is that in the time it would take to mount those missions, the desire to simply fly tourists around the Moon would transmogrify into something else, perhaps a serious effort to pursue LEO space tourism.
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/04/2017 02:17 am
People die climbing Everest. Or flying general aviation aircraft, but Cessna hasn't gone out of business.
People gonna die. Life will move on.
Post by: Danderman on 03/04/2017 03:13 am
And what is a "serious effort to pursue LEO space tourism." - visits to the ISS or a different station? How is one more serious than the other?
Say, this "business" thing must be kind of mysterious to you.
Anyway, SpaceX does not have a serious focus on space tourism at the moment, what with the whole "going to Mars" effort dominating things. But, Elon may stumble upon the approach of actively seeking customers for Dragon 2 to fly in orbit, either in partnership with a tourism company, or using SpaceX itself to find the customers. I would suspect that there would be a lot of money in flying 5 or so tourists at a time.
My feeling is that Elon will stumble upon that before there is a tourism mission around the Moon.
Post by: meekGee on 03/04/2017 03:20 am
Oh. I see. You think round-the-moon is a less worthy ticket than LEO. Business wise.
And what is a "serious effort to pursue LEO space tourism." - visits to the ISS or a different station? How is one more serious than the other?
Say, this "business" thing must be kind of mysterious to you.
Anyway, SpaceX does not have a serious focus on space tourism at the moment, what with the whole "going to Mars" effort dominating things. But, Elon may stumble upon the approach of actively seeking customers for Dragon 2 to fly in orbit, either in partnership with a tourism company, or using SpaceX itself to find the customers. I would suspect that there would be a lot of money in flying 5 or so tourists at a time.
My feeling is that Elon will stumble upon that before there is a tourism mission around the Moon.
Tell that to the people who bought the tickets, it is not yet too late!
I'd hate for SpaceX to stumble onto any other such mistakes.
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 03/04/2017 04:17 am
The Debbie Downer carpbois are making no sense to me at all.
Post by: su27k on 03/04/2017 04:54 am
And what is a "serious effort to pursue LEO space tourism." - visits to the ISS or a different station? How is one more serious than the other?
Say, this "business" thing must be kind of mysterious to you.
Anyway, SpaceX does not have a serious focus on space tourism at the moment, what with the whole "going to Mars" effort dominating things. But, Elon may stumble upon the approach of actively seeking customers for Dragon 2 to fly in orbit, either in partnership with a tourism company, or using SpaceX itself to find the customers. I would suspect that there would be a lot of money in flying 5 or so tourists at a time.
My feeling is that Elon will stumble upon that before there is a tourism mission around the Moon.
Seems to me the lack of focus on space tourism has more to do with the lack of a destination than the whole "going to Mars" thing. Would people really pay $20M+ to be cramped with 4 others in a Dragon and orbit the Earth a few times?
Post by: QuantumG on 03/04/2017 05:04 am
Post by: Oli on 03/04/2017 07:17 am
Seems to me the lack of focus on space tourism has more to do with the lack of a destination than the whole "going to Mars" thing. Would people really pay $20M+ to be cramped with 4 others in a Dragon and orbit the Earth a few times?
Will people pay $5bn to emigrate to Mars? LEO or lunar tourism will happen a long time before Mars colonization, simply because it's going to be much much cheaper. If you fly tourists to LEO every week or so the cost of an in-space module isn't that big of a factor anymore by the way.
Post by: Star One on 03/04/2017 08:31 am
I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....
If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!
But there is context. This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi.
I don't like their Mars plans either. They're focued on colinization which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program. We're on about step three.
Nail on head. These plans seem to be the ultimate example of putting the cart before the horse as they say.
Post by: guckyfan on 03/04/2017 08:35 am
Nail on head. These plans seem to be the ultimate example of putting the cart before the horse as they say.
Building a transport architecture that would allow colonization will vastly speed up all intermediate steps.
Including going to the moon, to be even remotely on topic.
Post by: Star One on 03/04/2017 10:07 am
Nail on head. These plans seem to be the ultimate example of putting the cart before the horse as they say.
Building a transport architecture that would allow colonization will vastly speed up all intermediate steps.
Including going to the moon, to be even remotely on topic.
Going to Mars on the scale Space X proposes has always seemed a case of trying to run before you can even walk. Concentrating on the Moon allows us to move from crawling as we are doing now to walking. That's why I've always favoured the Moon first approach to BEO.
Post by: AncientU on 03/04/2017 10:27 am
Nail on head. These plans seem to be the ultimate example of putting the cart before the horse as they say.
Building a transport architecture that would allow colonization will vastly speed up all intermediate steps.
Including going to the moon, to be even remotely on topic.
Going to Mars on the scale Space X proposes has always seemed a case of trying to run before you can even walk. Concentrating on the Moon allows us to move from crawling as we are doing now to walking. That's why I've always favoured the Moon first approach to BEO.
...which is what they are doing.
Walking.
Post by: Star One on 03/04/2017 10:42 am
Nail on head. These plans seem to be the ultimate example of putting the cart before the horse as they say.
Building a transport architecture that would allow colonization will vastly speed up all intermediate steps.
Including going to the moon, to be even remotely on topic.
Going to Mars on the scale Space X proposes has always seemed a case of trying to run before you can even walk. Concentrating on the Moon allows us to move from crawling as we are doing now to walking. That's why I've always favoured the Moon first approach to BEO.
...which is what they are doing.
Walking.
Bezos is more the one aiming to do the walking to the Moon.
Post by: AncientU on 03/04/2017 11:02 am
(Full confidence that he will get there though.)
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/04/2017 11:09 am
Nail on head. These plans seem to be the ultimate example of putting the cart before the horse as they say.
Building a transport architecture that would allow colonization will vastly speed up all intermediate steps.
Including going to the moon, to be even remotely on topic.
Going to Mars on the scale Space X proposes has always seemed a case of trying to run before you can even walk. Concentrating on the Moon allows us to move from crawling as we are doing now to walking. That's why I've always favoured the Moon first approach to BEO.
I think everyone misses that development of new vehicles is where the cost is. That's why musk wants to develop something big enough and with enough capabilities to eventually go to mars. Sure in between this vehicle will be great for all of the lesser targets. How is ITS to big for the moon? LEO? GEO? etc.
Post by: Nathan on 03/04/2017 11:12 am
Post by: AncientU on 03/04/2017 11:26 am
Musk mentioned that he would be willing to send NASA astronauts ahead of the tourists. That made me think- what if the tourists are Russian or Chinese? Is this going to be an embarrassment for NASA and the US?
More like an embarrassment to Russia or China.
Won't happen.
Post by: guckyfan on 03/04/2017 12:05 pm
Am I the only one who thought this?
Edit: I do not think SpaceX should have refrained from preparing and announcing the mission. It is something NASA will have to live with.
Post by: Kabloona on 03/04/2017 12:19 pm
When Elon Musk offered that NASA would have first call if they want to do the loop around the moon in Dragon, my first thought was this is adding insult to injury. The injury being that SpaceX goes first, the insult offering the seats to NASA.
Am I the only one who thought this?
Edit: I do not think SpaceX should have refrained from preparing and announcing the mission. It is something NASA will have to live with.
Seems to me Elon is trying to soften the blow to NASA pride by giving them first shot at the mission. There's no advantage to insulting your main customer. Elon knows this is going to look bad for NASA, so he's giving them the courtesy of at least letting their astros be the ones to take the glory.
So I take the offer as being an attempt to placate NASA to the degree possible under the circumstances, not insult them further. I imagine pretty much any NASA astro would jump at the opportunity, if permitted.
If you're a NASA astro, the real insult is that some rich guy/gal with no aerospace training got to go to the moon, instead of you or one of your astro buddies, because NASA management refused to pay a ridiculously low price (relative to an Apollo or SLS mission) for your ride.
Post by: SweetWater on 03/04/2017 12:21 pm
Nail on head. These plans seem to be the ultimate example of putting the cart before the horse as they say.
Building a transport architecture that would allow colonization will vastly speed up all intermediate steps.
Including going to the moon, to be even remotely on topic.
Going to Mars on the scale Space X proposes has always seemed a case of trying to run before you can even walk. Concentrating on the Moon allows us to move from crawling as we are doing now to walking. That's why I've always favoured the Moon first approach to BEO.
I think everyone misses that development of new vehicles is where the cost is. That's why musk wants to develop something big enough and with enough capabilities to eventually go to mars. Sure in between this vehicle will be great for all of the lesser targets. How is ITS to big for the moon? LEO? GEO? etc.
I think future development costs - including ITS, ongoing Raptor development, refinement, and production, etc. - are probably a huge factor in SpaceX doing this private lunar mission.
Funding for future developments will have to come from somewhere. There will always be a market for satellite launches, and they are investigating new opportunities there like their internet satellite constellation; however, a huge chunk of SpaceX's revenue has always been commercial cargo and commercial crew. ISS won't be in orbit forever. What will happen to that revenue stream when - in 2024, 2028, or whenever - the ISS support market is gone?
I don't know the answer to that, and I don't think anyone else does, either. Maybe ~10 years from now there will be a small-but-growing market for launching crew and cargo to support smaller, private space stations like the commercial stations and hotels Bigelow has been envisioning, private lunar orbit tourist trips, support for smaller, government-run national LEO laboratories (like the ISS), etc.
On the other hand, maybe some of that focus for government funded human spaceflight switches to the moon. It's hard to get a read on what, if any, real plans the Trump administration has for the space program at this point in time. If a return to the moon by NASA is emphasized, there could well be a place for commercial resupply and crew rotation, just like there is today with the ISS. If it does, a mission like this one demonstrates that SpaceX is capable of supporting such missions - missions that could help provide revenue to support Elon's other ambitions.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/04/2017 12:41 pm
Seems to me Elon is trying to soften the blow to NASA pride by giving them first shot at the mission. There's no advantage to insulting your main customer. Elon knows this is going to look bad for NASA, so he's giving them the courtesy of at least letting their astros be the ones to take the glory.
So I take the offer as being an attempt to placate NASA to the degree possible under the circumstances, not insult them further. I imagine pretty much any NASA astro would jump at the opportunity, if permitted.
I don't disagree, although I suspect there's more to it. With all the speculation about the new administration potentially looking to fund going back to the moon (hence Blue Origin and Bigelow lunar statements too) I think Elon is also trying to make clear that SpaceX would be very willing partners. Even to the extent of pushing back the private customers who have already paid substantial deposits.
That's why SpaceX announced this now.
Post by: envy887 on 03/04/2017 12:52 pm
When Elon Musk offered that NASA would have first call if they want to do the loop around the moon in Dragon, my first thought was this is adding insult to injury. The injury being that SpaceX goes first, the insult offering the seats to NASA.
Am I the only one who thought this?
Edit: I do not think SpaceX should have refrained from preparing and announcing the mission. It is something NASA will have to live with.
If NASA buys the seats the headline becomes "NASA returns to Moon" rather than "SpaceX sends tourists to Moon". From a PR perspective it's a "NASA mission", even though it's really a SpaceX mission.
I don't see the announcement or the mission as any actual injury to NASA. It's not like Congress is going to stop funding SLS/Orion anytime soon.
Post by: Star One on 03/04/2017 12:53 pm
Seems to me Elon is trying to soften the blow to NASA pride by giving them first shot at the mission. There's no advantage to insulting your main customer. Elon knows this is going to look bad for NASA, so he's giving them the courtesy of at least letting their astros be the ones to take the glory.
So I take the offer as being an attempt to placate NASA to the degree possible under the circumstances, not insult them further. I imagine pretty much any NASA astro would jump at the opportunity, if permitted.
I don't disagree, although I suspect there's more to it. With all the speculation about the new administration potentially looking to fund going back to the moon (hence Blue Origin and Bigelow lunar statements too) I think Elon is also trying to make clear that SpaceX would be very willing partners. Even to the extent of pushing back the private customers who have already paid substantial deposits.
That's why SpaceX announced this now.
Couldn't they share the glory by putting a NASA astronaut in with the two tourists. I am sure this would be a reassuring move to both Space X & the tourists.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/04/2017 01:07 pm
Couldn't they share the glory by putting a NASA astronaut in with the two tourists. I am sure this would be a reassuring move to both Space X & the tourists.
Possibly, but that's a 50% increase in use of consumables and I wonder if 2 people is a sweet spot that means pretty much a standard Dragon 2 (designed for 7 people to LEO) can do the trip with minimal changes?
It's also possible that the two people actually don't want anyone else with them, although that's pure speculation.
Post by: Kaputnik on 03/04/2017 01:46 pm
A second flight by non-NASA people would only become a PR issue if the media wanted to take that angle. It might get ignored. Look, for example, at the almost non existent coverage of the stratospheric balloon jump that happened not long after Baumgartner.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/04/2017 03:14 pm
Anybody know whether ITS could land on the moon and come back without any refueling?
How about with LEO refuelling before TLI?
Post by: envy887 on 03/04/2017 04:37 pm
BTW
Anybody know whether ITS could land on the moon and come back without any refueling?
How about with LEO refuelling before TLI?
Not direct. Yes, if refueled and they hit the specified performance. But that's OT here.
Post by: bad_astra on 03/04/2017 04:46 pm
To a lot of the public, every rocket is a NASA rocket.
Not anymore. With new headlines about some kind of "new space race" if anything they'll be under the misunderstanding that SpaceX's work was done entirely without NASA involvement (commercial cargo/crew)
Post by: bulkmail on 03/04/2017 06:42 pm
- Falcon Heavy payload capacity (let's say in expendable mode, but better if values are available also for 1- and 3-cores reusable modes) to TLI, LLO, Lagrangian points Earth-Moon, Earth-Sun
- Dragon V2 weight
- Dragon V2 weight for consumables per manday
Can FH send crewed Dragon V2 in Moon orbit or to some of the other cis-lunar and flexible path locations?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/04/2017 07:12 pm
Indeed."Having another customer for Dragon 2 besides CC is very important as a business."Agree.
I agree. There is a place where tourists could go in the near future, called "LEO". There is probably enough LEO tourism market to support SpaceX for a long time to come.
However, and trust me on this, they are quite different categories of "customers", and the impact of this difference cannot be understated.
It puts certain countries into a bind. Like again take China - there are 4 I *personally know* that will easily do it, but the Chinese govt would want to have Chinese taikonauts on Chinese vehicles do it first.
Do you understand the strange situation this puts them into? And there are five other cases from other nationalities ... like this.
Extend this back to NASA.
Quote
Imagine it's one year from now, March 2018. SpaceX has flow the Heavy, sent Dragon2 to the ISS robotically, performed the in-flight abort. Maybe they fly a couple of cargo missions with D2. However, NASA keeps pushing out the date for sending up the first crew to the ISS as they tweak the requirements and request more reviews and repetitions of previous tests. (They's already had SpaceX add a fourth parachute and change from land to ocean landings.)
It's hard to discern the situation here - is CC behind on safety, is NASA "too safe"/dilatory ... is Congress pressing on NASA to "slow down"/starve CC to benefit a half-hearted Orion program cadence.
Quote
A scheduled flight around the moon would act somewhat as a limiter. If NASA were to keep fussing with the plan, they risk having SpaceX fly the first "crewed" mission on their own. That would look pretty silly, being upstaged not just by Falcon Heavy vs SLS, but then with the commercial use of the NASA funded D2. How will it look with great nations trailing a guy who started 15 years earlier with a couple of hundred million dollars?
Currently NASA is acting as if it won't happen - relying on "Elon time distortion". However, consider other factors are present. WH wants a "moon flight distraction", NASA/Congress don't have the "wiggle room" to comply, and there's this threat to whack budget severely. SX "white knight" effect is in play. Already a limiter.
Will draw attention to every SX "event", as tension builds around this extreme claim to beating all nations back to the Moon. As FH/D2 flies (and NASA gives up on accelerating HSF with EM-1), nationalism ambitions will ramp up.
Likely Orion and CC will all come under the public microscope. Comparisions will be made. Likely China will get very serious about LEO space tourism in a comical way. Russian "free return" will get a Zond-like faux redux as a "me too". Perhaps other players too.
If it were to launch ahead or near coincident with D2 crewed test flight, certain bet that NASA/others would be pressured to shell out such comparatively tiny funds to "follow on" with two astros "to pave the way" for EM-1/2 "rescoped" missions.
Yes. But he's also doing same to Congress. And giving them time to rescope EM 1/2.When Elon Musk offered that NASA would have first call if they want to do the loop around the moon in Dragon, my first thought was this is adding insult to injury. The injury being that SpaceX goes first, the insult offering the seats to NASA.
Am I the only one who thought this?
Edit: I do not think SpaceX should have refrained from preparing and announcing the mission. It is something NASA will have to live with.
Seems to me Elon is trying to soften the blow to NASA pride by giving them first shot at the mission. There's no advantage to insulting your main customer. Elon knows this is going to look bad for NASA, so he's giving them the courtesy of at least letting their astros be the ones to take the glory.
Quote
So I take the offer as being an attempt to placate NASA to the degree possible under the circumstances, not insult them further. I imagine pretty much any NASA astro would jump at the opportunity, if permitted.Hey it's training for cislunar flight ...
Quote
If you're a NASA astro, the real insult is that some rich guy/gal with no aerospace training got to go to the moon, instead of you or one of your astro buddies, because NASA management refused to pay a ridiculously low price (relative to an Apollo or SLS mission) for your ride.OK. Quick question. What more does an astro do on SLS cislunar EM-1/2, that a passenger on D2 cislunar ... does?
Post by: AncientU on 03/04/2017 07:36 pm
Seems to me Elon is trying to soften the blow to NASA pride by giving them first shot at the mission. There's no advantage to insulting your main customer. Elon knows this is going to look bad for NASA, so he's giving them the courtesy of at least letting their astros be the ones to take the glory.
So I take the offer as being an attempt to placate NASA to the degree possible under the circumstances, not insult them further. I imagine pretty much any NASA astro would jump at the opportunity, if permitted.
I don't disagree, although I suspect there's more to it. With all the speculation about the new administration potentially looking to fund going back to the moon (hence Blue Origin and Bigelow lunar statements too) I think Elon is also trying to make clear that SpaceX would be very willing partners. Even to the extent of pushing back the private customers who have already paid substantial deposits.
That's why SpaceX announced this now.
I think they announced it now so that:
1. They demonstrate that the private sector is a player for any return to the Moon, and
2. They don't want the new administration to get credit for the work they've done.
The opportunity to announce it when NASA is struggling with whether they can do their first manned Orion flight by 2020 emphasizes the first point a bit more dramatically.
'Insulting' or no, the one-upmanship began at the September reveal, which most disregarded as fantasy.
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/04/2017 07:57 pm
This is my main worry about this program, as well. Whenever there is an accident involving crew, progress stops for a long time. Empirically, it seems that a crew loss stops progress for about 2 years (Apollo, Shuttle, SpaceShip One) whereas a loss of uncrewed mission stops for about 6 months (SpaceX, recent Russian failures, etc.). So each crew loss costs about 1.5 years of progress.When test pilots get killed in a aircraft crash, it is just treated as the price of aerospace progress and life moves on. Astronaut(s) die in a spacecraft incident and everybody thinks that is the end of the world and progress should come to a halt because somebody might die. ???This is written several years after a crash of SpaceShip Two basically stopped that company dead in its tracks for a while.
Along these lines, though I would never ever wish anyone a war, there is something to be said for the attitude it fosters towards innovation.
*There is an obvious and explicit cost to inaction, in lives and property lost due to the status quo. An idea that might improve the existing methods is much more likely to be tried, even when its odds of success are uncertain.
*There is not so much concern about who builds what. If the best answer is a Centaur upper stage on the SpaceX booster, there'd be an adapter.
*There is more emphasis on the best (or quickest) solution. Having a known method that works OK is not the barrier to development that it often is in peacetime.
*Development goes on in a parallel, not serially. If you have an accident, keep flying while you work out the problem. You risk another failure of the same type, but will also likely find unrelated problems that need to be addressed, without waiting for the first problem to be fixed. Likewise, while learning to mass produce the model A, you develop the model B using the lessons learned so far, and do research on the model C.
*There is a chance for young but brilliant designers to get projects of the own, since many important projects must be in progress simultaneously.
*People just plain work harder, since they can see the consequences of their work directly.
The combination of these factors makes a huge difference. Look at radar during WW-II for example. From a research project to hundreds of designs in mass production in 4 years. Or planes designed in months, and in production in a few months more. Much faster than the boldest of the NewSpace companies, who by today's standards are often considered too far towards the fast-but-risky end of the spectrum. As wartime shows, this spectrun extends much further than the portion we use today.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/04/2017 08:06 pm
Bezos is more the one aiming to do the walking to the Moon.
Excuse me. Have asked this question. He says "cost effective cargo to lunar surface". Way different. Source - his remarks in January 2017.
Politely - please help me understand where you get this. Perhaps you intuit it? If so, ask him in public q&a or reddit AMA. Might not be as you think.
Key point - he's skeptical of funding broadly HSF vehicles. Including those to the surface of other bodies.
NB hydrolox landers he wants to do are very low TRL. Very helpful for lowering logistics costs ...
Post by: Star One on 03/04/2017 08:09 pm
Bezos is more the one aiming to do the walking to the Moon.
Excuse me. Have asked this question. He says "cost effective cargo to lunar surface". Way different. Source - his remarks in January 2017.
Politely - please help me understand where you get this. Perhaps you intuit it? If so, ask him in public q&a or reddit AMA. Might not be as you think.
Key point - he's skeptical of funding broadly HSF vehicles. Including those to the surface of other bodies.
NB hydrolox landers he wants to do are very low TRL. Very helpful for lowering logistics costs ...
Have you watched the video interview with him I posted yesterday in the Blue Origin thread, if you haven't then I recommend you do?
Post by: Oersted on 03/04/2017 08:59 pm
By the way, multiple people already died during SpaceShipTwo's development and testing, and the computer any hasn't folded.
People die climbing Everest. Or flying general aviation aircraft, but Cessna hasn't gone out of business.
Cessna only survives because of risk adversity. It has become prohibitively expensive to insure new general aviation designs which is why people are still flying around in those old crates...
Post by: eric z on 03/04/2017 09:03 pm
I'm sure someone could word this more articulately. ::)
Post by: punder on 03/04/2017 09:06 pm
I'll watch the mission, but this sort of thing benefits a very small number of people, and only for a short time.
Yes. Sort of like Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic. Okay, a small bunch of investors got some cash out of it. Otherwise, the flight had no discernible affect on the advancement of aviation.
(Sorry, catching up, many pages behind. But this attitude just really puzzles me.)
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/04/2017 09:47 pm
Bezos is more the one aiming to do the walking to the Moon.
Excuse me. Have asked this question. He says "cost effective cargo to lunar surface". Way different. Source - his remarks in January 2017.
Politely - please help me understand where you get this. Perhaps you intuit it? If so, ask him in public q&a or reddit AMA. Might not be as you think.
Key point - he's skeptical of funding broadly HSF vehicles. Including those to the surface of other bodies.
NB hydrolox landers he wants to do are very low TRL. Very helpful for lowering logistics costs ...
Have you watched the video interview with him I posted yesterday in the Blue Origin thread, if you haven't then I recommend you do?
Just did. He's even more long winded than I am (my icon/name comes from people telling me I talk too long/much).
Talks of cargo delivery service, not HR. For human settlement. Hydrolox architecture.My point exactly.
And?
Post by: Star One on 03/04/2017 09:49 pm
Bezos is more the one aiming to do the walking to the Moon.
Excuse me. Have asked this question. He says "cost effective cargo to lunar surface". Way different. Source - his remarks in January 2017.
Politely - please help me understand where you get this. Perhaps you intuit it? If so, ask him in public q&a or reddit AMA. Might not be as you think.
Key point - he's skeptical of funding broadly HSF vehicles. Including those to the surface of other bodies.
NB hydrolox landers he wants to do are very low TRL. Very helpful for lowering logistics costs ...
Have you watched the video interview with him I posted yesterday in the Blue Origin thread, if you haven't then I recommend you do?
Just did. He's even more long winded than I am (my icon/name comes from people telling me I talk too long/much).
Talks of cargo delivery service, not HR. For human settlement. Hydrolox architecture.My point exactly.
And?
Well you have to start somewhere don't you and that's where he's starting. Is there some reason you're so determined to put a negative spin on his plans rather than welcoming another player in this field?
Post by: ciscosdad on 03/04/2017 09:54 pm
ITS is a longer term goal, and Elon clearly believes that if the service is offered, business will appear, and this flight indicates that he is correct.
Open your eyes and look at the proposals and commercial startups that require access to space. I could list them, but if you're on this site the info is a few clicks away.
One of the oil states recently indicated plans for a city on Mars (Dubai??) Build the transport capability and the demand will appear.
We can stick our head in the sand or shout that its a bad idea if we wish, but I suspect this is the beginning of something huge.
Post by: mme on 03/04/2017 10:12 pm
It seems to me that the main cause of delay for VG is that they lost their only flying vehicle and had to finish building and testing the second one. Unlike SpaceX, VG does not have a production line and already build vehicles lying around.This is my main worry about this program, as well. Whenever there is an accident involving crew, progress stops for a long time. Empirically, it seems that a crew loss stops progress for about 2 years (Apollo, Shuttle, SpaceShip One) whereas a loss of uncrewed mission stops for about 6 months (SpaceX, recent Russian failures, etc.). So each crew loss costs about 1.5 years of progress.When test pilots get killed in a aircraft crash, it is just treated as the price of aerospace progress and life moves on. Astronaut(s) die in a spacecraft incident and everybody thinks that is the end of the world and progress should come to a halt because somebody might die. ???This is written several years after a crash of SpaceShip Two basically stopped that company dead in its tracks for a while.
...
Post by: AncientU on 03/04/2017 10:13 pm
Spacex is a space transport company and offers space transport services,and this flight is a step in that direction
ITS is a longer term goal, and Elon clearly believes that if the service is offered, business will appear, and this flight indicates that he is correct.
Open your eyes and look at the proposals and commercial startups that require access to space. I could list them, but if you're on this site the info is a few clicks away.
One of the oil states recently indicated plans for a city on Mars (Dubai??) Build the transport capability and the demand will appear.
We can stick our head in the sand or shout that its a bad idea if we wish, but I suspect this is the beginning of something huge.
I hope you are right.
Just doing this will demonstrate the cost and timeline it takes, using 21st century technology and a start-up business plan, to become space faring. Others have seen the potential and are on a variety of congruent paths (as happens in the start-up environment, some will make it and most won't), and more are sure to follow if this is successful.
Look at the boom in satellite constellations and the billions flowing in there from investment community. Venture capital funding for space start-ups has never been higher (by a large factor). Many will find dead ends, for sure, but we could be on the verge of something huge.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/04/2017 10:18 pm
Bezos is more the one aiming to do the walking to the Moon.
Excuse me. Have asked this question. He says "cost effective cargo to lunar surface". Way different. Source - his remarks in January 2017.
Politely - please help me understand where you get this. Perhaps you intuit it? If so, ask him in public q&a or reddit AMA. Might not be as you think.
Key point - he's skeptical of funding broadly HSF vehicles. Including those to the surface of other bodies.
NB hydrolox landers he wants to do are very low TRL. Very helpful for lowering logistics costs ...
Have you watched the video interview with him I posted yesterday in the Blue Origin thread, if you haven't then I recommend you do?
Just did. He's even more long winded than I am (my icon/name comes from people telling me I talk too long/much).
Talks of cargo delivery service, not HR. For human settlement. Hydrolox architecture.My point exactly.
And?
Well you have to start somewhere don't you and that's where he's starting. Is there some reason you're so determined to put a negative spin on his plans rather than welcoming another player in this field?
Nothing about spin/negativity. All of that is from yourself.
He makes no commitment to HSF beyond New Shepard at the moment. He presumes the existence or more. And you presume ... he's the supplier.
He's not another player in the field yet. We also have no clear idea of what he plans long term. When I've spoken with him/his people/partners, it's all narrowly scoped around "enabling", not "leading". And he's terrified of unscoped risk.
My gut tells me he'll only go so far, and wait for others to build upon what he does.
Nothing wrong with that. I applaud his presence. But don't presume either Musk, Bezos, or Branson is much beyond what they tell you.
Are we done here?
Post by: Mader Levap on 03/05/2017 01:52 am
this sort of thing benefits a very small number of peopleYou completely ignore ones that get money from that "very small number of people". SpaceX. I guess you prefer those rich guys and gals spending money on newest Rolexes, eh?
and only for a short timeNonsense. This additional money from tourism will help and accelerate SpaceX's plans, research and development. Assuming SpaceX succeeds in their goal of significatly lowering cost to space in general, time of this benefit will be forever (as long as humanity and it's successor(s) exists).
However, my feeling is that in the time it would take to mount those missions, the desire to simply fly tourists around the Moon would transmogrify into something else,
Yeah, SpaceX suddenly will say "screw it, we shouldn't do what Danderman disliked, let's give back those big fat deposits and never do something like moon flyby tourism just because". Riiight. ::)
perhaps a serious effort to pursue LEO space tourism.
Your mind must be pretty strange place. You apparently do not have anything against idea of space tourism itself (as you seem to not mind LEO tourism), but you call SpaceX's plans about their tourist moon flyby (nonsensically) FUD. What's the difference? I mean, both of them are tourism. Why trip around moon is so special?
You didn't presented any reason whatsoever why SpaceX would just not do it. For me it looks like "I dislike it, so SpaceX won't do it" seven year old's logic.
Post by: su27k on 03/05/2017 03:56 am
Seems to me the lack of focus on space tourism has more to do with the lack of a destination than the whole "going to Mars" thing. Would people really pay $20M+ to be cramped with 4 others in a Dragon and orbit the Earth a few times?
Will people pay $5bn to emigrate to Mars? LEO or lunar tourism will happen a long time before Mars colonization, simply because it's going to be much much cheaper. If you fly tourists to LEO every week or so the cost of an in-space module isn't that big of a factor anymore by the way.
Of course LEO or lunar tourism will happen earlier, it's self evident given this recent SpaceX announcement. But Mars is not just another business opportunity for SpaceX, they're not going to Mars to make a profit, they're making a profit so that they can go to Mars.
Post by: su27k on 03/05/2017 04:04 am
When Elon Musk offered that NASA would have first call if they want to do the loop around the moon in Dragon,
That's not what he said exactly, spaceflightnow (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/27/spacex-to-send-two-private-citizens-around-the-moon-and-back/) gives the following quotes
Quote
“This will be a private mission with two paying customers, (but) NASA always has first priority,” Musk said. “If NASA decides to have the first mission of this nature to be a NASA mission, then of course NASA would take priority.”
“We’re generally encouraging of anything that advances the cause of space exploration,” Musk said. “I think an SLS/Orion mission would be exciting as well. I don’t know what they’re timetable is, and I’m not sure if we will be before or after, but I don’t think that’s really the important thing. What matters is the advancement of space exploration and exceeding the high-water mark that was set in 1969 with the Apollo program, and just having a really exciting future in space that inspires the world.
“That’s what we care about, and we think that there should more companies and organizations doing this than SpaceX. The more the better.”
Seems to me he left it ambiguous on how NASA will fly the mission, there is no passive-aggressive suggestion that NASA needs to fly on a Dragon.
Post by: Lars-J on 03/05/2017 04:30 am
Have you watched the video interview with him I posted yesterday in the Blue Origin thread, if you haven't then I recommend you do?
Just did. He's even more long winded than I am (my icon/name comes from people telling me I talk too long/much).
Talks of cargo delivery service, not HR. For human settlement. Hydrolox architecture.My point exactly.
And?
Well you have to start somewhere don't you and that's where he's starting. Is there some reason you're so determined to put a negative spin on his plans rather than welcoming another player in this field?
That's a bit rich... you accusing someone of being determined to put a negative spin on something, when that's exactly what you have been doing in this thread lately.
Post by: TomH on 03/05/2017 04:50 am
Couldn't they share the glory by putting a NASA astronaut in with the two tourists. I am sure this would be a reassuring move to both Space X & the tourists.
It is entirely possible the tourists are a couple who specified that they want the privacy of being only with each other. They may not pay otherwise.
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/05/2017 04:52 am
This... This mission would pay for itself just in the tabloids.Couldn't they share the glory by putting a NASA astronaut in with the two tourists. I am sure this would be a reassuring move to both Space X & the tourists.
It is entirely possible the tourists are a couple who specified that they want the privacy of being only with each other. They may not pay otherwise.
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/05/2017 04:55 am
I'll watch the mission, but this sort of thing benefits a very small number of people, and only for a short time.
Yes. Sort of like Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic. Okay, a small bunch of investors got some cash out of it. Otherwise, the flight had no discernible affect on the advancement of aviation.
(Sorry, catching up, many pages behind. But this attitude just really puzzles me.)
If Lindbergh's flight occurred today, decades after the first trans-Atlantic passenger service started, what effect do you think it would have on aviation?
Post by: enzo on 03/05/2017 05:16 am
Frankly on a serious note I think the Dragon engineers would be extremely worried by a tourist crew engaging in unauthorized activities or horseplay in the vehicle. They could spill something on the control panel or worse. I would not be surprised if the contract includes a list of specifically prohibited activities. Many billionaires are not quite intelligent.This... This mission would pay for itself just in the tabloids.Couldn't they share the glory by putting a NASA astronaut in with the two tourists. I am sure this would be a reassuring move to both Space X & the tourists.It is entirely possible the tourists are a couple who specified that they want the privacy of being only with each other. They may not pay otherwise.
Post by: Nomadd on 03/05/2017 05:44 am
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/05/2017 06:19 am
Frankly on a serious note I think the Dragon engineers would be extremely worried by a tourist crew engaging in unauthorized activities or horseplay in the vehicle. They could spill something on the control panel or worse. I would not be surprised if the contract includes a list of specifically prohibited activities. Many billionaires are not quite intelligent.
If tourists really were going on this flight, the first time private citizens would be traveling in a private spacecraft beyond LEO, then sure, it would be natural to worry about them doing silly things that could have fatal ramifications. Because we know tourists, as a class of people, are ignorant and lazy, and just want to be catered to while they enjoy what they think is "adventure". So if we assume tourists are going on this adventure, then we'd assume a low probability of success.
But these won't be tourists, and they won't be ignorant of the ramifications of their actions. These will be adventurers, and they are likely to be very smart and capable people who will be able to learn all they need to learn to stay alive far from Earth when the unexpected happens.
I for one am not assuming that SpaceX will be sending the least competent people possible on such a historic flight - regardless how much money they have...
Post by: savuporo on 03/05/2017 06:36 am
Would be instrumented to hilt, if it happens.
Post by: Star One on 03/05/2017 08:28 am
This... This mission would pay for itself just in the tabloids.Couldn't they share the glory by putting a NASA astronaut in with the two tourists. I am sure this would be a reassuring move to both Space X & the tourists.
It is entirely possible the tourists are a couple who specified that they want the privacy of being only with each other. They may not pay otherwise.
You make it sound like an episode of something like The Kardashians. Whether that's a good or bad thing I suppose your mileage may vary on that.
Post by: bulkmail on 03/05/2017 09:35 am
Does somebody have the numbers for:
- Falcon Heavy payload capacity (let's say in expendable mode, but better if values are available also for 1- and 3-cores reusable modes) to TLI, LLO, Lagrangian points Earth-Moon, Earth-Sun
- Dragon V2 weight
- Dragon V2 weight for consumables per manday
Can FH send crewed Dragon V2 in Moon orbit or to some of the other cis-lunar and flexible path locations?
Sorry for quoting myself, but allow me to narrow that question:
Why is the 2018 mission a fly-by instead of orbital?
a) FH/Dragon have not enough performance to do manned Moon orbital flight
b) FH/Dragon are capable enough, but fly-by is less complex, easier to automate, no actions needed from the tourists, less risky
So, are they capable or not?
-FH can deliver 22.2t to GTO - http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
-Dragon v1 dry weight is 4.2t - Wikipedia
-Falcon second stage dry weight is 4.7t (I assume that will be needed for orbit insertion, de-orbiting and maybe Earth injection burn?) - http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html
That leaves 13t to cover the following:
-How much less can FH deliver to Moon orbit/TLI instead of GTO? I assume the Moon Orbit and GEO values will be similar, so if somebody has calculation for GEO that will be useful.
-What is dry weight added in Dragon v2 compared to v1?
-Falcon second stage - can it operate for the period of time required, let's say 1 week (Apollo 8 )?
-how much propellant is needed for those maneuvers?
-how much consumables are needed for 2 persons for a week?
-weight of BEO-additions (communication equipment)?
-something else?
Post by: Oli on 03/05/2017 09:36 am
Seems to me the lack of focus on space tourism has more to do with the lack of a destination than the whole "going to Mars" thing. Would people really pay $20M+ to be cramped with 4 others in a Dragon and orbit the Earth a few times?
Will people pay $5bn to emigrate to Mars? LEO or lunar tourism will happen a long time before Mars colonization, simply because it's going to be much much cheaper. If you fly tourists to LEO every week or so the cost of an in-space module isn't that big of a factor anymore by the way.
Of course LEO or lunar tourism will happen earlier, it's self evident given this recent SpaceX announcement. But Mars is not just another business opportunity for SpaceX, they're not going to Mars to make a profit, they're making a profit so that they can go to Mars.
LEO tourism already happened 16 years ago. What I mean is LEO or lunar tourism in large numbers, i.e. hundreds or thousands of tourists per year.
And no, you cannot expect any company to shift its profits into an unprofitable project for a long period of time. If it does that it will lose out to competitors.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/05/2017 10:37 am
Does somebody have the numbers for:
- Falcon Heavy payload capacity (let's say in expendable mode, but better if values are available also for 1- and 3-cores reusable modes) to TLI, LLO, Lagrangian points Earth-Moon, Earth-Sun
- Dragon V2 weight
- Dragon V2 weight for consumables per manday
Can FH send crewed Dragon V2 in Moon orbit or to some of the other cis-lunar and flexible path locations?
Sorry for quoting myself, but allow me to narrow that question:
Why is the 2018 mission a fly-by instead of orbital?
a) FH/Dragon have not enough performance to do manned Moon orbital flight
b) FH/Dragon are capable enough, but fly-by is less complex, easier to automate, no actions needed from the tourists, less risky
So, are they capable or not?
-FH can deliver 22.2t to GTO - http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
-Dragon v1 dry weight is 4.2t - Wikipedia
-Falcon second stage dry weight is 4.7t (I assume that will be needed for orbit insertion, de-orbiting and maybe Earth injection burn?) - http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html
That leaves 13t to cover the following:
-How much less can FH deliver to Moon orbit/TLI instead of GTO? I assume the Moon Orbit and GEO values will be similar, so if somebody has calculation for GEO that will be useful.
-What is dry weight added in Dragon v2 compared to v1?
-Falcon second stage - can it operate for the period of time required, let's say 1 week (Apollo 8 )?
-how much propellant is needed for those maneuvers?
-how much consumables are needed for 2 persons for a week?
-weight of BEO-additions (communication equipment)?
-something else?
well lets start from red dragon. We already know that FH can put dragon in escape trajectory and the red dragon was going to have enough hydrazine to land on mars. What we don't know is what is the delta-v required for landing on mars. I don't think S2 from the heavy will last until the moon to help with the insertion. So it really is just a dragon question.
Post by: rpapo on 03/05/2017 11:49 am
Why is the 2018 mission a fly-by instead of orbital?(a) Not as far as I know.
a) FH/Dragon have not enough performance to do manned Moon orbital flight
b) FH/Dragon are capable enough, but fly-by is less complex, easier to automate, no actions needed from the tourists, less risky
(b) No and yes.
From what I have heard (here), there is no way you could keep the Falcon 9 second stage ready to use for three whole days, the time required to get to the moon on a free-return trajectory. Given that, you cannot use the Falcon 9 as the source of the delta-V required for braking into lunar orbit, let alone for accelerating back out of lunar orbit and into the proper Earth return trajectory.
So, does the Dragon 2 have that much delta-V? From the numbers bandied about on these fora, I would guess not.
So, if you don't have the power required to go into lunar orbit, as Apollo 8 did, then you really don't have much choice but use the moon's gravity to effect a quick turnaround and "free return" trajectory back to Earth. And if the moon weren't there to turn the craft around, the orbit required to get out to the moon's orbit would probably loop back to Earth eventually, but I don't think the Dragon would have enough air/water/food for the people onboard to survive that long.
Anybody here want to provide some numbers on what that orbit would look like?
Post by: toruonu on 03/05/2017 12:00 pm
Post by: Barrie on 03/05/2017 12:14 pm
,,,assuming the V2 panel covers can be jettisoned before Dragon is released.
I don't think there are any panel covers on Dragon v2
Post by: macpacheco on 03/05/2017 12:18 pm
Btw, what is the actual limitation on the second stage that it cannot survive a three day trip. Batteries? Couldn't it go into some deep sleep for the duration and conserve power or one could make a feedback connector that Dragon could feed S2 some of its solar power that it's gathering assuming the V2 panel covers can be jettisoned before Dragon is released.The root problem is LOX will boil off and RP1 freeze. It would take significant solar panels to generate enough electricity to heat the RP1 and keep the LOX cold enough so it doesn't boil. This eliminates much reason in giving the 2nd stage enough battery power to be able to operate for a long time, since its essentially without purpose if its engine can't operate.
It *probably* won't require much to keep the 2nd stage batteries alive using Dragon solar panel electrons, but what's the purpose ?
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/05/2017 12:43 pm
Frankly on a serious note I think the Dragon engineers would be extremely worried by a tourist crew engaging in unauthorized activities or horseplay in the vehicle. They could spill something on the control panel or worse. I would not be surprised if the contract includes a list of specifically prohibited activities.I, for one, look forward to the day when enough spaceship accidents are due to horseplay that we need rules about it. Blood alcohol content must less than 0.08% for re-entry! Console cover must be used during activities involving exchange of precious bodily fluids! Prank calls sending fake INS coordinates are strictly prohibited!
In all seriousness, if you are sending humans, you've got to expect human behavior. When spacecraft are as common and reliable as cars, where more than 90% of the accidents are caused by driver error, we will need rules like this. But we have a long, long way to go until passenger behavior even approaches technical errors as a cause of accidents.
Post by: Jim on 03/05/2017 01:00 pm
Btw, what is the actual limitation on the second stage that it cannot survive a three day trip. Batteries? Couldn't it go into some deep sleep for the duration and conserve power or one could make a feedback connector that Dragon could feed S2 some of its solar power that it's gathering assuming the V2 panel covers can be jettisoned before Dragon is released.
Its avionics are not designed for deep space nor is any of the systems designed to last more than 10 hours or so. The avionics are autonomous and no capability for updates. And it is not that simple just to add a connector with power
Post by: BobHk on 03/05/2017 03:55 pm
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/05/2017 04:23 pm
Post by: envy887 on 03/05/2017 04:37 pm
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?
A fly-by mission doesn't need a Raptor stage. And Raptor on Falcon is unlikely to happen at all, for many reasons.
Post by: Kenp51d on 03/05/2017 04:43 pm
Those concerns were brought up on another sites comments section.
I'd be rather certain the issues could be successfully dealt with by SpaceX, but difficult and lot's of $$$$$$.
Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
Post by: toruonu on 03/05/2017 04:48 pm
I doubt it; the last I heard, SpaceX were barely at the point where they were building a test stand for Raptor, let alone thinking of converting Merlin VAC to a new fuel mixture!
Well I doubt there'd be a raptor upper stage, but with regard to their progress, did you miss the raptor firing info just before Elon unrolled the mars plans in September? So they have a test stand and a prototype engine that actually works. Wasn't there also a video of the firing that was way longer than just a simple start-stop, didn't it last ~ten seconds.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/05/2017 04:51 pm
Btw, what is the actual limitation on the second stage that it cannot survive a three day trip. Batteries? Couldn't it go into some deep sleep for the duration and conserve power or one could make a feedback connector that Dragon could feed S2 some of its solar power that it's gathering assuming the V2 panel covers can be jettisoned before Dragon is released.
Its avionics are not designed for deep space nor is any of the systems designed to last more than 10 hours or so. The avionics are autonomous and no capability for updates. And it is not that simple just to add a connector with power
FWIW, all this *by design*. US is a specialized mass/delta-V obsessively performance designed robot that takes payload(s) from near space to target orbit(s) and properly dispenses them.
If you build an in-space propulsion tug out of a US, its an all new vehicle, and the flight history/operations/economics/assembly line/logistics chain/missions/"business case" starts.
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?Add 4-5 years for that to happen, quadruple the costing (full absorption of cost for mission), and 1/10 the safety/reliability.
Yes. But isn't everything bolt-on legos that self test/integrate/operate/universal function? Its so easy, right ?? Not.So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?
A fly-by mission doesn't need a Raptor stage. And Raptor on Falcon is unlikely to happen at all, for many reasons.
Raptor is irrelevant to this thread. They are also having enough fun with existing GSE and vehicle. Soon to be "vehicles".I doubt it; the last I heard, SpaceX were barely at the point where they were building a test stand for Raptor, let alone thinking of converting Merlin VAC to a new fuel mixture!
Well I doubt there'd be a raptor upper stage, but with regard to their progress, did you miss the raptor firing info just before Elon unrolled the mars plans in September? So they have a test stand and a prototype engine that actually works. Wasn't there also a video of the firing that was way longer than just a simple start-stop, didn't it last ~ten seconds.
Post by: gospacex on 03/05/2017 05:01 pm
Think about it.
While flying in a can for a few days with no actual destination except the landing back on Earth is not really that exciting after a few first flights, a tourist trip to the Moon surface is way more interesting for potential tourist-type customers.
Post by: envy887 on 03/05/2017 05:01 pm
.... They are also having enough fun with existing GSE and vehicle. Soon to be "vehicles".Aren't they retiring Dragon when Dragon 2 is qualified? Or is this a reference to another launch vehicle?
Post by: Jim on 03/05/2017 05:27 pm
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?
There is no such thing.
Post by: ugordan on 03/05/2017 05:33 pm
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?
There is no such thing.
Maybe not in the real world, but in the armchair rocket scientist universe it is very much a reality.
Post by: DAZ on 03/05/2017 05:44 pm
But thinking along the lines of what SpaceX still needs to do for its stated objectives has given me a head scratching moment. SpaceX has announced and shown that it is working on the new Raptor engine. There is also information available that they are working on how to build the new composite propellant tanks for the ITS. It was also announced that the ITS would use gaseous methane/oxygen engines for attitude control. These attitude control thrusters would probably need to be bigger than the present Draco engines but probably smaller (but not necessarily) than the Super Draco engines. So the part that has my head itching has anybody heard anything related to the development of these new engines?
Now for the speculation part related to this thread. If just about everything that SpaceX works on is related on how to get to Mars this would lean against SpaceX using any resources toward developing a Raptor S2 for the Falcon 9. It would also lean against SpaceX developing a breakaway kit using a super Draco engine to fit in the trunk of the Dragon system to be used as a service module. All of which would be within the ability of SpaceX to produce but as they have no missions/customers that need it would be most likely a waste of resources. Now developing the above mentioned new gaseous methane/oxygen engines for attitude control is definitely on their list of things to do but is probably on their due later as opposed to do earlier list. If on the other hand, they were to move this to the do earlier list could they also possibly be willing to expend the extra resources for a breakaway service module kit?
This would allow them to accomplish something else on there to do list earlier and at the same time possibly get more experience with it. For a relatively low cost this would put another tool in their toolkit that others could conceivably use (and obviously be willing to pay SpaceX) for possible BLEO missions.
Post by: Kenp51d on 03/05/2017 06:02 pm
Would likely need real big money and several years.
Ken
Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
Post by: woods170 on 03/05/2017 06:05 pm
Maybe not in the real world, but in the armchair rocket scientist universe it is very much a fantasyThere, fixed that for ya.reality.
Post by: rakaydos on 03/05/2017 06:38 pm
Now for the speculation part related to this thread. If just about everything that SpaceX works on is related on how to get to Mars this would lean against SpaceX using any resources toward developing a Raptor S2 for the Falcon 9. It would also lean against SpaceX developing a breakaway kit using a super Draco engine to fit in the trunk of the Dragon system to be used as a service module. All of which would be within the ability of SpaceX to produce but as they have no missions/customers that need it would be most likely a waste of resources. Now developing the above mentioned new gaseous methane/oxygen engines for attitude control is definitely on their list of things to do but is probably on their due later as opposed to do earlier list. If on the other hand, they were to move this to the do earlier list could they also possibly be willing to expend the extra resources for a breakaway service module kit?
This idea intrigues me. It's not a NESSISARY vehical for their mars plans, but as a Technical readiiness demonstrator for the Methane/GOx mini-engine, the usefullness of a high Loiter, high energy propellant satelite-deployment 3rd stage is not to be underestimated for GEO missions. Sizing the demostrater to fit in Dragon's trunk opens up BEO options, White Dragonlab, and possibly even more payload to mars under Red Dragon.
Post by: Jim on 03/05/2017 06:42 pm
the usefullness of a high Loiter, high energy propellant satelite-deployment 3rd stage is not to be underestimated for GEO missions.
There is no need for such a stage, there is no additional benefit. The second stage is all that is necessary for GEO deployments.
Post by: Jim on 03/05/2017 06:49 pm
The real beauty of this mission is that it is basically using the same things that SpaceX is planning to do in the near future so SpaceX is designing and building them right now. About the only exception to this would be the deep space communications system on the Dragon 2 capsule. Even this is along the same line, as it will need to build something like this for the Red Dragon mission.
But thinking along the lines of what SpaceX still needs to do for its stated objectives has given me a head scratching moment. SpaceX has announced and shown that it is working on the new Raptor engine. There is also information available that they are working on how to build the new composite propellant tanks for the ITS. It was also announced that the ITS would use gaseous methane/oxygen engines for attitude control. These attitude control thrusters would probably need to be bigger than the present Draco engines but probably smaller (but not necessarily) than the Super Draco engines. So the part that has my head itching has anybody heard anything related to the development of these new engines?
Now for the speculation part related to this thread. If just about everything that SpaceX works on is related on how to get to Mars this would lean against SpaceX using any resources toward developing a Raptor S2 for the Falcon 9. It would also lean against SpaceX developing a breakaway kit using a super Draco engine to fit in the trunk of the Dragon system to be used as a service module. All of which would be within the ability of SpaceX to produce but as they have no missions/customers that need it would be most likely a waste of resources. Now developing the above mentioned new gaseous methane/oxygen engines for attitude control is definitely on their list of things to do but is probably on their due later as opposed to do earlier list. If on the other hand, they were to move this to the do earlier list could they also possibly be willing to expend the extra resources for a breakaway service module kit?
This would allow them to accomplish something else on there to do list earlier and at the same time possibly get more experience with it. For a relatively low cost this would put another tool in their toolkit that others could conceivably use (and obviously be willing to pay SpaceX) for possible BLEO missions.
No, this could be the furtherest away from what they are doing.
the ITS uses gaseous methane/oxygen because it is readily available. a spacecraft using it would need high pressure bottles of it. It is not a simple mod.
It would not be Spacex low cost.
Post by: Roy_H on 03/05/2017 06:51 pm
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?Well, I'm certainly not ready to bet on it, but I think that is the best option for BLEO operations. It would be awesome if SpaceX was that far on in its development but I think it is still years away. I believe they will need this to do lunar orbit or landing/return.
Post by: punder on 03/05/2017 07:00 pm
I'll watch the mission, but this sort of thing benefits a very small number of people, and only for a short time.
Yes. Sort of like Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic. Okay, a small bunch of investors got some cash out of it. Otherwise, the flight had no discernible affect on the advancement of aviation.
(Sorry, catching up, many pages behind. But this attitude just really puzzles me.)
If Lindbergh's flight occurred today, decades after the first trans-Atlantic passenger service started, what effect do you think it would have on aviation?
If transatlantic passenger services carried 27 passengers across the ocean over the course of four years, and then carried absolutely zero for the next 50 years, I think it would have a HUGE effect.
Post by: Star One on 03/05/2017 07:03 pm
Quote
Which brings me back to the premise of this article: Based solely on publicly available facts, it seems unlikely this mission will happen in 2018.
Objectively speaking, SpaceX has revolutionized the launch industry. They have made incredible leaps forward in technology while re-energizing the world about spaceflight in a way that NASA has, in some ways, failed to do. They broke the monopoly on launching classified U.S. payloads. They may one day send humans to Mars.
For a space company that has only been around for 15 years, that's extraordinarily impressive. But in terms of media relations and gut-checking ambitious timelines, there's always room for improvement.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170302-spacex-tourists-2018.html
See what you think of the above sceptical on timeline article.
Post by: JamesH65 on 03/05/2017 07:21 pm
SpaceX plans to send tourists around the Moon in 2018. Here's why that may not happenQuoteWhich brings me back to the premise of this article: Based solely on publicly available facts, it seems unlikely this mission will happen in 2018.
Objectively speaking, SpaceX has revolutionized the launch industry. They have made incredible leaps forward in technology while re-energizing the world about spaceflight in a way that NASA has, in some ways, failed to do. They broke the monopoly on launching classified U.S. payloads. They may one day send humans to Mars.
For a space company that has only been around for 15 years, that's extraordinarily impressive. But in terms of media relations and gut-checking ambitious timelines, there's always room for improvement.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170302-spacex-tourists-2018.html
See what you think of the above sceptical on timeline article.
Hmm. Two things come to mind about that article - the first is sour grapes that he didn't get a reply to his questions.
The second is to do with SpaceX delays. Yes, they have delays, that is entirely to be expected. But, I reckon they use a form of agile development. The thing about agile development, is that as development proceeds you become better as estimating how long things will take. So I would expect them to be getting better at predicting timescales. They have now been doing this for 15 years. They started as complete beginners, they are now leading the world. I fully expect them to get a LOT better with their predictions, simply because they are getting better at everything. Of course, they will still have delays, but their predictions will be more accurate.
Post by: Star One on 03/05/2017 07:32 pm
SpaceX plans to send tourists around the Moon in 2018. Here's why that may not happenQuoteWhich brings me back to the premise of this article: Based solely on publicly available facts, it seems unlikely this mission will happen in 2018.
Objectively speaking, SpaceX has revolutionized the launch industry. They have made incredible leaps forward in technology while re-energizing the world about spaceflight in a way that NASA has, in some ways, failed to do. They broke the monopoly on launching classified U.S. payloads. They may one day send humans to Mars.
For a space company that has only been around for 15 years, that's extraordinarily impressive. But in terms of media relations and gut-checking ambitious timelines, there's always room for improvement.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170302-spacex-tourists-2018.html
See what you think of the above sceptical on timeline article.
Hmm. Two things come to mind about that article - the first is sour grapes that he didn't get a reply to his questions.
The second is to do with SpaceX delays. Yes, they have delays, that is entirely to be expected. But, I reckon they use a form of agile development. The thing about agile development, is that as development proceeds you become better as estimating how long things will take. So I would expect them to be getting better at predicting timescales. They have now been doing this for 15 years. They started as complete beginners, they are now leading the world. I fully expect them to get a LOT better with their predictions, simply because they are getting better at everything. Of course, they will still have delays, but their predictions will be more accurate.
I really don't think him not getting a reply to his questions being brought into his article was a relevant thing for him to bring up, in fact I think it undermined his argument.
Post by: yokem55 on 03/05/2017 07:38 pm
So much of their schedule for this and crew in general is dependent on getting LC-40 going again. They won't be able to get 39a ready for heavy until 40 can support launches again. They can't get the crew access arm installed on the FSS, again until 40 is launching vehicles again. And they can't just put their manifest on hold at 39 to make those changes either. So, as long as the schedule for getting 40 up and running again holds for summertime, they will be okay.SpaceX plans to send tourists around the Moon in 2018. Here's why that may not happenQuoteWhich brings me back to the premise of this article: Based solely on publicly available facts, it seems unlikely this mission will happen in 2018.
Objectively speaking, SpaceX has revolutionized the launch industry. They have made incredible leaps forward in technology while re-energizing the world about spaceflight in a way that NASA has, in some ways, failed to do. They broke the monopoly on launching classified U.S. payloads. They may one day send humans to Mars.
For a space company that has only been around for 15 years, that's extraordinarily impressive. But in terms of media relations and gut-checking ambitious timelines, there's always room for improvement.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170302-spacex-tourists-2018.html
See what you think of the above sceptical on timeline article.
Hmm. Two things come to mind about that article - the first is sour grapes that he didn't get a reply to his questions.
The second is to do with SpaceX delays. Yes, they have delays, that is entirely to be expected. But, I reckon they use a form of agile development. The thing about agile development, is that as development proceeds you become better as estimating how long things will take. So I would expect them to be getting better at predicting timescales. They have now been doing this for 15 years. They started as complete beginners, they are now leading the world. I fully expect them to get a LOT better with their predictions, simply because they are getting better at everything. Of course, they will still have delays, but their predictions will be more accurate.
But inevitably they will have delays at 40 as they have never restored a pad and its GSE from a big accident before, and thus any estimates as to when it will be ready are at best guesses. Once the new TEL and launch mount are in place again, better estimates can be made. Remember it took ~2 years to get 39a ready and that started with a pad with decent infrastructure in place already. The TEL there first went up about a year ago, and still it wasn't ready until last month.
Post by: manoweb on 03/05/2017 07:47 pm
They won't be able to get 39a ready for heavy until 40 can support launches again.
But why do you say this?
Post by: Jim on 03/05/2017 07:54 pm
They won't be able to get 39a ready for heavy until 40 can support launches again.
But why do you say this?
Because it is what is going to happen
Post by: ugordan on 03/05/2017 07:56 pm
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/05/2017 07:57 pm
They won't be able to get 39a ready for heavy until 40 can support launches again.
But why do you say this?
How can they install the GSE on the pad deck while still launching? 39A will have to be out of action for quite a bit while they prep it for FH.
Post by: manoweb on 03/05/2017 08:09 pm
Post by: old_sellsword on 03/05/2017 08:12 pm
Hi, so are you saying there has been a SpaceX announcement about not launching Falcon Heavy before the old pad is ready?
Yes, almost those exact words.
https://youtu.be/xjXYSJF-7Cs?t=6m56s
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/05/2017 08:18 pm
Post by: manoweb on 03/05/2017 08:42 pm
::) A dozen posts to communicate the obvious ... and still no concrete belief that its ... understood.
Are you referring to my question for a source of such claim?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjXYSJF-7Cs?t=6m56s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjXYSJF-7Cs?t=6m56s)
Thanks (unfortunately for whatever reason the link you gave ignores the time index; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjXYSJF-7Cs?t=416 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjXYSJF-7Cs?t=412) this seem to work better but I don't know what's going on)
Post by: Star One on 03/05/2017 08:47 pm
http://mashable.com/2017/03/05/spacex-moon-trip-elon-musk-passengers/
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/05/2017 09:11 pm
::) A dozen posts to communicate the obvious ... and still no concrete belief that its ... understood.
Are you referring to my question for a source of such claim?
No insult meant. Slightly despairing lament, as this has been answered on this board practically weekly for months. I think I answered it myself 2 months ago. And SX has made related comments. There are reasons they won't directly answer this.
add:
Found it - 12 days ago:
SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41019.msg1645382#msg1645382)
...
You get 40 working again so launch operations shift back to there, freeing up all of 39A.
Then you have to spend time working out assembly/integration of FH, which likely involves parallel integration of three cores seperately, sequencing fixtures and facility to accomplish. Then you'll have to practice mate/demate of the three cores with unique fixtures, then be able to handle US integration with the core and finally payload.
This will compete with other uses of the pad (CC, CRS), where shifting things in/out/elsewhere will slow down operations for a while.
...
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/05/2017 09:31 pm
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?I'll take your bet! What are you offering? Steak dinner? Beverage of choice $10 or less?
(By the way, y'all are taking the wrong approach, here. Instead of trying to disprove him, you should be trying to score a free steak dinner!)
Post by: Jcc on 03/05/2017 10:22 pm
SpaceX plans to send tourists around the Moon in 2018. Here's why that may not happenQuoteWhich brings me back to the premise of this article: Based solely on publicly available facts, it seems unlikely this mission will happen in 2018.
Objectively speaking, SpaceX has revolutionized the launch industry. They have made incredible leaps forward in technology while re-energizing the world about spaceflight in a way that NASA has, in some ways, failed to do. They broke the monopoly on launching classified U.S. payloads. They may one day send humans to Mars.
For a space company that has only been around for 15 years, that's extraordinarily impressive. But in terms of media relations and gut-checking ambitious timelines, there's always room for improvement.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170302-spacex-tourists-2018.html
See what you think of the above sceptical on timeline article.
The good thing about the moon mission, from a skeptical perspective, is that if it doesn't launch by late 2018, it can launch in early 2019. Unlike Red Dragon, which has to wait until 2020.
Post by: Kenp51d on 03/05/2017 10:38 pm
Just watch and see how this plays out.
Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
Post by: Danderman on 03/05/2017 11:16 pm
Btw, what is the actual limitation on the second stage that it cannot survive a three day trip. Batteries? Couldn't it go into some deep sleep for the duration and conserve power or one could make a feedback connector that Dragon could feed S2 some of its solar power that it's gathering assuming the V2 panel covers can be jettisoned before Dragon is released.
Its avionics are not designed for deep space nor is any of the systems designed to last more than 10 hours or so. The avionics are autonomous and no capability for updates. And it is not that simple just to add a connector with power
Apparently, keeping upper stages alive more than their nominal lifetimes is a bit of a problem. It might be possible to power a webcam and radio or some other auxiliary system, but to keep the principal systemd alive for more than 24 hours is a bit of a nightmare, unless the stage were designed for that purpose. Yeah, I was spoiled by Agena, too.
Post by: Danderman on 03/05/2017 11:17 pm
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?
If such an upper stage were available, the Dragon would have a lot more capability, and perhaps be able to enter and leave high lunar orbit. That would make it very useful.
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/05/2017 11:38 pm
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?I'll take your bet! What are you offering? Steak dinner? Beverage of choice $10 or less?
(By the way, y'all are taking the wrong approach, here. Instead of trying to disprove him, you should be trying to score a free steak dinner!)
The Raptor upper stage is going to have a large PLF in which you'll find an Atlas Centaur below Dragon. This will make TLI happen and preserve all of Dragon's fuel.
And, yes, I'm only saying that to get Jim to cover his keyboard with coffee from his nose.
Post by: envy887 on 03/05/2017 11:57 pm
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?I'll take your bet! What are you offering? Steak dinner? Beverage of choice $10 or less?
(By the way, y'all are taking the wrong approach, here. Instead of trying to disprove him, you should be trying to score a free steak dinner!)
The Raptor upper stage is going to have a large PLF in which you'll find an Atlas Centaur below Dragon. This will make TLI happen and preserve all of Dragon's fuel.
And, yes, I'm only saying that to Jim to cover his keyboard with coffee from his nose.
Now you did it. I'm going to go calculate the fuel remainder after TLI of Falcon Heavy with Centaur as a third stage. It's probably pretty good... :D
Post by: DAZ on 03/06/2017 12:28 am
The real beauty of this mission is that it is basically using the same things that SpaceX is planning to do in the near future so SpaceX is designing and building them right now. About the only exception to this would be the deep space communications system on the Dragon 2 capsule. Even this is along the same line, as it will need to build something like this for the Red Dragon mission.
But thinking along the lines of what SpaceX still needs to do for its stated objectives has given me a head scratching moment. SpaceX has announced and shown that it is working on the new Raptor engine. There is also information available that they are working on how to build the new composite propellant tanks for the ITS. It was also announced that the ITS would use gaseous methane/oxygen engines for attitude control. These attitude control thrusters would probably need to be bigger than the present Draco engines but probably smaller (but not necessarily) than the Super Draco engines. So the part that has my head itching has anybody heard anything related to the development of these new engines?
Now for the speculation part related to this thread. If just about everything that SpaceX works on is related on how to get to Mars this would lean against SpaceX using any resources toward developing a Raptor S2 for the Falcon 9. It would also lean against SpaceX developing a breakaway kit using a super Draco engine to fit in the trunk of the Dragon system to be used as a service module. All of which would be within the ability of SpaceX to produce but as they have no missions/customers that need it would be most likely a waste of resources. Now developing the above mentioned new gaseous methane/oxygen engines for attitude control is definitely on their list of things to do but is probably on their due later as opposed to do earlier list. If on the other hand, they were to move this to the do earlier list could they also possibly be willing to expend the extra resources for a breakaway service module kit?
This would allow them to accomplish something else on there to do list earlier and at the same time possibly get more experience with it. For a relatively low cost this would put another tool in their toolkit that others could conceivably use (and obviously be willing to pay SpaceX) for possible BLEO missions.
No, this could be the furtherest away from what they are doing.
the ITS uses gaseous methane/oxygen because it is readily available. a spacecraft using it would need high pressure bottles of it. It is not a simple mod.
It would not be Spacex low cost.
Having to use high-pressure bottles would seem to be more of constraint for the total Delta-V (which admittedly might make the concept not worth pursuing) rather than a cost issue.
Too bad it's not feasible to have a pressure fed liquid methane/oxygen engine that could also run as a gaseous methane/oxygen engine.
Post by: philw1776 on 03/06/2017 01:10 am
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?
I'll take the NO side. What's the terms?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/06/2017 01:23 am
I was one of the first people, I think , to even tout this idea - but I'm also one of the ones who is telling people now that it simply is very unlikely to happen! It's like the whack-a-mole idea that just refuses to go away. No matter how many times we tell people it's not going to happen; others keep raising it from the dead anew - as if they were the first to think of it!! It doesn't matter that it happens to actually be a fairly good idea - Space X will be 'freezing' the designs of Falcon 9 and Heavy soon, and moving on to other things...So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?
I'll take the NO side. What's the terms?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoP1E9J4jpg
Post by: meekGee on 03/06/2017 01:53 am
- SpaceX operating barges/ships for stage recovery
- Rockets that remain vertical throughout their life cycle
- Cradle landing
- "Son of Teledesic" - large LEO constellation fielded by SpaceX (or others!)
- VLEO constellation in a "self-deorbiting" altitude fielded by SpaceX (or others!)
- Round-the-moon tourist tickets sold by SpaceX
- Mars being a "real goal" and not a trick played by Musk to encourage young engineers to work overtime
- Raptor being in real development (at the time)
- Mars Megarocket being in real development (at the time)
And there's a similar list of things that didn't happen...
But the above list is a hint that just the fact that a bunch of people are crying "it'll never happen" does not mean it won't.
The last couple of months are plenty evidence of that.
Post by: Jim on 03/06/2017 02:25 am
- Rockets that remain vertical throughout their life cycle
That was specific to Falcon 9 discussions
Post by: Jim on 03/06/2017 02:26 am
- Cradle landing
That is much like parachute recovery.
Post by: envy887 on 03/06/2017 02:53 am
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?I'll take your bet! What are you offering? Steak dinner? Beverage of choice $10 or less?
(By the way, y'all are taking the wrong approach, here. Instead of trying to disprove him, you should be trying to score a free steak dinner!)
The Raptor upper stage is going to have a large PLF in which you'll find an Atlas Centaur below Dragon. This will make TLI happen and preserve all of Dragon's fuel.
And, yes, I'm only saying that to Jim to cover his keyboard with coffee from his nose.
Now you did it. I'm going to go calculate the fuel remainder after TLI of Falcon Heavy with Centaur as a third stage. It's probably pretty good... :D
Almost 17 tonnes translunar after recovering all three boosters!!! That's more than double the current reusable payload... Elon should look into this :D
Post by: mme on 03/06/2017 03:07 am
As long as they stay competitive they can do anything they want.Seems to me the lack of focus on space tourism has more to do with the lack of a destination than the whole "going to Mars" thing. Would people really pay $20M+ to be cramped with 4 others in a Dragon and orbit the Earth a few times?
Will people pay $5bn to emigrate to Mars? LEO or lunar tourism will happen a long time before Mars colonization, simply because it's going to be much much cheaper. If you fly tourists to LEO every week or so the cost of an in-space module isn't that big of a factor anymore by the way.
Of course LEO or lunar tourism will happen earlier, it's self evident given this recent SpaceX announcement. But Mars is not just another business opportunity for SpaceX, they're not going to Mars to make a profit, they're making a profit so that they can go to Mars.
LEO tourism already happened 16 years ago. What I mean is LEO or lunar tourism in large numbers, i.e. hundreds or thousands of tourists per year.
And no, you cannot expect any company to shift its profits into an unprofitable project for a long period of time. If it does that it will lose out to competitors.
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/06/2017 05:47 am
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?....
The Raptor upper stage is going to have a large PLF in which you'll find an Atlas Centaur below Dragon. This will make TLI happen and preserve all of Dragon's fuel.
....
Now you did it. I'm going to go calculate the fuel remainder after TLI of Falcon Heavy with Centaur as a third stage. It's probably pretty good... :D
Almost 17 tonnes translunar after recovering all three boosters!!! That's more than double the current reusable payload... Elon should look into this :D
What's the payload to TLI if you expended the center core?
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 03/06/2017 05:48 am
The real beauty of this mission is that it is basically using the same things that SpaceX is planning to do in the near future so SpaceX is designing and building them right now. About the only exception to this would be the deep space communications system on the Dragon 2 capsule. Even this is along the same line, as it will need to build something like this for the Red Dragon mission.
NASA will be providing that facility for Red Dragon in exchange for Martian entry, descent, and landing data.
As for lunar missions, they might just pay NASA (or ESA or the Russians - unless it's ITAR prohibited?) for the service. There are also plenty of radio telescopes whose operators might welcome a cash infusion (the construction costs of Jodrell Bank were paid off in exactly this kind of arrangement).
Post by: rakaydos on 03/06/2017 05:54 am
the usefullness of a high Loiter, high energy propellant satelite-deployment 3rd stage is not to be underestimated for GEO missions.
There is no need for such a stage, there is no additional benefit. The second stage is all that is necessary for GEO deployments.
Including the actual GEO insertion? If there's still problems with using a second stage for lunar missions because of loiter time, how much longer does LTO take than GTO?
Post by: TomH on 03/06/2017 05:57 am
Post by: dcporter on 03/06/2017 06:17 am
Post by: hkultala on 03/06/2017 06:24 am
Oh God. Down the rabbit hole we fall. Ignoring reality for a moment and pretending various stages could come from varying manufacturers as they did for Saturn V, let's say you could replace the Falcon US on FH (Block V components) with an ACES 73, what kind of performance (fully disposable, add cross-feed if you want) could you get to LEO? To TLI, TMI? If ACES 73 is too much mass, how about Aces 41?
ACES 41 would probably decrease they payload, as it would be too small, giving much less total impulse.
ACES 73 would probably improve payloads to high-energy orbits considerably, but not much for LEO due worse T/W ratio(worse gravity losses).
[/offtopic]
Post by: TomH on 03/06/2017 07:15 am
[offtopic]Oh God. Down the rabbit hole we fall. Ignoring reality for a moment and pretending various stages could come from varying manufacturers as they did for Saturn V, let's say you could replace the Falcon US on FH (Block V components) with an ACES 73, what kind of performance (fully disposable, add cross-feed if you want) could you get to LEO? To TLI, TMI? If ACES 73 is too much mass, how about Aces 41?
ACES 41 would probably decrease they payload, as it would be too small, giving much less total impulse.
ACES 73 would probably improve payloads to high-energy orbits considerably, but not much for LEO due worse T/W ratio(worse gravity losses).
[/offtopic]
Agreed off topic, but worthy of discussion. New thread started here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42475.0
Post by: Jim on 03/06/2017 11:02 am
About the only exception to this would be the deep space communications system on the Dragon 2 capsule.
NASA will be providing that facility for Red Dragon in exchange for Martian entry, descent, and landing data.
No, he is talking about the hardware on the Dragon. NASA is providing the ground portion and not the hardware on the Dragon
Post by: Jim on 03/06/2017 11:03 am
If there's still problems with using a second stage for lunar missions because of loiter time, how much longer does LTO take than GTO?
more than 2 days vs 6 hours.
Post by: DOCinCT on 03/06/2017 12:01 pm
Didn't Elon comment that with an expendable center core the GTO payload goes up to 31,000 lbs vs. the standard 18,000lbs? That's about 175% improvement. (Fully expendable is 49,000lbs 272% improvement)What's the payload to TLI if you expended the center core?Almost 17 tonnes translunar after recovering all three boosters!!! That's more than double the current reusable payload... Elon should look into this :DThe Raptor upper stage is going to have a large PLF in which you'll find an Atlas Centaur below Dragon. This will make TLI happen and preserve all of Dragon's fuel.So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?....
....
Now you did it. I'm going to go calculate the fuel remainder after TLI of Falcon Heavy with Centaur as a third stage. It's probably pretty good... :D
Post by: DAZ on 03/06/2017 12:32 pm
About the only exception to this would be the deep space communications system on the Dragon 2 capsule.
NASA will be providing that facility for Red Dragon in exchange for Martian entry, descent, and landing data.
No, he is talking about the hardware on the Dragon. NASA is providing the ground portion and not the hardware on the Dragon
Jim is correct, I was referring only to the hardware on the Dragon.
As to the ground portion, we don't yet know with the STARGATE at Boca Chica can do but it is conceivable that it could handle at least a portion of the ground part of the system.
Post by: jpo234 on 03/06/2017 01:22 pm
As to the ground portion, we don't yet know with the STARGATE at Boca Chica can do but it is conceivable that it could handle at least a portion of the ground part of the system.
The DSN requires ground stations around the globe (Goldstone, Madrid and Canberra). A single location is not enough.
Post by: bob the martian on 03/06/2017 02:31 pm
I'll watch the mission, but this sort of thing benefits a very small number of people, and only for a short time.
Yes. Sort of like Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic. Okay, a small bunch of investors got some cash out of it. Otherwise, the flight had no discernible affect on the advancement of aviation.
(Sorry, catching up, many pages behind. But this attitude just really puzzles me.)
If Lindbergh's flight occurred today, decades after the first trans-Atlantic passenger service started, what effect do you think it would have on aviation?
The difference is that there is no existing commercial space flight industry offering regular round-trip flights to the Moon and back. This kind of flight isn't happening multiple times a day every day.
Put another way, what impact would Lindbergh's flight have today on an air travel industry that had made 8 trans-Atlantic flights several decades ago, and since then all flights were strictly regional, with only a handful of state-run or state-sponsored operators?
Post by: Proponent on 03/06/2017 03:35 pm
I heard someone mention upthread that they thought Space Adventures was very likely involved in this. Why? What do they bring to the table when there's no Soyuz to procure or ISS paperwork to manage?
I presume that Space Adventures can market the trip to the right audience and knows the legal details.
Post by: Danderman on 03/06/2017 03:39 pm
I heard someone mention upthread that they thought Space Adventures was very likely involved in this. Why? What do they bring to the table when there's no Soyuz to procure or ISS paperwork to manage?
They allegedly have customers.
Post by: Comga on 03/06/2017 06:27 pm
I heard someone mention upthread that they thought Space Adventures was very likely involved in this. Why? What do they bring to the table when there's no Soyuz to procure or ISS paperwork to manage?
Again
FutureSpaceTourist posted a tweet from Alan Boyle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42421.msg1647982#msg1647982) saying
".@SpaceAdventures has an intriguing comment on @SpaceX's circumlunar mission, saying it can't comment on its clients' plans prematurely."
It seems to be trying to leave the impression that they have brokered the deal, or at least had some part in it.
edit: But your question is valid. What value do they add, especially if it is Jurvetson, who is already involved with SpaceX?
Post by: MP99 on 03/06/2017 07:08 pm
People have been reading fantasies about travelling to other worlds for more than a century. Apollo made it real, but was an incredible effort that took resources few can really wrap their brains around. The idea that mere mortals could do it simply by paying the price would make it real in a way that's been science fiction till now. All the panty twisted wienies in the world swooning over the notion that it's just too dangerous are irrelevant. They don't pay for, go on or decide anything about turning points like this.
Yes. Yes.
Puts this so much better than I could have.
The dream has always been that commercial exploitation would drive a massive expansion into space. This really seems to open the door to that.
Cheers, Martin
Post by: AncientU on 03/06/2017 08:12 pm
I heard someone mention upthread that they thought Space Adventures was very likely involved in this. Why? What do they bring to the table when there's no Soyuz to procure or ISS paperwork to manage?
AgainFutureSpaceTourist posted a tweet from Alan Boyle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42421.msg1647982#msg1647982) saying
".@SpaceAdventures has an intriguing comment on @SpaceX's circumlunar mission, saying it can't comment on its clients' plans prematurely."
It seems to be trying to leave the impression that they have brokered the deal, or at least had some part in it.
edit: But your question is valid. What value do they add, especially if it is Jurvetson, who is already involved with SpaceX?
SpaceX has better things to do than answering questions from handfuls of 'me-too' wealthy individuals. Just like for cube sats, a broker can be the clearing house and earn a tidy profit in the process. This all (or at least partly) about profit, right?
Post by: Danderman on 03/06/2017 08:26 pm
You will know we are making real progress when it occurs to someone that SpaceX should not be an operator if it makes its own rockets.
Post by: Rei on 03/06/2017 08:48 pm
FutureSpaceTourist posted a tweet from Alan Boyle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42421.msg1647982#msg1647982) saying
".@SpaceAdventures has an intriguing comment on @SpaceX's circumlunar mission, saying it can't comment on its clients' plans prematurely."
It seems to be trying to leave the impression that they have brokered the deal, or at least had some part in it.
Hmm, missed that. Interesting. That would seem to back up the James Cameron speculation:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/06/is-james-camero.html
Of course, that's based on limited information backed by an insinuation, so take it with a nice handful of salt...
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/06/2017 08:58 pm
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/James-Cameron-Preparing-Way-More-Avatar-Movies-71143.htmlFutureSpaceTourist posted a tweet from Alan Boyle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42421.msg1647982#msg1647982) saying
".@SpaceAdventures has an intriguing comment on @SpaceX's circumlunar mission, saying it can't comment on its clients' plans prematurely."
It seems to be trying to leave the impression that they have brokered the deal, or at least had some part in it.
Hmm, missed that. Interesting. That would seem to back up the James Cameron speculation:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/06/is-james-camero.html
Of course, that's based on limited information backed by an insinuation, so take it with a nice handful of salt...
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/06/2017 09:14 pm
If there's still problems with using a second stage for lunar missions because of loiter time, how much longer does LTO take than GTO?
more than 2 days vs 6 hours.
FWIW - Earth orbit (1) and LTO (2) for Apollo 11, from Apollo 11 Flight Plan (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf)
Post by: manoweb on 03/06/2017 09:19 pm
SpaceX has better things to do than answering questions from handfuls of 'me-too' wealthy individuals. Just like for cube sats, a broker can be the clearing house and earn a tidy profit in the process. This all (or at least partly) about profit, right?
This would be against all the vertical integration philosophy that SpaceX has pursued until now. Why leave the extra profit to the agency when they can have it? Besides, the wealthy individuals that can afford a trip to the Moon probably already have Mr. E. Musk cell phone number already anyway.
And, it would take as much if not more coordination effort between SpaceX <-> agency than Spacex <-> individual directly.
Hmm, missed that. Interesting. That would seem to back up the James Cameron speculation:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/06/is-james-camero.html (http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/06/is-james-camero.html)
Actually I hope it's true, he might be the best person to "document" this trip with fantastic videos
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/06/2017 11:43 pm
Post by: yg1968 on 03/07/2017 12:38 am
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3189/1
Post by: yg1968 on 03/07/2017 12:40 am
FutureSpaceTourist posted a tweet from Alan Boyle (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42421.msg1647982#msg1647982) saying
".@SpaceAdventures has an intriguing comment on @SpaceX's circumlunar mission, saying it can't comment on its clients' plans prematurely."
It seems to be trying to leave the impression that they have brokered the deal, or at least had some part in it.
Hmm, missed that. Interesting. That would seem to back up the James Cameron speculation:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/06/is-james-camero.html
Of course, that's based on limited information backed by an insinuation, so take it with a nice handful of salt...
No. Elon said that the passengers weren't from Hollywood.
Post by: Jdeshetler on 03/07/2017 03:06 am
Like any other crews missions, they have a backup crew just in case one had to drop out...
Post by: dorkmo on 03/07/2017 04:56 am
Post by: copper8 on 03/07/2017 05:14 am
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/07/2017 05:27 am
I hope that, somehow, an IMAX camera makes this trip.
IMAX cameras are too big. A RED 8K digital camera (http://www.red.com/products/weapon-8k) would be better, but I would imagine that VR cameras will be used a lot, as well as the ubiquitous GoPro.
The revenue from video and licensing could be substantial...
Post by: craigcocca on 03/07/2017 06:02 am
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/07/2017 10:22 am
I remember once, back in December 2006 one time when I was using my old early-2000's vintage Canon digital camera. When I viewed some pictures back that I had taken, there were interference 'orbs' in the pictures. I heard a couple days later that there had been a big solar flare around that time! I still wonder if the camera's CCD hadn't picked up a surge in cosmic rays shortly after the storm had subsided!
Post by: ugordan on 03/07/2017 10:27 am
When I viewed some pictures back that I had taken, there were interference 'orbs' in the pictures. I heard a couple days later that there had been a big solar flare around that time! I still wonder if the camera's CCD hadn't picked up a surge in cosmic rays shortly after the storm had subsided!
Err, those blobs you imaged are very much real objects out of focus. Likely dust particles near the camera illuminated by the flash. Cosmic ray hits would cause localized pixel hits ("hot pixels"), usually single pixel hits but sometimes extended tracks depending on particle trajectory.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/07/2017 11:01 am
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/07/2017 11:01 am
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/07/2017 02:00 pm
First, what do you need? Looking at the numbers for Apollo 12 (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/hybrid-profile.htm), we see 3150 m/s for TLI, 880 m/s to enter lunar orbit, and 923 m/s to return to Earth. So we need 4953 m/s delta-V from LEO orbit.
To get this, we can use the second stage engine (ISP=348) and the super Dracos (vacuum ISP roughly 240). The division of labor helps even with the SuperDraco's worse ISP, since they don't need to push the empty second stage. To make this work, we'll need about 4 tonnes of Dragon fuel. This is more than they normally carry (1.3 tonnes) but they are only carrying two people. This gives a total Dragon mass of 11 tonnes. Additional technical assumptions include that they can keep the LOX from boiling, the kerosene from freezing, the electronics healthy, and supply power from the Dragon to keep the second stage alive.
The SpaceX website (http://) claims the Falcon heavy can push 13.6 tonnes to Mars. At a good conjunction, this needs about 3500 m/s of delta-V. Working backwards, assuming a 4.5 tonne empty second stage mass, they start with 33 tonnes of fuel. If they are only pushing 11 tonnes instead of 13.6, they will get 3890 m/s. This is enough for TLI and the bulk of the lunar orbit insertion. Assuming the empty Dragon + occupants = 7 tonnes, the Dragon adds 240*9.8*ln(11/7) = 1063 m/s. That's a total of 4953 m/s, just what is needed. The Dragon now needs to land in the ocean since there is no delta-V left for a propulsive landing, or even an assist.
I can't see SpaceX doing this since it would not lead to anything useful for Mars, nor even a lunar landing. But the technical changes are not massive. They will already need to work on insulation, and surviving radiation, for their direct-to-GEO capability. And swapping passengers for extra tanks is not unheard of. Long ago, I few a DC-9 between islands in Hawaii. I asked how they got it there since it does not have the range to fly from the mainland. The pilot said they took out a few rows of seats, added a temporary fuel tank, and flew them over.
Post by: manoweb on 03/07/2017 02:04 pm
The RED is smaller, but is prone to artifacts caused by cosmic radiation. A recent IMAX documentary was shot on Station with the RED, but needed a ton of post production cleanup to deal with the cosmic radiation noise that was present in the footage. On a trip to the Moon the problem will be worse.
To me it would be a feature, not a bug
Post by: punder on 03/07/2017 02:11 pm
Post by: guckyfan on 03/07/2017 02:29 pm
I saw something recently about an Israeli company that has come up with a radiation-reducing vest for astronauts (or tourists). Just make a vest for the camera!
Doesn't help. That vest might be useful for a solar event. It won't stop GCR.
Post by: Ric Capucho on 03/07/2017 03:07 pm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Post by: Jim on 03/07/2017 03:15 pm
Additional technical assumptions include that they can keep the LOX from boiling, the kerosene from freezing, the electronics healthy, and supply power from the Dragon to keep the second stage alive.
Overlooked assumption that kills the idea is update and change second stage avionics. The same avionics that can handle a planetary window longer than 1 second.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/07/2017 03:38 pm
I hope that, somehow, an IMAX camera makes this trip.
If James Cameron is, as has been speculated, one of the passengers then a professional-grade digital cinematography suite (possibly the camera on a boom mounted in the trunk feeding into recording and control apparatus in the pressure cabin) is a possible secondary payload. He's said that he wants to personally film the Moon for the third Avatar film.
Post by: philw1776 on 03/07/2017 04:20 pm
I hope that, somehow, an IMAX camera makes this trip.
If James Cameron is, as has been speculated, one of the passengers then a professional-grade digital cinematography suite (possibly the camera on a boom mounted in the trunk feeding into recording and control apparatus in the pressure cabin) is a possible secondary payload. He's said that he wants to personally film the Moon for the third Avatar film.
So Elon was being disingenuous when he said no one from Hollywood?
Post by: rsdavis9 on 03/07/2017 04:24 pm
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/07/2017 04:47 pm
Use a film camera.
Film takes up a prodigious amount of room, especially if you want to use IMAX film. And then you still have radiation issues to deal with.
Digital is the only way to go, and then just deal with the radiation induced artifacts in post-processing.
Post by: envy887 on 03/07/2017 05:09 pm
Could SpaceX do an Apollo 8 style mission, entering lunar orbit, and then returning to Earth later? No, as the hardware currently exists. But the changes are not ridiculously complex.
First, what do you need? Looking at the numbers for Apollo 12 (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/hybrid-profile.htm), we see 3150 m/s for TLI, 880 m/s to enter lunar orbit, and 923 m/s to return to Earth. So we need 4953 m/s delta-V from LEO orbit.
To get this, we can use the second stage engine (ISP=348) and the super Dracos (vacuum ISP roughly 240). The division of labor helps even with the SuperDraco's worse ISP, since they don't need to push the empty second stage. To make this work, we'll need about 4 tonnes of Dragon fuel. This is more than they normally carry (1.3 tonnes) but they are only carrying two people. This gives a total Dragon mass of 11 tonnes. Additional technical assumptions include that they can keep the LOX from boiling, the kerosene from freezing, the electronics healthy, and supply power from the Dragon to keep the second stage alive.
The SpaceX website (http://) claims the Falcon heavy can push 13.6 tonnes to Mars. At a good conjunction, this needs about 3500 m/s of delta-V. Working backwards, assuming a 4.5 tonne empty second stage mass, they start with 33 tonnes of fuel. If they are only pushing 11 tonnes instead of 13.6, they will get 3890 m/s. This is enough for TLI and the bulk of the lunar orbit insertion. Assuming the empty Dragon + occupants = 7 tonnes, the Dragon adds 240*9.8*ln(11/7) = 1063 m/s. That's a total of 4953 m/s, just what is needed. The Dragon now needs to land in the ocean since there is no delta-V left for a propulsive landing, or even an assist.
I can't see SpaceX doing this since it would not lead to anything useful for Mars, nor even a lunar landing. But the technical changes are not massive. They will already need to work on insulation, and surviving radiation, for their direct-to-GEO capability. And swapping passengers for extra tanks is not unheard of. Long ago, I few a DC-9 between islands in Hawaii. I asked how they got it there since it does not have the range to fly from the mainland. The pilot said they took out a few rows of seats, added a temporary fuel tank, and flew them over.
It's likely easier to add tanks mounted on hard points in the trunk, and run plumbing to Dragon's service section. Using Dracos instead of SuperDracos would help as well, they appear to have a specific impulse of 300 seconds. Dragon 2 looks to have 8 forward-pointing Dracos, which could fire simultaneously to get 3.2 kN of thrust.
It would also help to brake into a highly elliptical lunar orbit instead of a circular one like Apollo 8, this reduces the delta-v and thrust requirements by nearly 50%, but gives a longer orbital period. Chandrayaan-1 used a similar LOI profile with a low-thrust hypergolic engine, burning for 15 minutes to get into a 200x7500km orbit with a period of 10.5 hours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1#Lunar_orbit_insertion
Doing both would reduce the needed delta-v to about 900 m/s, which corresponds to 10,000 kg through TLI if Dragon 2 masses 6,350 kg and carries 1,000 kg payload. This likely requires catching all three FH boosters downrange, or expending the center core.
Post by: RoboGoofers on 03/07/2017 05:17 pm
Use a film camera.
Film takes up a prodigious amount of room, especially if you want to use IMAX film. And then you still have radiation issues to deal with.
Digital is the only way to go, and then just deal with the radiation induced artifacts in post-processing.
It would be easy enough to use an array of sensors for error correction. The same pixel won't be hit on each sensor. I'm sure they could wrangle gopro or RED (or Nikon, Sony, etc.) to make a custom camera for that kind of exposure.
I wonder if the newer 'light field' cameras would deal with filtering out radiation better.
Post by: Nomadd on 03/07/2017 05:37 pm
The RED is smaller, but is prone to artifacts caused by cosmic radiation. A recent IMAX documentary was shot on Station with the RED, but needed a ton of post production cleanup to deal with the cosmic radiation noise that was present in the footage. On a trip to the Moon the problem will be worse.I think watching the film with cosmic radiation artifacts would be pretty cool.
Post by: GreenShrike on 03/07/2017 06:21 pm
First, what do you need? Looking at the numbers for Apollo 12 (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/hybrid-profile.htm), we see 3150 m/s for TLI, 880 m/s to enter lunar orbit, and 923 m/s to return to Earth. So we need 4953 m/s delta-V from LEO orbit.
To get this, we can use the second stage engine (ISP=348) and the super Dracos (vacuum ISP roughly 240). The division of labor helps even with the SuperDraco's worse ISP, since they don't need to push the empty second stage. To make this work, we'll need about 4 tonnes of Dragon fuel. This is more than they normally carry (1.3 tonnes) but they are only carrying two people. This gives a total Dragon mass of 11 tonnes.
Is the SD's high thrust actually required in this instance? From what I've read, Dracos have a somewhat better ISP of about 300s, which would obviously increase available delta-V.
Assuming the empty Dragon + occupants = 7 tonnes, the Dragon adds 240*9.8*ln(11/7) = 1063 m/s. That's a total of 4953 m/s, just what is needed. The Dragon now needs to land in the ocean since there is no delta-V left for a propulsive landing, or even an assist.
With the rest of your figures constant, a 300s ISP nets you 300*9.8*ln(11/7) = 1328 m/s, about 265 m/s more, for margin on the flight. Or with about 3 tonnes of fuel, you can keep the delta-V the same (300*9.8*ln(10/7) = 1048 m/s.
Ah, but I'm forgetting the second stage. Hmm.
Okay, so with 3t of fuel the Dragon is 10t, so the S2 gets 348*9.8*ln((33+4.5+10)/(4.5+10)) = 4046 m/s, for a total of 4046 m/s + 1048 m/s = 5094m/s, about 140m/s more than the 4953 m/s needed.
But if you reduced Dragon fuel to 2t, then 348*9.8* ln((33+4.5+9)/(4.5+9)) = 4217 m/s and 300*9.8*ln(9/7) = 738 m/s, for a total of 4955 m/s.
So it looks like using Dracos with 4t of Dragon fuel gets you 265m/s for landing, and 3t gets you 140m/s... which would be with 240s SuperDracos, not 300s Dracos. Ack.
Fine, more math. Uh...
Okay, with 4t of fuel, and 11t total initial mass and S2 delta-V of 3890 m/s, Dragon needs to provide 1063 m/s to hit the required 4953 m/s. 300*9.8*ln(11/7.65) = 1067 m/s, so there's ~650kg left in the tanks. 240*9.8*ln(7.65/7) = 208m/s for landing on SuperDracos. That seems like lots for a propulsively-assisted parachute ground landing, but I don't know if it's enough for a fully propulsive landing, especially when you start adding in mission margins.
With 3t of fuel, S2 DV of 4046m/s, 300*9.8*ln(10/7.345) = 907m/s, leaving 345kg in the tanks, and 240*9.8*ln(7.345/7) = 113m/s for the SDs.
2.6t fuel leaves 200kg of propellant which is 66m/s for the SDs.
So, if you can use Dracos for on-orbit maneuvers, it looks like just doubling the normal 1.3t fuel load would get the job done.
Of course, lunar tourism would need to become a significant market for SpaceX to put any R&D effort into modifying the S2 and Dragon for such a purpose. It's nice to dream, but...
Post by: manoweb on 03/07/2017 06:45 pm
So Elon was being disingenuous when he said no one from Hollywood?
Mr. J. Cameron is from Canada :D
Post by: MP99 on 03/07/2017 06:56 pm
It's likely easier to add tanks mounted on hard points in the trunk, and run plumbing to Dragon's service section. Using Dracos instead of SuperDracos would help as well, they appear to have a specific impulse of 300 seconds. Dragon 2 looks to have 8 forward-pointing Dracos, which could fire simultaneously to get 3.2 kN of thrust.
Note that there is a constraint on the engines on CPS for the SLS (IIRC) that the thrust could not be too high for certain manoeuvres, as the short burn time, and uncertainty in exact residual thrust after shutdown cause too large large uncertainties in the resulting orbit.
Dracos are a better choice for this application.
Cheers, Martin
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/07/2017 07:06 pm
It's likely easier to add tanks mounted on hard points in the trunk, and run plumbing to Dragon's service section. Using Dracos instead of SuperDracos would help as well, they appear to have a specific impulse of 300 seconds. Dragon 2 looks to have 8 forward-pointing Dracos, which could fire simultaneously to get 3.2 kN of thrust.
Note that there is a constraint on the engines on CPS for the SLS (IIRC) that the thrust could not be too high for certain manoeuvres, as the short burn time, and uncertainty in exact residual thrust after shutdown cause too large large uncertainties in the resulting orbit.
Also, you can do a capture orbit and repeat brief perilune burns for optimal efficiency if you are indifferent to time and simply want best props usage. You can even time/place burns to use mascons to improve still further props usage.
Quote
Dracos are a better choice for this application.Yes. And, you could overexpand a few of them for even more.
Post by: envy887 on 03/07/2017 08:03 pm
Post by: Kaputnik on 03/07/2017 09:16 pm
Can a trunk payload be reliably jettisoned or left behind?
Has a figure been published for maximum trunk payload on a crewed launch?
Post by: DAZ on 03/07/2017 10:27 pm
The problem with a trunk mounted propulsion system is what happens in the event of launch abort.
Can a trunk payload be reliably jettisoned or left behind?
Has a figure been published for maximum trunk payload on a crewed launch?
This kind of stuff has been discussed before in other threads. The general consensus would be that SpaceX is not going to do this as it doesn't lend directly to going to Mars but if they were to do this it probably could be made to work relatively straightforwardly. It would essentially just be a breakaway system that when the trunk was pulled away by the Dragon capsule it would leave behind the very heavy fuel and rocket engine kit. In fact, it would take considerable work to make these connections strong enough to stay with the trunk during the abort situation. So as long as this kit was supported from beneath adequately during a normal launch the fact that these connections are relatively weak for the rest of the trip should not be much of an issue.
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 03/08/2017 12:09 am
The RED is smaller, but is prone to artifacts caused by cosmic radiation. A recent IMAX documentary was shot on Station with the RED, but needed a ton of post production cleanup to deal with the cosmic radiation noise that was present in the footage. On a trip to the Moon the problem will be worse.
Where can I read about that directly?
The image sensor itself should be less prone to radiation that the electronics behind it, just because the sensor is physically smaller. Once through the A/D converters on the sensor, the data can be protected with ECC (error correction coding). When it gets written to flash memory, for instance, this is standard. If I'm building a camera for space work, I could keep the entire datapath protected by ECC if that's really necessary.
I have not yet built a camera that has flown in space, but my received understanding is that with a few mm of aluminum shielding, the remaining radiation will cause latch-up events that require an immediate power cycle of the system. You'd definitely notice this, but if necessary it should be possible to make a camera do a complete power cycle back to filming with just a couple of dropped frames.
The thing is, I've been told these latch up events are a once-a-year thing. No point in worrying about it, aside from making the power supply able to detect and shut down very fast, and storing all data under ECC. So I'd like to read about what the IMAX/Red team experienced.
I'm struggling to imagine how these radiation-induced defects can mess up an image sensor but not the digital electronics, in particular the flash and DRAM, behind it. Flash memories and DRAM also store bits in small number of electrons and have analog electronics which greatly amplify small errors.
From a Wired article (http://"https://www.wired.com/2016/04/shoot-3-d-imax-movie-space-station/"), I got this:
Quote
“You can see missing pixels in the footage,” Ivins says. “They’re like stars. Particularly in a low-light image, you can look at a frame and I can tell you pretty much to the month how old the camera is.”
This suggests the radiation is causing charges to get stuck somewhere in the pixel, perhaps in the gate oxide of the pass transistor between the capacitor and the bitline. Stuck pixels only visible in low-light images suggest very small amounts of leakage that can be overcome with either active logic or more rapid refresh in the case of flash or DRAM.
And frankly, exchanging cameras for a bunch of stuck pixels is kind of whiny. People have been interpolating over stuck pixels for so long that it's a standard part of an imaging pipeline. If you get big globs of stuck pixels, that'll be challenging, but we're already missing two out of the three color channels at each pixel anyway.
Bottom line is that for a one-week mission, I strongly doubt they'll have much problem with stuck pixels in the camera.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/08/2017 01:01 am
Post by: dcporter on 03/08/2017 03:26 am
The RED is smaller, but is prone to artifacts caused by cosmic radiation. A recent IMAX documentary was shot on Station with the RED, but needed a ton of post production cleanup to deal with the cosmic radiation noise that was present in the footage. On a trip to the Moon the problem will be worse.I think watching the film with cosmic radiation artifacts would be pretty cool.
I bet it would get old fast.
Post by: biosehnsucht on 03/08/2017 08:30 am
So while a smaller camera sensor vs larger sensor at the same process node might lend to fewer issues with the smaller one (less area to hit with cosmic rays), if it is smaller because it was built on a smaller process (i.e. 28nm vs 130nm) any rays that hit it are going to do much more disruption and more likely to cause actual damage.
This is true of CPUs, DRAM, etc - DRAM error rates are much higher on modern, small processes compared to when they were studied by IBM in the 90s. Really, ECC should be standard along all datapaths and storage mediums by now, but they aren't because it's something to upsell you on (thanks, Intel).
See the many responses to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2580933/cosmic-rays-what-is-the-probability-they-will-affect-a-program
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/08/2017 02:07 pm
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030817a-spacex-moon-lovell-apollo8.html (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030817a-spacex-moon-lovell-apollo8.html)
Post by: WmThomas on 03/10/2017 03:24 am
If, as hints indicate, they are successful Silicon Valley super-nerds, here's what we can expect:
Once timing of the mission is confirmed, they will have 6-12 months to prepare. And can they prepare? Yes, they are super-nerds.
They probably are already thinking of what they will do. I'll bet it will be interesting.
So let's save the snark until there's a reason to be snarky. Be snarky instead about the less-smart people who want to go to space but can't afford to pay for it. Like most NASA Astronauts.
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/10/2017 11:03 am
So let's save the snark until there's a reason to be snarky. Be snarky instead about the less-smart people who want to go to space but can't afford to pay for it. Like most NASA Astronauts.Foe equal snark on all sides, let's agree that SpaceX is sending tourists, NASA is sending bureaucrats, Russia is sending apparatchiks, and China civil servants. This has the additional advantage that we don't need to invent a new word every time a new country sends someone into space.
Post by: tater on 03/10/2017 01:34 pm
Going forward, spacecraft are only going to become more, not less automated. In addition, any definition of "astronaut" (or the Russian and Chinese equivalents) must work for anyone at all, and going forward into the future, reliably. If someone is a mission or payload specialist and only flies to space once, but they are not capable of "flying" the spacecraft alone, do they get to be called astronauts? Do they become one merely because they are onboard with at least one person who can (for reasons)? Does "astronaut" require XXX hours of training from NASA, else "tourist" or "passenger?"
That would make no sense, it would be like defining "pilot" to only be people trained to fly by the USAF.
In the future we are also likely to see commercial astronauts. If flying the craft (or that ability) is the definition, then astronaut becomes conflated with pilot, and people who are highly trained, but not in the mechanics of flying the craft should not be astronauts.
I'd think a broad definition makes the most sense. Part of me would want to not include suborbital flights at all, but then Alan Shepard ceases to be an astronaut <edit> at the time of his flight---this becomes a Pluto-like discussion at some level, someone might have to have a status change to secure a more useful definition.
Post by: Comga on 03/10/2017 01:46 pm
(Snip)
I'd think a broad definition makes the most sense. Part of me would want to not include suborbital flights at all, but then Alan Shepard ceases to be an astronaut---this becomes a Pluto-like discussion at some level, someone might have to have a status change to secure a more useful definition.
And down the rabbit hole we go.....
Alan Shepard (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Shepard) went to the moon.😜
But in general I agree. Let's call them all astronauts and get back to discussing the mission.
Post by: Jim on 03/10/2017 01:56 pm
I'd think a broad definition makes the most sense. Part of me would want to not include suborbital flights at all, but then Alan Shepard ceases to be an astronaut--
No, he still flew on Apollo 14
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/10/2017 02:14 pm
Post by: tater on 03/10/2017 02:23 pm
(Snip)
I'd think a broad definition makes the most sense. Part of me would want to not include suborbital flights at all, but then Alan Shepard ceases to be an astronaut---this becomes a Pluto-like discussion at some level, someone might have to have a status change to secure a more useful definition.
And down the rabbit hole we go.....
Alan Shepard (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Shepard) went to the moon.😜
But in general I agree. Let's call them all astronauts and get back to discussing the mission.
I meant at the time of his flight (ditto Grissom), my bad, I should have been more clear.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/10/2017 02:25 pm
Jim Lovell comments on the SpaceX mission and comparisons with Apollo 8:
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030817a-spacex-moon-lovell-apollo8.html (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030817a-spacex-moon-lovell-apollo8.html)
The description Lovell uses for the people going on this trip is "passengers", since the vehicle will be automated and if nothing goes wrong they don't have any mission responsibilities. But even as passengers, he said:
"You have to remember, it's not just the view. It is also the experience. It's the fact that they will come back and at the next cocktail party, they will be the center of attention," he said. "It is the fact that they will have done something that only a few other people have ever done."
I like the term "passenger", and it avoids the sub-categorization challenge we've had between "tourist", "adventurer" and so on.
Post by: tater on 03/10/2017 02:31 pm
I'd think a broad definition makes the most sense. Part of me would want to not include suborbital flights at all, but then Alan Shepard ceases to be an astronaut--
No, he still flew on Apollo 14
Right, I edited it for clarity. I was thinking that in historical writing, you'd have to then not consider him an astronaut until he was past suborbital. So you'd then have to talk about them using another term, say "space passenger" (not serious here) so and so... then later, when they fly in space orbitally they become an astronaut, which is sort of a mess).
Like I said, the broader definition makes more sense. The issue with suborbital only becomes confusing when more and more people take hops, or if, for example, suborbital ever became a flight path for what is not airline traffic (distant future), then perhaps thousands a day fly into space for a few minutes.
Post by: tater on 03/10/2017 02:37 pm
Jim Lovell comments on the SpaceX mission and comparisons with Apollo 8:
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030817a-spacex-moon-lovell-apollo8.html (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030817a-spacex-moon-lovell-apollo8.html)
The description Lovell uses for the people going on this trip is "passengers", since the vehicle will be automated and if nothing goes wrong they don't have any mission responsibilities. But even as passengers, he said:
"You have to remember, it's not just the view. It is also the experience. It's the fact that they will come back and at the next cocktail party, they will be the center of attention," he said. "It is the fact that they will have done something that only a few other people have ever done."
I like the term "passenger", and it avoids the sub-categorization challenge we've had between "tourist", "adventurer" and so on.
The issue here I suppose is "mission responsibilities." That certainly works at some level, but would a filmmaker taking such a flight then not be a passenger if they made a film? Would that be their "mission responsibility?" It's nice that this is even a conversation to have, frankly, instead of all such travel that is plausible in the near future requiring a government program be involved.
On the same, automated spacecraft, if a SpaceX employee were the passenger, but they were to monitor the craft as a sort of test pilot, then they have a responsibility, and they count?
I'm sort of looking forward, though, since I can only see humans doing less and less of the flying... I think we'll all face the same issue WRT automobiles in the not too distant future as it becomes clear that the weak link in safety is the squishy bit behind the wheel.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/10/2017 03:23 pm
As I have stated many pages back from fly my flying experience: If you are "not" the operator of the craft, you are considered a passenger, even "if" you hold a pilot's license and you are not PIC... What activities you choose do as a passenger has no bearing on the matter...Jim Lovell comments on the SpaceX mission and comparisons with Apollo 8:
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030817a-spacex-moon-lovell-apollo8.html (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030817a-spacex-moon-lovell-apollo8.html)
The description Lovell uses for the people going on this trip is "passengers", since the vehicle will be automated and if nothing goes wrong they don't have any mission responsibilities. But even as passengers, he said:
"You have to remember, it's not just the view. It is also the experience. It's the fact that they will come back and at the next cocktail party, they will be the center of attention," he said. "It is the fact that they will have done something that only a few other people have ever done."
I like the term "passenger", and it avoids the sub-categorization challenge we've had between "tourist", "adventurer" and so on.
The issue here I suppose is "mission responsibilities." That certainly works at some level, but would a filmmaker taking such a flight then not be a passenger if they made a film? Would that be their "mission responsibility?" It's nice that this is even a conversation to have, frankly, instead of all such travel that is plausible in the near future requiring a government program be involved.
On the same, automated spacecraft, if a SpaceX employee were the passenger, but they were to monitor the craft as a sort of test pilot, then they have a responsibility, and they count?
I'm sort of looking forward, though, since I can only see humans doing less and less of the flying... I think we'll all face the same issue WRT automobiles in the not too distant future as it becomes clear that the weak link in safety is the squishy bit behind the wheel.
Post by: tater on 03/10/2017 03:48 pm
As I have stated many pages back from fly my flying experience: If you are "not" the operator of the craft, you are considered a passenger, even "if" you hold a pilot's license and you are not PIC... What activities you choose do as a passenger has no bearing on the matter...
Absolutely.
There have been many NASA astronauts who were not capable of flying the Shuttle, for example.
I suppose once the number of people who have been to space reaches some critical level, it will cease to matter.
It will probably progress such that if your job is to fly in space, you are an astronaut (this would discount people like Jake Garn, Christa McAuliffe, etc, since it was not really their job, but single trips---but we'd assume anyone already labeled astronaut will keep the label). If you are merely visiting space, then perhaps another label (or none at all) is used. Once people live in space, then the word needs to evolve again, or disappear, since everyone living in space being an "astronaut" would be silly. It will become like "aeronaut," an anachronism that clearly refers to the age of early space exploration when such travel was not routine.
There's a possible definition, link it to presumed risk. If the chance of fatal mishap is greater than X, then you are an astronaut. Once it's as safe as air travel was at some historical point, it ceases to get a name (then the professionals will be called "spacecraft pilot" or whatever applies).
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/10/2017 04:33 pm
The discussion of semantics regarding what to call them is entirely reasonable, although it perhaps deserves a thread to itself.Ships and airlines have made many of these distinctions for years. The captain is the ultimate decision maker. A pilot steers the ship. The crew are professionals trained to support the mission, with many different skills. The categories overlap, so the captain is part of the crew, and some of the time may be the pilot. The passengers have little or no responsibility for running the ship, except in emergencies when they may be pressed into service.
I too look forward to the day when spaceflight is common enough to make distinctions like this useful.
Post by: DOCinCT on 03/10/2017 06:23 pm
When one of the Wright brothers had an additional party on a flight in 1908, he was a passenger (not operator, or pilot).The discussion of semantics regarding what to call them is entirely reasonable, although it perhaps deserves a thread to itself.Ships and airlines have made many of these distinctions for years. The captain is the ultimate decision maker. A pilot steers the ship. The crew are professionals trained to support the mission, with many different skills. The categories overlap, so the captain is part of the crew, and some of the time may be the pilot. The passengers have little or no responsibility for running the ship, except in emergencies when they may be pressed into service.
I too look forward to the day when spaceflight is common enough to make distinctions like this useful.
Post by: Ric Capucho on 03/10/2017 08:48 pm
As I have stated many pages back from fly my flying experience: If you are "not" the operator of the craft, you are considered a passenger, even "if" you hold a pilot's license and you are not PIC... What activities you choose do as a passenger has no bearing on the matter...Jim Lovell comments on the SpaceX mission and comparisons with Apollo 8:
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030817a-spacex-moon-lovell-apollo8.html (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030817a-spacex-moon-lovell-apollo8.html)
The description Lovell uses for the people going on this trip is "passengers", since the vehicle will be automated and if nothing goes wrong they don't have any mission responsibilities. But even as passengers, he said:
"You have to remember, it's not just the view. It is also the experience. It's the fact that they will come back and at the next cocktail party, they will be the center of attention," he said. "It is the fact that they will have done something that only a few other people have ever done."
I like the term "passenger", and it avoids the sub-categorization challenge we've had between "tourist", "adventurer" and so on.
The issue here I suppose is "mission responsibilities." That certainly works at some level, but would a filmmaker taking such a flight then not be a passenger if they made a film? Would that be their "mission responsibility?" It's nice that this is even a conversation to have, frankly, instead of all such travel that is plausible in the near future requiring a government program be involved.
On the same, automated spacecraft, if a SpaceX employee were the passenger, but they were to monitor the craft as a sort of test pilot, then they have a responsibility, and they count?
I'm sort of looking forward, though, since I can only see humans doing less and less of the flying... I think we'll all face the same issue WRT automobiles in the not too distant future as it becomes clear that the weak link in safety is the squishy bit behind the wheel.
Pilots occasionally call 'em SLF... Self-Loading Freight.
Ric
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/10/2017 09:15 pm
Astronaut
->Type
-Operator
*Craft Pilot
*other systems operator
-Passenger
*Transit to location where the operator job is
* Tourist
->Destinations
-Suborbital
-Orbital
*EVA
-Deep Space
*EVA
-Exo-planetary Surface (includes moons)
*Surface Excursion
Post by: Proponent on 03/10/2017 09:17 pm
Anyone in a U.S. government program that flew over 50 miles in altitude earned their astronaut wings including X-15 pilots...
The 50-mile criterion was an Air Force creation, and I believe only Air Force pilots received astronaut's wings.
Post by: manoweb on 03/10/2017 09:22 pm
Post by: Toast on 03/10/2017 09:39 pm
So Navy astronauts (I know there have been a few) did not get those?
It was my understanding that they receive a set of wings, but they are slightly different (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut_badge).
Post by: manoweb on 03/10/2017 09:48 pm
Apparently Simony is not going (on this flight)
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/10/2017 10:17 pm
Correct, the FAI set the boundary for space at 62 miles... All NASA X-15 "astro-flghts" including civilians received their wings, some posthumously many years later... Two met the FAI 62 mile Karman line...Anyone in a U.S. government program that flew over 50 miles in altitude earned their astronaut wings including X-15 pilots...
The 50-mile criterion was an Air Force creation, and I believe only Air Force pilots received astronaut's wings.
Post by: Elvis in Space on 03/10/2017 10:39 pm
Post by: notsorandom on 03/11/2017 12:58 am
Post by: TomH on 03/11/2017 01:39 am
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 03/11/2017 05:01 am
What we call the two people on this flight seem like it was settled long ago. Dennis Tito doesn't call himself an astronaut.Perhaps that's a simple enough definition.
If you were paid to go, presumably because you had a useful purpose, then you're an astronaut. And if you paid, then you're not.
Post by: Kaputnik on 03/11/2017 06:44 am
What we call the two people on this flight seem like it was settled long ago. Dennis Tito doesn't call himself an astronaut.Perhaps that's a simple enough definition.
If you were paid to go, presumably because you had a useful purpose, then you're an astronaut. And if you paid, then you're not.
So if you set up and fund a company and make yourself an employee of that company, and it flies you into space, are you an astronaut?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/11/2017 07:29 am
In this era of little leadership and budget-strangled mediocrity, this mission should be treated as a step in the right direction. If most (not all, sadly) of us could get behind this flight - this could be our chance to bootstrap something better into being, before too long...
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/11/2017 01:08 pm
Good grief! I go away from a thread for a few hours - and it goes mad!! ::) Now we're arguing semantics?! It's going to be a manned trip around the freaken Moon, guys! Aren't even some of you going to get behind this?! Or even be a little happy?! Do I know that it's potentially a stunt, compared to a real exploration mission? Yes; probably I do. Do I care? NO!!Maybe some of these people work for ASAP... ;)
In this era of little leadership and budget-strangled mediocrity, this mission should be treated as a step in the right direction. If most (not all, sadly) of us could get behind this flight - this could be our chance to bootstrap something better into being, before too long...
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/11/2017 03:11 pm
Transfer times are 5 days each way giving 21 days total for single orbit round trip. Having a enhanced Cygnus habitation module already in orbit would make for a more comfortable stay and would allow for additional orbits.
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Whitley_4-13-16/
Post by: vt_hokie on 03/11/2017 05:06 pm
Good grief! I go away from a thread for a few hours - and it goes mad!! ::) Now we're arguing semantics?! It's going to be a manned trip around the freaken Moon, guys! Aren't even some of you going to get behind this?! Or even be a little happy?! Do I know that it's potentially a stunt, compared to a real exploration mission? Yes; probably I do. Do I care? NO!!
In this era of little leadership and budget-strangled mediocrity, this mission should be treated as a step in the right direction. If most (not all, sadly) of us could get behind this flight - this could be our chance to bootstrap something better into being, before too long...
Do I think it's reckless and highly risky? Yes. Am I still excited by the possibility of seeing people leave low Earth orbit for the first time in my lifetime? Absolutely. My only concern would be any possible ramifications of a catastrophic failure for commercial crew.
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 03/11/2017 06:27 pm
[Are you expressing these same concerns on commercial crew, D2 threads? No.
Do I think it's reckless and highly risky? Yes. Am I still excited by the possibility of seeing people leave low Earth orbit for the first time in my lifetime? Absolutely. My only concern would be any possible ramifications of a catastrophic failure for commercial crew.
Catastrophic failure is possible in LEO just as it is in cislunar space.
Post by: clongton on 03/11/2017 06:32 pm
Get over it. It's the nature of the beast.
Anyone not willing to risk it has the option of staying home.
Post by: philw1776 on 03/11/2017 06:52 pm
Spaceflight is risky. Spaceflight is dangerous. People have died engaging in it. People will die engaging in it.
Get over it. It's the nature of the beast.
Anyone not willing to risk it has the option of staying home.
Whew!
Thanks to hear that I won't be strapped down screaming into a Dragon 2.
Post by: BobHk on 03/11/2017 09:51 pm
Spaceflight is risky. Spaceflight is dangerous. People have died engaging in it. People will die engaging in it.
Get over it. It's the nature of the beast.
Anyone not willing to risk it has the option of staying home.
Agree. Knowing the risks i'd go this moment. My kids have all been informed if i disappear they're to look for me at a launch pad or in orbit and that I love them but i'd be damned if I passed up the opportunity.
Post by: vt_hokie on 03/12/2017 01:17 am
Post by: manoweb on 03/12/2017 01:20 am
My only concern would be any possible ramifications of a catastrophic failure for commercial crew.
If lunar flights become routine, or at least common, who cares about ISS commercial crew honestly :D
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/12/2017 01:23 am
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/12/2017 02:52 am
I shudder when I contemplate main parachute failures, Orbital/Descent module separation mishaps, launcher upper stage failures (explosions)... :( It would only take one vehicle loss with one or two American Astronauts included and Congress and the Senate would go ballistic; lots of finger-pointing and political point scoring as they tried to nail down precisely which past Administration to blame for the disaster...
But risk is the business at hand. We've got to get on with it!
Post by: deruch on 03/12/2017 03:07 am
Post by: Comga on 03/12/2017 04:38 am
Would it be at all feasible to redesign something like the SHERPA to be deployed from the Dragon 2 trunk? SHERPA could then move itself to lunar obit while the Dragon is still doing its fly-by. Easy way to put a bunch of cube sats in LLO?No
No
No
Other than that....
There is nothing easy about the small parts of these .... ideas that are not physically impossible
SpaceX is not going to do anything like any of this for a dozen reasons.
Let's start with not putting mass in the trunk and not adding additional propulsion systems and fuel to the flight systems.
The mission is interesting and challenging enough without any additional distractions and requirements.
Can we discuss the mission as announced and not try to tell Musk how to supercharge it?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/12/2017 04:12 pm
NASA would possibly fly once on a LFR but not twice. The reason Orion is doing a LFR is test the Orion hardware. NASA wants a destination and craft that can reach the destination and return.
For NASA to use SpaceX some additional hardware would have to be developed. Say a propulsion module that fits in the 14m^3 space of the trunk that can deliver the DeltaV for the LOI and ETI. This propulsion module could also have optional add-ons: RCS clusters, Solar arrays, and landing legs. With the some or all of the options additional uses for the same design propulsion module can be used as a Deep Space tug or a Lunar lander.
NASA could pay SpaceX to create the capability under SAA for support of:
- cargo and crew transport to a L2 station
- emplacement of L2 station elements
- landing on the Lunar surface of crew and cargo
The vehicles and prices would not be cheap but the prices would also at the $3B budget level of SLS/Orion could enable up to 10 flights/yr (3 crew, 4 cargo, 2 Lunar landings, add a habitat element to expand the L2 station or to combining using one Lunar landing trip to place a habitat on the surface.).
This would be a sell-able system to NASA.
SLS/Orion -1 flight 4 crew and a small habitat module.
Price $3B/yr
SpaceX =10 FH flights 4+ crew (total includes crew that visit Lunar surface), 2 crew landed on Lunar surface, habitat landed on Lunar surface, habitat added to L2 station.
Price $3B/yr
For tourist around the Moon in a LFR no new hardware just their money is required. These flights will not be often.
Post by: AncientU on 03/12/2017 04:50 pm
Quote
NASA could pay SpaceX to create the capability under SAA for support of:
- cargo and crew transport to a L2 station
- emplacement of L2 station elements
- landing on the Lunar surface of crew and cargo
All of the NASA-related Lunar support tasking discussed above may happen, but that would be supported for revenue, not for enabling technology for the long range plan. (Revenue does enable the long range plan.)
I think the logical* follow-on to this Lunar flight is an initial propellant depot. Just as the Lunar flight (and Red Dragon for that matter) came out of left field for the spaceflight community, a depot demo would be directly on the path to Mars, while offering the Public-Private Partnership (3P) another much-needed facet of capability. As we've discussed thoroughly, on-orbit refueling leverages to a huge degree the capabilities of anything on orbit that can refuel -- making 'smaller' payloads bigger. In Lunar orbit, reusable landers become the obvious choice. Methlox of course.
* Logical, in this usage, is logical relative to SpaceX plans, not what we'd do in Cis-Lunar space.
And wishful thinking.
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/12/2017 05:30 pm
As we have seen in the past, the current Lunar fly-by being the latest, if you pay for it and it is not difficult to make changes to implement SpaceX is willing to provide.QuoteNASA could pay SpaceX to create the capability under SAA for support of:
- cargo and crew transport to a L2 station
- emplacement of L2 station elements
- landing on the Lunar surface of crew and cargo
All of the NASA-related Lunar support tasking discussed above may happen, but that would be supported for revenue, not for enabling technology for the long range plan. (Revenue does enable the long range plan.)
I think the logical* follow-on to this Lunar flight is an initial propellant depot. Just as the Lunar flight (and Red Dragon for that matter) came out of left field for the spaceflight community, a depot demo would be directly on the path to Mars, while offering the Public-Private Partnership (3P) another much-needed facet of capability. As we've discussed thoroughly, on-orbit refueling leverages to a huge degree the capabilities of anything on orbit that can refuel -- making 'smaller' payloads bigger. In Lunar orbit, reusable landers become the obvious choice. Methlox of course.
* Logical, in this usage, is logical relative to SpaceX plans, not what we'd do in Cis-Lunar space.
And wishful thinking.
Post by: AncientU on 03/12/2017 05:52 pm
Post by: TomH on 03/12/2017 10:36 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-with-nasa-has-a-new-rocket-and-spaceship-wheres-he-going-to-go/2017/03/11/4193f1be-002d-11e7-8f41-ea6ed597e4ca_story.html?utm_term=.faa4be9cbfde
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/12/2017 11:33 pm
Post by: Jim on 03/13/2017 12:10 am
EM-2 will be putting a hab module at DRO.
There is no such payload for EM-2 or other SLS missions.
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2017 12:53 am
Are you sure that will stay true?EM-2 will be putting a hab module at DRO.
There is no such payload for EM-2 or other SLS missions.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38818.msg1652065#msg1652065
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/13/2017 01:09 am
Technically Jim is right in that nothing has been authorized YET. Unless there are large budget cuts DSH should happen.EM-2 will be putting a hab module at DRO.
There is no such payload for EM-2 or other SLS missions.
Post by: Elvis in Space on 03/13/2017 01:16 am
Are you sure that will stay true?EM-2 will be putting a hab module at DRO.
There is no such payload for EM-2 or other SLS missions.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38818.msg1652065#msg1652065
It may not remain a negative but I wouldn't bet money on it either. I for certain would not speak as if it were a certainty.
Post by: su27k on 03/13/2017 02:39 am
EM-2 will be putting a hab module at DRO. I think Dragon/FH can reach that. It'd allow NASA to rotate crew and have cheap logistics. That'd be a less stunt-y mission. Especially if combined with low-latency lunar telerobotics.
Frankly I don't like this DSH idea as the next HSF objective, from reading Anatoly Zak's articles it looks like this whole thing is cooked up so that traditional aerospace companies from all over the world can have something to do for the next decade, while creating more make work for SLS/Orion. Hopefully the commercial space side can negotiate a better deal, something like commercial cargo to the surface of Moon/Mars.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/13/2017 09:15 am
Post by: Proponent on 03/13/2017 10:05 am
Unless there are large budget cuts DSH should happen.
With what money? I can easily see a few tens of millions being thrown at it every year for studies. But Orion/SLS will likely start costing more if/when it starts flying once a year, and all parties have committed to ISS through at least 2024. And the noise is that NASA's budget will decrease.
Post by: gongora on 03/13/2017 04:09 pm
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/13/2017 06:51 pm
WaPo article today:Interesting article. Definitely inspired by Bezos current comments and goals.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-with-nasa-has-a-new-rocket-and-spaceship-wheres-he-going-to-go/2017/03/11/4193f1be-002d-11e7-8f41-ea6ed597e4ca_story.html?utm_term=.faa4be9cbfde
Its underlying thrust is that NASA HSF plans are under threat from many directions one of which being this SpaceX Lunar mission.
NASA's current HSF plans are a result of the previous administration letting Congress take the drivers seat. But a new administration may lead and push Congress in another direction.
This SpaceX mission is a admittance that SpaceX has the capability to do HSF BEO and within the new administration's first term (by 2021).
So where is SpaceX headed with this and will NASA change its course (again)?
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/14/2017 09:17 am
So where is SpaceX headed with this and will NASA change its course (again)?
Mostly, it's just SpaceX providing a service to a paying customer. The fact that it proves that they can reach cis-Lunar space with their crewed spacecraft and (one presumes) with a few modifications, service facilities in that area is a significant bonus in marketing terms.
Post by: mikelepage on 03/14/2017 11:40 am
So where is SpaceX headed with this and will NASA change its course (again)?
NASA's mission statement is “to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.”
Nothing about building rockets in there. But they were pioneers in rocket building, as was appropriate when it was necessary to build rockets to achieve space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.
There's no way the medical research performed by NIH would be where it is today if we were still building our own pipettes and measurement equipment. It's a problem that NASA is still building rockets. NASA's job is to push the boundaries of exploration and discovery in space, and tell the public what it finds. If it can do that more cheaply by supporting private industry, then it's mission statement (and status as a Gov Dept) suggests it should.
Post by: TomH on 03/14/2017 10:18 pm
were pioneers in rocket building, as was appropriate when it was necessary to build rockets to achieve space exploration.
The pioneering was done by Werner von Braun, who simply built on what he already had been doing for almost 30 years. The Saturn series are the only two rockets NASA built, not including a couple of rocket powered space plane designs.
Post by: AncientU on 03/15/2017 11:46 am
...Human Genome...project was a HUGE success in large part because of this Public-Private Partnership.
It was a huge success because of Moore's Law, nothing more, nothing less. End OT discussion.
Our space effort can take advantage of Moore's law (which the private sector is leaning on heavily).
Using old technology vs. advantages of state-of-the-art is quite on topic for this discussion.
Pouring billions of dollars into a project that uses old technology is crazily inefficient and is still likely to be behind efforts that use current tech. 3D printing, advanced avionics, composite materials, modern modeling -- all are parts of how to do things better at a fraction of the price.
SpaceX is planning to send crew around the Moon (probably before SLS/Orion) at a fraction of the price because they take advantage of Moore's Law.
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2017 11:50 am
It'll be interesting to see. Kind of like cubesats but about 100x the volume and mass. But deployment numbers are closest to the Planetlabs numbers than anything else flying today.
Post by: Glom on 03/15/2017 11:51 am
Post by: rpapo on 03/15/2017 12:03 pm
Does Moore's Law apply to rocketry? Unless we're able to double ISP every two years.From Wikipedia, "Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years."
This is defined rather narrowly in terms of electronic technology. The concept can be extended to other things, but only barely. The computational horsepower available to do tricky things like landing a first-stage booster on a barge or a landing pad has indeed improved over the years. One can say that rocket and material science has improved over the decades, but nowhere near what we have seen going on in electronics.
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2017 12:05 pm
Does Moore's Law apply to rocketry? Unless we're able to double ISP every two years.That's a misinterpretation. Moore's Law doesn't double clock speed every two years and so actual useful processing power doesn't increase that fast. But anyway, we can increase Isp of electric rockets arbitrarily provided we have the power, and Moore's Law is related to making solar panels lighter and cheaper, which does enable a continued increase in Isp. Moore's Law is actually about cost reduction, and solar panel cost is almost on a Moore's Law-like trajectory. Swanson's Law is solar cells halve in cost every 10 years. But we've been outstripping that lately. In 2014, solar cells were 36¢/W. Now in 2017 the spot price for cells is just 20¢/W, a pace more like Moore's Law.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/15/2017 12:33 pm
By Matthew Pavletich
The more than 2000 American and International journalists at Kennedy Space Center that April morning, 2020, waited and listened with a mixture of excitement, anticipation and nervousness. On the many big televisions around the KSC Press Center, there were several live feeds playing from Mission Control and a spacecraft currently in orbit above the other side of the Earth. And outside, occasional announcements spoke calmly from the Public Address system speakers. More than two hours ago the Journalists, TV reporters and the hundreds of thousands of spectators crowding the Visitors Centers, marinas, Causeway and even the sides of the roads leading into Merritt Island, had witnessed the launch of two human beings, specifically two men, on one of the largest rockets in the world.
Any crewed launch from Kennedy Space Center was a relatively rare event, even in this second decade of the 21st Century. But in the previous two years, a steadily increasing roster of men and women had launched from the launch pads on Falcon and Atlas rockets; heading for the International Space Station. For more than 7 years, no human being had risen from KSC on powerful, flaming U.S. rockets and spacecraft to proudly and boldly send people to that huge Outpost in the heavens. For too many years, the glory had belonged to the trusty Russian Soyuz spacecraft and launchers.
But no more – the well trained and motivated Astronauts were now riding craft with names like ‘Starliner’ and ‘Dragon’. And they rode ‘uphill’ on their thundering rockets to a place no more than 400 kilometers in the sky, which orbited the Earth about every ninety minutes. It was still a hazardous undertaking, to be sure and even after dozens of crews had inhabited the speeding, shining Outpost it was certainly not taken for granted.
Though, on this notable day; there was more excitement in the air than usual. For this had been no ordinary launch, nor no ordinary mission. A fan of the old Science Fantasy franchise ‘Star Wars’ might say; “There is a great disturbance in The Force…” …And they would be accurate.
Many of the journalists and storytellers at KSC were not young men and women. Some had even been doing this since the 1960s. One distinguished member of the ‘Space Fourth Estate’ sat at his desk station in the Press Center and made notes on his paper pad with a dark ‘B’ pencil – just as he did in the days of Gemini and Apollo. He wrote quickly and surely, pausing a moment to push the thick glasses back up his nose to their rightful place – he was far from the only one perspiring, even in this big air-conditioned room. He had to get his impressions down right; too many journalists in this day and age indulged in trivial ‘sound bites’ he felt. He had a responsibility to History – a History he felt had been neglected for far too long. The minutes passed by and the tension continued.
Nearby, a middle-aged man from New Zealand with a shaven head stretched, to try and ease his aching back and neck. He glanced at his companions on either side and sighed. He was about to speak when an announcement came over the TV sets and P.A. systems – the chatter in the Press Room quickly dropped away.
“This is Dragon Mission Control at T-Plus two hours and fifty-one minutes from Launch. We have just heard that there is a go ahead for the next phase of the flight –“ and the Public Affairs officer stopped a moment for the audio feed from Mission Control to be heard:
“This is Capcom for Dragon: you are Go for Trans Lunar Injection, repeat you are Go for T.L.I! Your sequencer should now be displaying the ‘Proceed’ events, Over.”
A rustle of excitement filled the room and there were some stifled cheers – for nobody wanted to miss the reply. On the TV screens the view had shifted to a live TV relay from the Dragon of the two crew members. Strapped into their couches and wearing their Space X pressure suits, they could be seen to be grinning broadly and waving at the camera.
“Roger that, Capcom!” answered one of the crew happily. “Here we go!”
The Press Room erupted in cheers and some clapping. The veteran journalist looked around him, savoring the moment. He saw the New Zealand man and noted the tears running down his cheeks and his slightly quivering smile. Then his own vision blurred for a moment. He wiped his eyes and picked up his pencil again...
...On a cruise ship bound for Honolulu, dozens of guests stood on the deck in the warm night air. Many clutched drinks in their hands and chattered amiably among themselves. One particular group of the cruise goers were watching the dark predawn sky with a singular purpose, however. The Cruise Director had even turned off many of the deck lights to see the night sky better, though some dim LED lights were glowing at foot level for safety’s sake. After a short time, their vigilance was rewarded.
“There it is! I see them – I see it!!” cried a young woman excitedly. She was pointing upwards into the clear, starry night. As they watched, a bright reddish light appeared. Within moments, the light was glowing brightly and appeared to grow a greenish, comet like tail. It was accelerating visibly as they watched. Some of the watchers were puzzled, though – for they didn’t watch or read the news much.
“What is it?” asked one slightly drunk man, peering upwards at the strange vision – a type not seen in nearly fifty years.
“There be a Dragon,” the young woman said, her voice quavering with emotion. “From this night on; there will always be Dragons…”
Post by: envy887 on 03/15/2017 12:35 pm
Our space effort can take advantage of Moore's law (which the private sector is leaning on heavily).
That is just plain stupidity. It is not applicable. Just like the rocket equation does not apply to computing power.
Computers don't use or need rockets, but rockets do use and need computers.
Post by: RonM on 03/15/2017 12:43 pm
Our space effort can take advantage of Moore's law (which the private sector is leaning on heavily).
That is just plain stupidity. It is not applicable. Just like the rocket equation does not apply to computing power.
Yes. All industries take advantage of modern computing power, so why bring up the oft misused Moore's Law?
Getting back on topic, SpaceX's crewed circumlunar mission is a great example of what commercial space can do with some funding from the government to help get the hardware built. Okay, some may complain that it's just a tourist stunt, but isn't it remarkable that a commercial space company can say, "Sure, our spacecraft can do that."
NASA building SLS and Orion will result in a capable system, but at great expense over many years. For a fraction of the money NASA can help commercial space build capable systems that NASA can use.
If Congress wants to continue funding SLS and Orion, they need to fund payloads that make sense for a BEO exploration program. With a launch rate of one per year, SLS should only launch big payloads, while other components and maybe even Orion are launched on commercial rockets. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. Maybe the Administration's review of NASA, with their emphasis on private industry, will change policy for the better.
Post by: meekGee on 03/15/2017 01:31 pm
The fact that a noob company can work on a state of the art SC engine and get it to work so quickly is very much a consequence of ML.
The fact that you can finance a huge project using the constellation is a result of ML since the demand originates with smart phones and self driving cars.
As folks said, the computational power needed for fly-back and landing is not found in older rockets.
And of course, ISP proper has got nothing to do with it.
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 03/15/2017 02:08 pm
Flight of The Dragon
By Matthew Pavletich
...
“There be a Dragon,” the young woman said, her voice quavering with emotion. “From this night on; there will always be Dragons…”
From one (amateur) writer to another. Thank you sir. Well written!
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/15/2017 02:23 pm
Some people post an insult knowing they will have their post removed, but they may get to sneak that insult at the recipient before that happens. That person will be banned from posting if we see that being employed.
Post by: docmordrid on 03/15/2017 06:04 pm
Flight of The Dragon
By Matthew Pavletich
..“There be a Dragon,” the young woman said, her voice quavering with emotion. “From this night on; there will always be Dragons…”
From one (amateur) writer to another. Thank you sir. Well written!
Yes, yes! Thank you!!
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/15/2017 08:03 pm
I have more... ;)Flight of The Dragon
By Matthew Pavletich
..“There be a Dragon,” the young woman said, her voice quavering with emotion. “From this night on; there will always be Dragons…”
From one (amateur) writer to another. Thank you sir. Well written!
Yes, yes! Thank you!!
Post by: virnin on 03/15/2017 08:09 pm
I have more... ;)Flight of The Dragon
By Matthew Pavletich
..“There be a Dragon,” the young woman said, her voice quavering with emotion. “From this night on; there will always be Dragons…”
From one (amateur) writer to another. Thank you sir. Well written!
Yes, yes! Thank you!!
I would only change two words, but that's just because I'm desperately optimistic and "July 2019" is way more significant that "April 2020".
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/15/2017 08:20 pm
Post by: Surfdaddy on 03/16/2017 03:16 am
Well... I was allowing for the longest inevitable schedule slip, but still bringing it close to the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 13. It is quite likely that the Dragon crew will swing out even farther than Lovell's crew did, making the Dragon's 'Citizen Explorers' the farthest humans have ever traveled.
Well at least at this moment, I have still shaken hands with the humans who have traveled farthest from the earth. But I am willing to have that record broken! This will be very exciting, I hope it comes off successfully and without too much delay.
It has really been way too long since we've been out of LEO.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/16/2017 03:47 am
Post by: mikelepage on 03/16/2017 03:57 am
I have more... ;)Flight of The Dragon
By Matthew Pavletich
..“There be a Dragon,” the young woman said, her voice quavering with emotion. “From this night on; there will always be Dragons…”
From one (amateur) writer to another. Thank you sir. Well written!
Yes, yes! Thank you!!
Dude, what are these annoying fluid discharges on my face? Great work mate.
Got any (e)books we should know about?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/16/2017 05:18 am
Post by: mikelepage on 03/16/2017 05:49 am
I've only had a trio of short stories appear in a couple SF anthologies, both of which are out of print. I have quite a few unpublished short stories and two rather unfinished novels - one of them an alternate history 1980s space story. I'll be working on the full version of "Flight Of The Dragon" over the next two or three days and can place it on this page as a downloadable PDF if people would like.
I'd be interested. I went the self-published ebook route myself (science philosophy and sci fi/horror). Will likely do the same for my first novel (of which I had written a third before deciding the architecture of my space habitat and the conflict that arose wasn't realistic, so I'm basically starting again :P).
How this current trend back to moon-centric tourism/colonisation plays out will be interesting to see. Supposing reuse of 3 Falcon 9 booster stages per flight plus reuse of Dragon 2, it's not hard to imagine that a whole cis-lunar fly-by flights such as proposed could be costed at less than the current cost of a falcon 9 launch. How many rich couples would pay $40 million for a 7 day honeymoon? (edit: no pun intended, lol) Some people spend more than that on weddings.
Post by: Kansan52 on 03/16/2017 08:10 pm
Post by: gospacex on 03/16/2017 09:32 pm
Indirectly, Moore's law helps everything.
Somehow, Moore's law helps SpaceX more than it helps NASA. This suggests something else is the reason for the difference,
Quote
The fact that a noob company can work on a state of the art SC engine and get it to work so quickly is very much a consequence of ML.
It's more of a consequence SpaceX taking a genius rocket engine designer, who was bored to death at TRW, where his "rocket engine design" duties consisted of tons of paperwork, and let him actually, you know, *build rocket engines*.
"""
During his time at TRW, Mueller felt that his ideas were being lost in a diverse corporation and as a hobby he began to build his own engines. He would attach them to airframes and launch them in the Mojave Desert along with other members of the Reaction Research Society.
In late 2001, Mueller began developing a liquid-fueled rocket engine in his garage and later moved his project to a friend's warehouse in 2002.
"""
If your rocket engine designer starts to build rocket engines as a hobby in his spare time, you as a company are doing something terribly wrong.
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 03/17/2017 12:15 am
If your rocket engine designer starts to build rocket engines as a hobby in his spare time, you as a company are doing something terribly wrong.
This.
Post by: meekGee on 03/17/2017 02:23 am
Indirectly, Moore's law helps everything.
Somehow, Moore's law helps SpaceX more than it helps NASA. This suggests something else is the reason for the difference,QuoteThe fact that a noob company can work on a state of the art SC engine and get it to work so quickly is very much a consequence of ML.
It's more of a consequence SpaceX taking a genius rocket engine designer, who was bored to death at TRW, where his "rocket engine design" duties consisted of tons of paperwork, and let him actually, you know, *build rocket engines*.
"""
During his time at TRW, Mueller felt that his ideas were being lost in a diverse corporation and as a hobby he began to build his own engines. He would attach them to airframes and launch them in the Mojave Desert along with other members of the Reaction Research Society.
In late 2001, Mueller began developing a liquid-fueled rocket engine in his garage and later moved his project to a friend's warehouse in 2002.
"""
If your rocket engine designer starts to build rocket engines as a hobby in his spare time, you as a company are doing something terribly wrong.
In other words, Moore's law is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for these new applications...
In the case of NASA and old space, it's not that they "missed opportunities"... They actively dug in and refused to even acknowledge how reality is evolving around them.
Post by: Comga on 03/17/2017 03:38 am
It includes a retropropulsive landing on a landing pad.
Is this something SpaceX said or showed, or is it other CGI video found on the web that The Verge thinks is the way SpaceX is planning to land?
Personally, I doubt that SpaceX will have enough precision to hit a landing pad at the end of a free return trajectory from the moon. They have to prioritize the angle of entry.
It is a repeat to say my guess would be a descent under parachutes to a dessert landing, softened by the SuperDracos.
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/17/2017 03:45 am
Matthew
Post by: Joffan on 03/17/2017 05:20 am
... a descent under parachutes to a dessert landing, softened by the SuperDracos.
Well that would be a sweet treat. Pudding down the Dragon afters such a mission. No trifling matter.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/17/2017 05:41 am
It is a repeat to say my guess would be a descent under parachutes to a dessert landing, softened by the SuperDracos.I usually like to end things with a nice dessert.
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/17/2017 12:30 pm
Indirectly, Moore's law helps everything.SpaceX is most certainly NOT a noob company at this point. And they've been working on Raptor for years, building on their knowledge of building Merlins for a decade.
The fact that a noob company can work on a state of the art SC engine and get it to work so quickly is very much a consequence of ML.
The fact that you can finance a huge project using the constellation is a result of ML since the demand originates with smart phones and self driving cars.
As folks said, the computational power needed for fly-back and landing is not found in older rockets.
And of course, ISP proper has got nothing to do with it.
It's also not machine learning (which is a specific thing by the way, and it requires a large training set to work, thus not applicable here) that they used for Raptor but an interesting algorithm for studying fractals complex fluid flows efficiently.
Post by: meekGee on 03/17/2017 01:55 pm
First of all, in the general scene of things, they are very much a noob company - especially since as you they they started Raptor a good many years ago.Indirectly, Moore's law helps everything.SpaceX is most certainly NOT a noob company at this point. And they've been working on Raptor for years, building on their knowledge of building Merlins for a decade.
The fact that a noob company can work on a state of the art SC engine and get it to work so quickly is very much a consequence of ML.
The fact that you can finance a huge project using the constellation is a result of ML since the demand originates with smart phones and self driving cars.
As folks said, the computational power needed for fly-back and landing is not found in older rockets.
And of course, ISP proper has got nothing to do with it.
It's also not machine learning (which is a specific thing by the way, and it requires a large training set to work, thus not applicable here) that they used for Raptor but an interesting algorithm for studying fractals complex fluid flows efficiently.
(Noob was a complement here)
Second, BO is also doing it
Engine development in old space companies took (and takes) much longer, even when it's just incremental development.
Post by: Confusador on 03/17/2017 01:58 pm
Indirectly, Moore's law helps everything.SpaceX is most certainly NOT a noob company at this point. And they've been working on Raptor for years, building on their knowledge of building Merlins for a decade.
The fact that a noob company can work on a state of the art SC engine and get it to work so quickly is very much a consequence of ML.
The fact that you can finance a huge project using the constellation is a result of ML since the demand originates with smart phones and self driving cars.
As folks said, the computational power needed for fly-back and landing is not found in older rockets.
And of course, ISP proper has got nothing to do with it.
It's also not machine learning (which is a specific thing by the way, and it requires a large training set to work, thus not applicable here) that they used for Raptor but an interesting algorithm for studying fractals complex fluid flows efficiently.
They didn't say anything about machine learning. From context, ML= Moore's Law
Post by: Comga on 03/17/2017 02:12 pm
:P :DIt is a repeat to say my guess would be a descent under parachutes to a dessert landing, softened by the SuperDracos.I usually like to end things with a nice dessert.
What can I say?
It was a serious question now derailed by a spelling error.
At least you didn't make more jokes about soft landing in pudding.....
Post by: meekGee on 03/17/2017 02:22 pm
I was never a fan of machine learning anyway. Or rather, I think too many things are now called that. Very OT. (!Over Temperature)
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/17/2017 03:03 pm
For the LV/Space (satellites) industry the time span is different. But it does follow the same concept being a high tech advancement controlled capability industry.
For the LV industry SpaceX has set the the time span at 6 years for the doubling of payload at same cost. 2010 F9v1.0 (max ~10mt to LEO) [$6,000/kg] to the 2016 F9v1.2 (max ~20mt to LEO)[introduction to flight of the M1DFT+ [$3,000/kg].
So at this rate in 2022 the capability/cost would be 40mt for $60M cost. This would sort of coincide with higher rate operation of FH or even the regular use of New Glenn in competition with FH that lowers the price of FH flights such that FH is heavily reusing 3 cores (5 to 10 times rapid reuse with minimal refurbishment).
$1,500/kg
But do not expect a doubling of capability to cost at every 2 years.
This industry is just not that nimble.
Post by: meekGee on 03/17/2017 03:14 pm
Ok Moore's Law is nothing more than a pointing out that IC capability incresses exponentially over a set amount of time interval (power of 2 for every 2 years).You're describing a hypothetical "Musk's law"...
For the LV/Space (satellites) industry the time span is different. But it does follow the same concept being a high tech advancement controlled capability industry.
For the LV industry SpaceX has set the the time span at 6 years for the doubling of payload at same cost. 2010 F9v1.0 (max ~10mt to LEO) [$6,000/kg] to the 2016 F9v1.2 (max ~20mt to LEO)[introduction to flight of the M1DFT+ [$3,000/kg].
So at this rate in 2022 the capability/cost would be 40mt for $60M cost. This would sort of coincide with higher rate operation of FH or even the regular use of New Glenn in competition with FH that lowers the price of FH flights such that FH is heavily reusing 3 cores (5 to 10 times rapid reuse with minimal refurbishment).
$1,500/kg
But do not expect a doubling of capability to cost at every 2 years.
This industry is just not that nimble.
The ML I was referring to was the original semiconductor one. (Gates/mm2)
I don't know how $/kg will behave in the future.
$/kg for air craft certainly isn't dropping exponentially at this point.
I'd say that the cost of flying a rocket might, at best, approach that of flying an airplane of the same fuel loas. In the far future.
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 03/17/2017 03:57 pm
Here (http://"https://www.extremetech.com/computing/123529-nvidia-deeply-unhappy-with-tsmc-claims-22nm-essentially-worthless") is a nice article on Nvidia's view of the problem. Note that costs are coming down over time, but that's just the capital cost of the fabs getting amortized. That'll bottom out soon.
A separate but also serious issue is that wires haven't gotten faster for a long time. Transistors continue to get faster (e.g. the 600 GHz Ft I noted earlier), but at this point wires dominate. That's why CPU frequencies haven't budged in 8 years. There has been progress in better system integration (on CPU hardware video decoding, or flash memory as the backing store rather than rotating disk drives), and a little progress in work-per-cycle which comes from better use of more on-chip memory (better branch prediction).
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/17/2017 04:33 pm
Post by: kevinof on 03/17/2017 05:09 pm
If someone were interested in discussion of the SpaceX Crewed Circumlunar Mission in 2018, where should they go? Clearly not this thread.My thoughts exactly.
Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk
Post by: dglow on 03/17/2017 09:45 pm
If someone were interested in discussion of the SpaceX Crewed Circumlunar Mission in 2018, where should they go? Clearly not this thread.
I believe it was Mr. Bradbury who, lampooning The Bard, told us "digression is the soul of wit."
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/17/2017 10:01 pm
EDIT: I'm up to about 10 thousand words and climbing. I'm going to try and cut to the chase of the story and not make it a novella...
Post by: TomH on 03/18/2017 12:03 am
These other figurative allusions to Moore's law were not what I was implying nor what I intended anyone to infer. I was trying to point out that the HGP is not highly instructive in relation to advancement in space technology. Faster processing contributes to computer modeling and to the ability of control in landing a booster. Yet in the total scheme of things, I was implying that the HGP mention did not belong here. I think we need to drop this and get back on topic before Chris deletes the last several pages.
Post by: su27k on 03/18/2017 01:58 am
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 03/18/2017 03:10 pm
Ok, back on topic: Would a flight on New Shepard be useful in terms of training? Seems to me this would be the closest analog to the ascend and landing phase of a Dragon mission, plus you got some weightlessness in a capsule as bonus.What would the benefit be in training for an automated flight, on another automated flight, on a completely different rocket with 1/10th the flight history?
Post by: RonM on 03/18/2017 05:40 pm
Ok, back on topic: Would a flight on New Shepard be useful in terms of training? Seems to me this would be the closest analog to the ascend and landing phase of a Dragon mission, plus you got some weightlessness in a capsule as bonus.What would the benefit be in training for an automated flight, on another automated flight, on a completely different rocket with 1/10th the flight history?
Maybe more psychological than anything else. After the suborbital flight they can be asked "Okay, was that great or are you having second thoughts about this?"
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/18/2017 05:54 pm
Ok, back on topic: Would a flight on New Shepard be useful in terms of training? Seems to me this would be the closest analog to the ascend and landing phase of a Dragon mission, plus you got some weightlessness in a capsule as bonus.What would the benefit be in training for an automated flight, on another automated flight, on a completely different rocket with 1/10th the flight history?
Considering the relatively low cost compared to their lunar trip, flying on Virgin Galactic to get the weightless jitters out of the way would seem like a good idea. And who knows, maybe these two individuals were one of the original ticket holders for Virgin Galactic sub-orbital flights?
Post by: AncientU on 03/18/2017 06:10 pm
Ok, back on topic: Would a flight on New Shepard be useful in terms of training? Seems to me this would be the closest analog to the ascend and landing phase of a Dragon mission, plus you got some weightlessness in a capsule as bonus.
Astros prepare for flight, in part, by flying on the 'Vomit Comet' to get an introduction to weightlessness. New Shepard could indeed be a reasonable training step. Kinda doubt that SpaceX would spring for the flight(s) and the timing of commercial flights/existing queue of paying customers on NS may be problematic.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/18/2017 06:16 pm
What would the benefit be in training for an automated flight, on another automated flight, on a completely different rocket with 1/10th the flight history?How does New Shepard have "1/10th the flight history" when Falcon Heavy has a flight history of exactly zero?
Because Falcon Heavy has a huge amount of commonality with Falcon 9. Obviously, there could be failure modes that are specific to Falcon Heavy, but the vast majority of potential failure modes for Falcon Heavy would also be failure modes for Falcon 9, and much of the risk of those has been retired by Falcon 9 flights.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/19/2017 08:39 pm
There have been qualifications passed to fly for Orion, Dragon 2, Starliner, and Dream Chaser. Neither VG nor BO have similar qualifications passed.
NS has not been flying at the rate BO said it would this year. In fact, am beginning to doubt if either VG or BO represents "a going concern" in the business of space tourism.
It is more likely that BO will make revenue (of a sort) from engine sales, long before it makes revenue off of HSF. Perhaps both VG/BO will launch unmanned spacecraft before the 50 or so flights that NS was supposed to do before lofting people. Or perhaps they will do something like SS1, lofting a few to show that it can be done and then not doing it again.
Much more likely that if SX succeeds with a lunar free return mission, that similar (or variations) will follow, possibly as many as a hundred. As these are the only "commercial HSF" options at the moment, can't talk about much more than that.
Jon Goff's excellent suggestion of EML 1/2 cruise flyby, with extended consumables, certainly sounds like a "stretch" mission concept worth considering, and within the scope of projected vehicle operations, modulo radiation exposure accumulation issues. Extended stays might even be possible with a small hab, possibly using CRS resupply for perhaps monthly stays - all within the realm of existing deployable systems.
None of this complicated by other political, scientific, or engineering issues. Given Musk's penchant for popular culture, perhaps title it the "Restaurant at the End of the Universe" or some such. Like dining at the top of a tall building, only more so ... perfect for these decadent times.
Post by: AncientU on 03/19/2017 08:44 pm
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 03/20/2017 01:06 am
Quote
This presents an opportunity for humans to return to deep space for the first time in 45 years and they will travel faster and further into the Solar System than any before them.
How far?
How fast?
Post by: docmordrid on 03/20/2017 02:52 am
Others can speculate if he meant km and the velocities for each.
Post by: meekGee on 03/20/2017 04:50 am
Musk said 400,000 miles.
Others can speculate if he meant km and the velocities for each.
The context indicates miles, since in the same sentence he also reference the distance to the moon being 250k IIRC.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/21/2017 06:17 am
Quote
Q: any discussions with SpaceX about experiments on circumlunar mission?
[Ben] Bussey [NASA]: not yet; don’t have mission details from them. #LPSC2017
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/843966305531285504 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/843966305531285504)
Quote
Ben Bussey/NASA: No discussion with SpaceX about opportunities for science on crewed lunar flight in 2018, awaiting hard details from SpaceX
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/843967909164650497 (https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/843967909164650497)
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/21/2017 04:12 pm
Travel Tips From a Real Space Tourist: Get Ready to Feel Awful (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-21/travel-tips-from-a-real-space-tourist-get-ready-to-feel-awful) - Bloomberg
An interesting passage:
"...says Garriott de Cayeux. “There’s a disagreement between what you see that you’re doing and what your body thinks it’s doing—and that often causes sea sickness.”
That perceptual disconnect tends to last for about three days before your brain begins compensating."
So about half the trip you're still trying to get acclimated to space.
Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/21/2017 05:00 pm
Post by: Tuts36 on 03/21/2017 05:15 pm
An article about an actual space tourist and their recommendations for the circumlunar travelers:
Travel Tips From a Real Space Tourist: Get Ready to Feel Awful (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-21/travel-tips-from-a-real-space-tourist-get-ready-to-feel-awful) - Bloomberg
An interesting passage:
"...says Garriott de Cayeux. “There’s a disagreement between what you see that you’re doing and what your body thinks it’s doing—and that often causes sea sickness.”
That perceptual disconnect tends to last for about three days before your brain begins compensating."
So about half the trip you're still trying to get acclimated to space.
I actually don't think this would put many potential customers off. Humans are willing to put up with a LOT of discomfort if it's in the name of "fun". Ask anybody who enjoys backpacking!
EDIT: I just read the bit about him voluntarily having a lobe of his liver surgically removed... okay, not as many people would go THAT far...
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/21/2017 06:31 pm
I actually don't think this would put many potential customers off. Humans are willing to put up with a LOT of discomfort if it's in the name of "fun". Ask anybody who enjoys backpacking!
EDIT: I just read the bit about him voluntarily having a lobe of his liver surgically removed... okay, not as many people would go THAT far...
I enjoy backpacking, but personally I would never do scuba diving due to the issues related to what happens if I have to cough or hiccup while under water (that's just me of course). So I'm not sure that once someone finds out all of the things they have to train for (even as a "passenger") that there would still be a big pool of high-wealth individuals that would want to do this type of trip.
And I'm glad you pointed out that part of the article where the guy had to have surgery to pre-empt the chances of a medical emergency while in space. That just goes to show that travel in space is not yet for the average person.
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/21/2017 07:25 pm
A good reason to consider a 5 minute jaunt into weightlessness - see how badly space-sick you become.I'll take them up flying with me and do some parabolic flights, some stalls, throw in some spins and then see if they turn green... ;D
Post by: Comga on 03/21/2017 07:33 pm
I actually don't think this would put many potential customers off. Humans are willing to put up with a LOT of discomfort if it's in the name of "fun". Ask anybody who enjoys backpacking!
EDIT: I just read the bit about him voluntarily having a lobe of his liver surgically removed... okay, not as many people would go THAT far...
I enjoy backpacking, but personally I would never do scuba diving due to the issues related to what happens if I have to cough or hiccup while under water (that's just me of course). So I'm not sure that once someone finds out all of the things they have to train for (even as a "passenger") that there would still be a big pool of high-wealth individuals that would want to do this type of trip.
And I'm glad you pointed out that part of the article where the guy had to have surgery to pre-empt the chances of a medical emergency while in space. That just goes to show that travel in space is not yet for the average person.
You worry too much
(Coughing, sneezing, or hiccups underwater? Not a real problem from my first hand experience)
Everyone who has gone to the ISS speaks glowingly and one of the "tourists" went twice.
Thousands of people do parabolic flights to get half minute periods of weightlessness and they experience discomfort and need heavy medication.
Long lines will form.
And where did Garriott's "de Cayeaux" come from?!?
Post by: jpo234 on 03/21/2017 10:00 pm
And where did Garriott's "de Cayeaux" come from?!?
From Wikipedia: In 2011 he was married and changed his name to Richard Garriott de Cayeux.
So: From his wife.
Post by: Eric Hedman on 03/21/2017 10:08 pm
What do you mean turn green? That's the fun part of flying. 8)A good reason to consider a 5 minute jaunt into weightlessness - see how badly space-sick you become.I'll take them up flying with me and do some parabolic flights, some stalls, throw in some spins and then see if they turn green... ;D
Post by: mvpel on 03/22/2017 12:46 am
What do you mean turn green? That's the fun part of flying. 8)
Adam Savage, as I recall, was instructed that it's best to eat bananas, since they taste about the same coming up as they do going down. I, on the other hand, can attest to the inadvisability of eating an Egg McMuffin before a scuba-diving boat trip. As much as I wanted to go to space when I was a kid, I'll probably have to wait for CERN to come up with artificial gravity.
Post by: docmordrid on 03/22/2017 01:03 am
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/24/2017 01:44 pm
EDIT - I found a couple rather annoying errors in the text that I have now fixed. Anyone who has already downloaded the story - if it's not too much trouble; please delete the previous version and take this one instead! :)
Post by: Semmel on 03/25/2017 09:37 am
Hey, guys... I've finished my story dramatizing a notional Dragon manned Circumlunar flight. I worked on it for a week and drafted, tidied and edited it till I could no longer stand to look at it. Any typos or errors are all mine and all regrettable. It's not perfect, but I hope you enjoy it anyway.
If anyone would prefer I upload a version that presents as Times New Roman font; let me know. But I prefer Arial font as I feel it's easier on the eyes. Regards; Matt.
EDIT - I found a couple rather annoying errors in the text that I have now fixed. Anyone who has already downloaded the story - if it's not too much trouble; please delete the previous version and take this one instead! :)
Hi Matt.. it took you only a week to write that? I didn't read it yet but wow.. 27 pages, thats like 4 to 5 pages a day constantly. I never got beyond 4 pages during my thesis and never hold up that pace for more than two days. And the reason was not that the topic was difficult (it wasn't for me at the time of writing). Its just hard for me to write in any acceptable quality faster than 3 pages a day. Looking forwards to read it :)
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 03/25/2017 09:49 am
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/25/2017 10:11 am
No time to read the whole thing now, but it's SpaceX, not Space X.EDIT: Thanks to my fellow Welsh Dragon (I have ancestry there) I have just revised this one more time to change to the correct 'SpaceX'. Heh - Everyone feel free to once more delete the previous versions. Terribly sorry - it was my failure to spot other errors the last times that prompted me to quickly re-write - but I missed this. The reason for the incorrect spacing of SpaceX? You have to override the 'wishes' of the spellcheck, otherwise at 4:30 in the morning when you make the 'final' draft; chances are you'll be too punchy to notice that the spellcheck has incorrectly changed it...
Post by: IRobot on 03/25/2017 11:50 am
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/25/2017 03:25 pm
I wonder if sailing for a week prior to launch would help. Usually it takes me also 3 days to get my sea legs...I think so. Other research has shown that you can help your inner ear adapt with certain strategies.
Post by: meekGee on 03/25/2017 03:51 pm
Or they'll find out that you can be simultaneously both sea sick and space sick. :)I wonder if sailing for a week prior to launch would help. Usually it takes me also 3 days to get my sea legs...I think so. Other research has shown that you can help your inner ear adapt with certain strategies.
Post by: mikelepage on 03/25/2017 04:10 pm
Hey, guys... I've finished my story dramatizing a notional Dragon manned Circumlunar flight.
Great effort Matt. Particularly liked the idea for the cube sats flying in formation! Seems like a fairly harmless add-on, and I can already see the photo of Earth-rise with Dragon in the foreground. Also very courageous of you to write about something so near in the future, and for which we already have a pretty good idea of how it has to go.
I only hope that whoever the explorers are, that they can hold their own in front of a camera and are charismatic personalities - with good chemistry/banter between them (it won't be Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Colbert, but that kind of science communicator/comedian host pairing of personalities would be amazing). I'd like to think that would have figured into Elon's mental calculation - this is a publicity exercise as well.
Post by: IRobot on 03/25/2017 06:19 pm
If I sail for more than a week, I get "earth-sick" :)Or they'll find out that you can be simultaneously both sea sick and space sick. :)I wonder if sailing for a week prior to launch would help. Usually it takes me also 3 days to get my sea legs...I think so. Other research has shown that you can help your inner ear adapt with certain strategies.
I think the sea adaptation is that you expect a constant change of balance, although with some periodicity. In space, I would expect a change of balance depending on momentum. In principle, sea adaptation would help...
@Robotbeat, do you have any reference to a research on that?
Post by: Bob Shaw on 03/25/2017 06:28 pm
Almost.
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/25/2017 07:16 pm
I bet the round-the-Moon tourists turn out to be Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos... ...it makes a certain amount of sense!I doubt it, but can you imagine if Elon and Bezos decided to settle their differences once and for all in deep space behind the Moon with their Lady Vivamus swords dueling in space suits? 😂
Almost.
Post by: laszlo on 03/25/2017 08:02 pm
If I sail for more than a week, I get "earth-sick" :)Or they'll find out that you can be simultaneously both sea sick and space sick. :)I wonder if sailing for a week prior to launch would help. Usually it takes me also 3 days to get my sea legs...I think so. Other research has shown that you can help your inner ear adapt with certain strategies.
I think the sea adaptation is that you expect a constant change of balance, although with some periodicity. In space, I would expect a change of balance depending on momentum. In principle, sea adaptation would help...
@Robotbeat, do you have any reference to a research on that?
I've been sailing for over 40 years, a licensed pilot since the 80's and have flown parabolic arcs in the vomit comet (as an unmedicated passenger). I have yet to get seasick, the closest I've come to airsickness was practicing dutch rolls in 90+ degree weather when my instructor had accidentally left the air vents shut. I never came close to zero-g sickness.
For me, the sensations for the 3 experiences are so completely different that I don't see at all how one can prepare you for the others. To me, zero-g didn't actually feel like anything was actually moving. I got heavier and lighter, but it felt as if the aircraft was not moving at all - a testament to the skill of the pilots who kept the flight coordinated. The gravitation vector was straight up and down, as far as my inner ears could tell, it just kept alternating between 2G and 0G.
I could tell when I moved inside the cabin, but that was similar to being able to tell when you are walking. If you want a good demonstration of what spending time in 0G is like, try doing a bunch of floor gymnastics, with lots of tucks and rolls and somersaults, then lie down flat. The jiggling of your ears' gyros and the movement of snot in your sinuses leave you with a similar feeling to having experienced 2 to 0 gee and having bounced off the walls and ceiling. If you feel fine or only mildly disoriented, you're probably a good candidate for 0G, especially since in a long spaceflight you wouldn't be alternating over a 2G range every few minutes, you'd be in 0G for the bulk of the flight.
Post by: savuporo on 03/25/2017 08:03 pm
Well, at least one of them has been practicing (http://bit.ly/2n3AGZo)I bet the round-the-Moon tourists turn out to be Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos... ...it makes a certain amount of sense!I doubt it, but can you imagine if Elon and Bezos decided to settle their differences once and for all in deep space behind the Moon with their Lady Vivamus swords dueling in space suits? 😂
Almost.
Post by: Nomadd on 03/26/2017 12:11 am
I could have used him today. I was in one of his yards, pruning his trees that were hitting my roof.Well, at least one of them has been practicing (http://bit.ly/2n3AGZo)I bet the round-the-Moon tourists turn out to be Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos... ...it makes a certain amount of sense!I doubt it, but can you imagine if Elon and Bezos decided to settle their differences once and for all in deep space behind the Moon with their Lady Vivamus swords dueling in space suits? 😂
Almost.
Post by: mikelepage on 03/26/2017 03:28 am
Well, at least one of them has been practicing (http://bit.ly/2n3AGZo)I bet the round-the-Moon tourists turn out to be Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos... ...it makes a certain amount of sense!I doubt it, but can you imagine if Elon and Bezos decided to settle their differences once and for all in deep space behind the Moon with their Lady Vivamus swords dueling in space suits? 😂
Almost.
That's our Elon... says multiple times "this is crazy" and then goes and does it anyway. ;D
Also, based on that performance, I wouldn't be recommending Elon duels with swords anytime soon. ;)
Post by: Semmel on 03/26/2017 06:08 pm
Well, at least one of them has been practicing (http://bit.ly/2n3AGZo)
Ohh god, I hope no body tries this as well. What an incredibly stupid thing to do. Luckily, the sword wasn't really sharp, it would probably just have broken a few fingers and not cut them off. But being trained in actual sword fighting, this was extremely painful to watch. Also, holding the sword like that showed how little he knows about using it. That right there was the equivalent of launching a rocket without following a predefined set of rules.
Post by: meekGee on 03/26/2017 06:13 pm
Post by: Barrie on 03/26/2017 08:15 pm
Elon said it wasn't Hollywood types, but Troublemaker Studios is in Austin. ::)
Post by: yg1968 on 03/27/2017 05:36 pm
http://spacenews.com/a-short-history-of-lunar-space-tourism/
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/28/2017 10:21 am
Quote
Elon Musk Verified account @elonmusk 11s12 seconds ago
Here is the latest SpaceX travel ad for the flight around the moon & into deep space. Maybe needs a few edits ...
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/846667837716410368 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/846667837716410368)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DNkKCFaqib8 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DNkKCFaqib8)
Post by: pyromatter on 03/28/2017 06:21 pm
Quote
@searchresults
Would you – hypothetically – fly around the moon on, let's say, a SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule?
Quote
For sure! But, unlike the Apollo era, in the commercial space era, it should become cheaper and safer over time. I have two specific missions in mind (and I don’t have much interest in suborbital flight or anything shy of these):
• spending a few days in a commercial space hotel in low Earth orbit and
• a lunar orbital mission, going much closer to the surface than Apollo X, but not landing.
Quote
For both trips I am excited about the photography. For the lunar trip, there would not be as many creature comforts or space for weightless play, but the views are pretty breathtaking. Earthrise, the dark side of the moon, Earth and moon at various distances.
Since the moon has no atmosphere, it presents a unique orbital opportunity – we could fly incredibly close to the surface while staying in lunar orbit. Apollo X dropped to an orbit 47K feet off the surface – like a private jet altitude over Earth.
If the goal is tourism, you could go much lower, and with no landing, it could have a downward facing window optimized for the views. I would want to figure out the tradeoff of orbital altitude and surface speed — skimming a thousand feet over the highest crater (Zeppelin altitudes) would be amazing, but might be dizzying. But, since the moon has 1/6 the mass of Earth, the orbital speeds at any given altitude are about 1/6 as fast... so it could be slow and low, that is the tempo... =)
Why not land? The cost and complexity just explodes, as the Russians discovered in the space race. For a new tourist activity, so does the risk. And to what benefit? With the full Apollo stack with EV on the moon, yes, you could cover some distance, but not as much as you can see in orbit. Bouncing around on foot just does not grab me as an essential first person experience. And, moon gravity and Mars gravity is easily simulated on the parabolic planes if that’s the key attraction.
And all that weight and design constraint would likely tradeoff with the window-optimized design. I would rather spend more time in orbit, at various heights, than attempt a landing.
I do wonder about a spacewalk. These EVA activities are a much easier engineering challenge, and might not tradeoff with the earlier goals. Michael Collins marveled at his EVA in Earth orbit:
“This is the best view of the universe that a human has ever had. We are gliding across the world in total silence, with absolute smoothness; a motion of stately grace which makes me feel God-like as I stand erect in my sideways chariot, cruising the night sky.
I am in the cosmic arena, the place to gain a celestial perspective; it remains only to slow down long enough to capture it, even a teacup will do, will last a lifetime below."
Post by: JazzFan on 03/29/2017 12:06 am
A good article by Jeff Foust on the SpaceX circumlunar mission and prior history of such attempts:
http://spacenews.com/a-short-history-of-lunar-space-tourism/
No mention of Excalibur-Almaz. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect Elon to have anything to do with old hardware, especially museum pieces.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/29/2017 05:41 am
A good article by Jeff Foust on the SpaceX circumlunar mission and prior history of such attempts:
http://spacenews.com/a-short-history-of-lunar-space-tourism/
Best part:
Quote from: Jeff Foust
SpaceX arguably is in a better position than others to attempt such a mission. It has both all the key hardware under development and the financial resources to prepare them for such a mission, which previous efforts have lacked.
True. But there are a few more critical advantages too. SX on the next CRS flight is reusing a Dragon, in addition to potentially reusing the boosters as well. So there's a considerable amount of reuse that could in theory allow a future profitability improvement that cheap Russian labor on LV/SC couldn't compete with.
Also, the CONOPS of such SX missions are an order of magnitude simpler then the other approaches. This matters a great deal, because the complexity of the simplest lunar mission is already high enough to begin with.
add:
Thinking about this more ... as to who else could compete, should this become a "repeat" business. The only one would be BO. Could they with NG match FH with an identical capability?
If Musk has revenues from geosats, govt HSF, and now possibly commercial lunar HSF, how long would he have these markets each to dominate? If you are a rival, you don't want to leave your markets unchallenged for too long, because your cost/barriers to entry grow too high to enter - you never make up the lost time.
China is moving to triple spending on space (although NASA's current budget is more than 6x China's), and jump start space entrepreneurship (more like ULA fashion) by transferring a few govt LV/propulsion to the private sector, with an eye on reuse and not letting BO/SX get too far ahead, for the same reason. They are even talking about commercial HSF.
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/30/2017 02:37 am
Do you think the Chinese government got spooked by the SX circumlunar announcement? Especially just before the SES-10 launch with "flight proven" hardware. So as to accelerate their Space program development.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/30/2017 03:19 am
@Space Ghost 1962Yes.
Do you think the Chinese government got spooked by the SX circumlunar announcement? Especially just before the SES-10 launch with "flight proven" hardware. So as to accelerate their Space program development.
But they already were spooked by SX and BO's efforts already. Among many, many other countries.
When modest sized companies funded at a respective fraction of budget out compete national arsenal systems, doing things that their best scientists/engineers won't touch for 3-4x budget, yeah, it gets to them.
They interpret it as a form of an arms race. That all they know is that they aren't winning it.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/31/2017 07:44 pm
Here's a view from a true space industry giant:QuoteHad a good visit with Chris Kraft today. Now 93, he's still engaged. Had to give up golf, but he's now a mall walker! (Baybrook Mall)https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/847882433706020864 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/847882433706020864)QuoteChris was "very impressed" by @SpaceX and their launch Thursday. But he's not thrilled with their lunar flyby. "Too risky."https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/847882800682463232 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/847882800682463232)
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/01/2017 02:20 am
Relevant here:Here's a view from a true space industry giant:QuoteHad a good visit with Chris Kraft today. Now 93, he's still engaged. Had to give up golf, but he's now a mall walker! (Baybrook Mall)https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/847882433706020864 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/847882433706020864)QuoteChris was "very impressed" by @SpaceX and their launch Thursday. But he's not thrilled with their lunar flyby. "Too risky."https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/847882800682463232 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/847882800682463232)
In his book "Flight" (recommended), he speaks of shutting down Apollo because it was too risky to fly.
The man does understand risk.
Someone should ask him if he would dare it if it was made available to him.
And ... what would Bob Gilruth have thought of both? ;)
Post by: QuantumG on 04/01/2017 03:10 am
Post by: Kaputnik on 04/01/2017 11:03 am
Maybe he was just saying it's too risky for him. Everyone gets to make that decision for themselves.
I think that's too narrow a view.
If a mission goes bad and people die, that's going to affect everybody who is involved, unless they are psychopaths.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/01/2017 11:06 am
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/01/2017 02:02 pm
Post by: RDoc on 04/01/2017 03:52 pm
I suppose if there's a real queue for tourists who want to fly deep space missions, maybe SpaceX itself would fund it, but that seems like a pretty big stretch.
Post by: billh on 04/01/2017 04:03 pm
@Space Ghost 1962
Do you think the Chinese government got spooked by the SX circumlunar announcement? Especially just before the SES-10 launch with "flight proven" hardware. So as to accelerate their Space program development.
I'll tell you who spooks me...Space Ghost!!
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/01/2017 05:56 pm
@Space Ghost 1962
Do you think the Chinese government got spooked by the SX circumlunar announcement? Especially just before the SES-10 launch with "flight proven" hardware. So as to accelerate their Space program development.
I'll tell you who spooks me...Space Ghost!!
One of the many reasons for the name ...
Post by: Ludus on 04/01/2017 06:02 pm
I think flyby is good idea but would like see an unmanned Dragon do it first.
FH Demo flight could throw a reused Cargo Dragon on the same path with just a cheese onboard.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/01/2017 06:21 pm
Maybe he was just saying it's too risky for him. Everyone gets to make that decision for themselves.
I think that's too narrow a view.
If a mission goes bad and people die, that's going to affect everybody who is involved, unless they are psychopaths.
People also get to choose which companies they work for. SpaceX gets to choose what level of risk it is willing to take and passengers are free to choose to take that risk or not, and potential employees get to choose whether or not they work for a company that is willing to take that level of risk.
I, for one, am glad there are people willing to take such risks, and other people willing to help them take such risks, to advance our expansion into space.
Post by: guckyfan on 04/01/2017 06:38 pm
I think flyby is good idea but would like see an unmanned Dragon do it first.
FH Demo flight could throw a reused Cargo Dragon on the same path with just a cheese onboard.
Landing a second stage coming in from a lunar flyby would be a real test. ;)
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/02/2017 12:43 am
Post by: guckyfan on 04/02/2017 02:02 am
In order to send a Dragon on a lunar flyby; the second stage would also be on TLI - it would not be coming back. And shielding the second stage enough the survive a nearly 25,000 mph re-entry like a capsule would not really be viable.
I was refering to the announcement by Elon Musk, they will try to get the second stage down. This is not compatible with sending a Dragon around the moon unless we want to assume the stage can do the loop together with the Dragon and then reenter. Sounds really unlikely to me.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/02/2017 02:28 am
Post by: QuantumG on 04/02/2017 05:10 am
I'd been assuming direct, but I can't honestly say why.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/02/2017 05:39 am
Post by: Comga on 04/02/2017 05:48 am
Do you think they're planning a direct insertion or a separate TLI burn after entering a parking orbit?
I'd been assuming direct, but I can't honestly say why.
A technical question?
What do you think this is? NSF?
Yes. Thank you.
I always assumed the opposite, that they would send the Dragon and second stage into a parking orbit.
It's the "Apollo thing to do" but maybe that's just what I remember. Take time to check out the capsule before losing the ability to abort. It does however require an extended duration for the second stage.
What other considerations do people see?
Then maybe we can discuss my original question of where they plan to come down, in the ocean or on land
Post by: QuantumG on 04/02/2017 05:57 am
Post by: Comga on 04/02/2017 06:09 am
Surely that orbit-and-a-half duration has already been proven a bunch of times now.
OK. That issue has been put to bed.
Why else would you assume direct injection?
Does it make it easier or harder, more or fewer, longer or shorter windows?
Post by: QuantumG on 04/02/2017 06:35 am
Why else would you assume direct injection?
Does it make it easier or harder, more or fewer, longer or shorter windows?
I honestly don't see an advantage. I think it's just all these old thoughts sitting on hold in my head while SpaceX slowly improves their capabilities making them irrelevant.
Post by: Comga on 04/02/2017 04:53 pm
I would hope it concentrates on what SpaceX WILL DO, not speculations about fanciful additions.
We are getting to the level of asking what Zephram Cochrane (http://www.startrek.com/database_article/cochrane) would add to the trunk.
Let's stick to what Musk wants flown, and how and when.
Post by: RDoc on 04/02/2017 05:22 pm
Unless SpaceX has several other FH flights up their sleeves, this mission sounds very improbable.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/02/2017 06:42 pm
Why else would you assume direct injection?
Does it make it easier or harder, more or fewer, longer or shorter windows?
I honestly don't see an advantage. I think it's just all these old thoughts sitting on hold in my head while SpaceX slowly improves their capabilities making them irrelevant.
Direct ascent would mean a narrow window. You could do it from all four pads instead of just three.
There are certain performance advantages that a free return could get from it. In one scenario, you might even get the side benefit of easier core recovery, possibly even RTLS. And, from a standpoint of operations, you get a much simpler mission profile, while losing the potential safety advantage of ECLSS / human / SC checkout before TLI.
Been thinking about this too. One interesting aspect is to align the trajectory along a certain lunar gravimetric gradient of mascons, which nicely fits with a Vandenberg inclination direct ascent on the asymmetrical free return.
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/02/2017 07:12 pm
I still don't see how this mission can be accomplished. AFAIK there are no planned launches for FH with a Dragon capsule before 2020 other than this, and only two FH flights total. It seems almost impossible to imagine that the third FH flight and very first FH Dragon flight will be a manned tourist flight.
Unless SpaceX has several other FH flights up their sleeves, this mission sounds very improbable.
3rd flight of Falcon Heavy, and likely more than 3 flights for Dragon Crew by that time. Since a Falcon Heavy core is pretty much the same as a Falcon 9 core, I'm not sure what the concern would be of putting these two together and depending on them they first time they fly together.
The bigger risk I think is what could happen on the trip, and what could happen as they return to Earth - that's what would keep me up at night. If I was the one going...
Post by: tdrb6115 on 04/02/2017 07:27 pm
Post by: guckyfan on 04/02/2017 07:43 pm
It was stated be Elon Musk that center core of FH9 had to be redesigned so it probably is not to be considered 'pretty much the same' as F9 core.
It has to be more robust for compression and probably bending forces. Otherwise it still is pretty much the same. It does come off the same production line. Same payload adapters, except there will be stronger ones for heavy payloads, but not appliccable for Dragon.
Post by: Comga on 04/02/2017 08:37 pm
Why else would you assume direct injection?
Does it make it easier or harder, more or fewer, longer or shorter windows?
I honestly don't see an advantage. I think it's just all these old thoughts sitting on hold in my head while SpaceX slowly improves their capabilities making them irrelevant.
Direct ascent would mean a narrow window. You could do it from all four pads instead of just three.
There are certain performance advantages that a free return could get from it. In one scenario, you might even get the side benefit of easier core recovery, possibly even RTLS. And, from a standpoint of operations, you get a much simpler mission profile, while losing the potential safety advantage of ECLSS / human / SC checkout before TLI.
Been thinking about this too. One interesting aspect is to align the trajectory along a certain lunar gravimetric gradient of mascons, which nicely fits with a Vandenberg inclination direct ascent on the asymmetrical free return.
What do you mean by "all four pads"?
By "narrow window" do you mean the timing constraints are tighter for direct launch than for a launch into a parking orbit? Can you explain?
From the standpoint of the passengers, it would probably be desirable to spend at least some time in Earth orbut, looking down as the ground crew and autonomous systems go through checkout.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/02/2017 09:00 pm
LC-39A, LC-40 (assumes FH TEL upgrade), Boca, SLC-4E (after FH mods)Direct ascent would mean a narrow window. You could do it from all four pads instead of just three.
There are certain performance advantages that a free return could get from it. In one scenario, you might even get the side benefit of easier core recovery, possibly even RTLS. And, from a standpoint of operations, you get a much simpler mission profile, while losing the potential safety advantage of ECLSS / human / SC checkout before TLI.
Been thinking about this too. One interesting aspect is to align the trajectory along a certain lunar gravimetric gradient of mascons, which nicely fits with a Vandenberg inclination direct ascent on the asymmetrical free return.
What do you mean by "all four pads"?
Basically you could tie up a pad for a month w/o screwing w/manifest.
Quote
By "narrow window" do you mean the timing constraints are tighter for direct launch than for a launch into a parking orbit? Can you explain?
Briefly - using the barycenter of the Earth Moon system you can use it for a dV advantage, but it is highly dependent on a specific time, and on how/when you deplete US. Specifics gets quite wordy here so won't take this further.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 04/02/2017 09:17 pm
Quote
Briefly - using the barycenter of the Earth Moon system you can use it for a dV advantage, but it is highly dependent on a specific time, and on how/when you deplete US. Specifics gets quite wordy here so won't take this further.
can't this advantage be taken with planning the couple of times around LEO so the position is the same as if you did a direct?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/02/2017 10:55 pm
Nope.QuoteBriefly - using the barycenter of the Earth Moon system you can use it for a dV advantage, but it is highly dependent on a specific time, and on how/when you deplete US. Specifics gets quite wordy here so won't take this further.
can't this advantage be taken with planning the couple of times around LEO so the position is the same as if you did a direct?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/06/2017 08:40 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xYbkxM2xKw
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/06/2017 08:58 am
[EDIT]
Just to clarify: I think that the optimum launch flight plan would involve RTLS for the outboard cores but a drone landing for the central core. I'm wondering just how far out they can push the central core's return point before the EDL propellent reserve drops below safe minimums.
Post by: OneSpeed on 04/06/2017 09:58 am
Just a thought that occurred to me: What is the maximum velocity that that FH central core can achieve and still have sufficient propellent for braking, re-entry and landing burns? I ask because I'm thinking that they may be planning to run the central core longer to reserve more upper stage propellent for the TLI.
[EDIT]
Just to clarify: I think that the optimum launch flight plan would involve RTLS for the outboard cores but a drone landing for the central core. I'm wondering just how far out they can push the central core's return point before the EDL propellent reserve drops below safe minimums.
Here is my best guess: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42389.msg1658498#msg1658498
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/06/2017 10:35 am
I still don't see how this mission can be accomplished. AFAIK there are no planned launches for FH with a Dragon capsule before 2020 other than this, and only two FH flights total. It seems almost impossible to imagine that the third FH flight and very first FH Dragon flight will be a manned tourist flight.
Unless SpaceX has several other FH flights up their sleeves, this mission sounds very improbable.
If NASA can convince itself that it's safe to fly people on the first flight of STS and the second flight of SLS, why is it hard to believe SpaceX could convince itself it's safe to fly people on the second flight of Falcon Heavy? Falcon 9 flights might not retire all the risk of Falcon Heavy, but surely they retire a lot more of it than was retired before the first flight of STS and will be retired before the second flight of SLS.
Remember that Dragon has a launch abort system which SpaceX has confidence in, so, in SpaceX's view (and NASA's, since they're very closely monitoring and approving it for astronauts), Dragon is safe to ride no matter what problems the launch vehicle may have.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/06/2017 10:39 am
Post by: OneSpeed on 04/06/2017 11:52 am
Nice bit of work, OS. One question: That hypothesised lunar apogee burn: Would that require the Dragon to carry extra propellent to maintain sufficient reserves for Earth approach manoeuvres and would it need a modification to the Superdracos (expansion cones)?
I suspect this is the real reason they mention an apogee range of 300-400k miles. For 300k the Dragon 2 would have just enough propellant to complete the mission without modification. For 400k it would require around 3 tonnes of propellant, in other words the Grey Dragon would need to be a variant of the Red Dragon.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/09/2017 08:52 pm
The problem is for an accurate insertion you have to be at the right place at the right time in your orbit for TLI.Correct.
And for using a direct ascent to leverage the barycenter inclination for momentum transfer from one irregular gradient (earth) to another (moon), it's even more delicate, because you have a few billion solutions during the month, that depend on how the vehicle's dispersion's play out. Unlike during Apollo, where you didn't have the Goce/Grail data, or the means to do precision laser real-time navigational fixes.
Quote
If trying to continue the TLI burn from your orbit insertion burn, you are unlikely to be in the right place due to various random effects like variations in thrust, Isp, wind direction and air pressure with altitude.
These can/have been characterized from observed vehicle performance, and form a model that can be used to project a few hundred variations as real time contingencies, with corresponding real time alternative mission courses, not unlike the different Apollo landing contingencies, except we are talking about different routes by the moon with "free return", and they are evaluated on a millisecond basis not manually over days/hours.
So direct launch didn't have a benefit then, severe consequences, and no time for vehicle checkout. Why ever consider it now?
Because you can exhaustively evaluate the trillions of cases, including weather, and evaluate the thousands of variations/contingencies for each, you can find within any given month a sequence of days where the manifold of opportunities reduces to a hundred to a thousand cases during a flight that the flight avionics can choose from in real time to insure.
What might this buy you?
* Your vehicle's performance is maximally used by near perfectly using it in the Moon/Earth frame.
* Very little downrange for all stages, likely meaning RTLS.
* Largest capsule mass/consumables/propellants
So all your recoverable assets have the least horizontal vector to cancel. Meaning least "wear & tear". Simplest mission footprint too, after you've coped with the previously horrendous mission planning that would be automated.
Downsides are that you'd likely tie-up a pad for significant time, ready to go, and reworking vehicle to keep it ready to go.
This approach was considered a "pipe dream". Perhaps, or perhaps not. "Musk like", maybe?
Post by: deruch on 04/10/2017 04:15 am
This has also got me thinking about how they plan to deal with a launch abort downrange. What will their Recovery/Search and Rescue options be?
Post by: guckyfan on 04/10/2017 07:55 am
Post by: Comga on 04/10/2017 03:06 pm
Unless by then they already have plenty of experience in fully powered landing I expect them to do parachute landing with propulsive assist. Which will have limited precision so they need something like Edwards Airforce base?
Parachutes with propulsive assist, Soyuz style but much softer, makes sense, but is even Edwards big enough given the dispersion from the lunar return trajectory?
Do they even need the main chutes? Could this be done with just the drogue chutes?
Post by: guckyfan on 04/10/2017 03:16 pm
Unless by then they already have plenty of experience in fully powered landing I expect them to do parachute landing with propulsive assist. Which will have limited precision so they need something like Edwards Airforce base?
Parachutes with propulsive assist, Soyuz style but much softer, makes sense, but is even Edwards big enough given the dispersion from the lunar return trajectory?
Do they even need the main chutes? Could this be done with just the drogue chutes?
CST-100 will do that, in Edwards or elsewhere. I am sure Dragon can match their landing precision.
Edit: I think they will use the main chutes. They ensure safe, if harsh, landing even when the SuperDraco fail.
Post by: Comga on 04/10/2017 03:48 pm
Unless by then they already have plenty of experience in fully powered landing I expect them to do parachute landing with propulsive assist. Which will have limited precision so they need something like Edwards Airforce base?
Parachutes with propulsive assist, Soyuz style but much softer, makes sense, but is even Edwards big enough given the dispersion from the lunar return trajectory?
Do they even need the main chutes? Could this be done with just the drogue chutes?
CST-100 will do that, in Edwards or elsewhere. I am sure Dragon can match their landing precision.
I think they will use the main chutes. They ensure safe, if harsh, landing even when the SuperDraco fail.
CST will do that from LEO. SpaceX demonstrated better than 1 km accuracy on their first return from LEO. Returning from the Moon is another thing all together.
Even with only drogues, Dragon only needs two opposing engines to slow to zero velocity. A full throttle pair should add ~2.5 g's, ~25 m/s^2 to the drag deceleration of the drogues. That's only around ten seconds. Surely at least one of the four pairs will be functioning, and they can deploy the mains if not.
Post by: guckyfan on 04/10/2017 03:57 pm
CST will do that from LEO. SpaceX demonstrated better than 1 km accuracy on their first return from LEO. Returning from the Moon is another thing all together.
Yes, they have more time to do precision insertion into their landing corridor. That should get the targeting precision up.
While landing with drogues only may be feasible, I just don't see the advantage over full parachute landing. The option may be an additional failsafe, when the main chutes fail.
Post by: Comga on 04/10/2017 04:21 pm
CST will do that from LEO. SpaceX demonstrated better than 1 km accuracy on their first return from LEO. Returning from the Moon is another thing all together.
Yes, they have more time to do precision insertion into their landing corridor. That should get the targeting precision up.
While landing with drogues only may be feasible, I just don't see the advantage over full parachute landing. The option may be an additional failsafe, when the main chutes fail.
Drogues can't be a backup to full chutes, because they have to be jettisoned as the main chutes deploy.
The advantage of coming in faster under drogue chutes is reduced drift and increased targeting precision. There is no way to predict the landing winds two weeks out at launch, so they could be high. They can't wave off reentry upon return like they can from LEO.
Post by: Doesitfloat on 04/10/2017 08:23 pm
Post by: rpapo on 04/10/2017 11:43 pm
Landing with a drogue doesn't make sense to me. The landing is not survivable without the retro rockets firing. If you have to use the retro rockets just do a propulsive landing the drogues add nothing.Not quite true. Drogues would reduce terminal velocity a bit, therefore requiring less propellant for the landing itself.
That said, until they prove (really prove) the SuperDraco propulsive landing with the Cargo Dragons, I don't see them stopping the use of full parachutes. They may move to land landings, though. At least there is the Russian precedent for that. And Dragon landings would probably be a good deal softer.
Post by: BobHk on 04/15/2017 11:43 pm
Landing with a drogue doesn't make sense to me. The landing is not survivable without the retro rockets firing. If you have to use the retro rockets just do a propulsive landing the drogues add nothing.Not quite true. Drogues would reduce terminal velocity a bit, therefore requiring less propellant for the landing itself.
That said, until they prove (really prove) the SuperDraco propulsive landing with the Cargo Dragons, I don't see them stopping the use of full parachutes. They may move to land landings, though. At least there is the Russian precedent for that. And Dragon landings would probably be a good deal softer.
What is the expected mass difference with a cargo dragon vs a Dragon 2? Aren't they different in body, capability and mass?
Post by: MP99 on 04/16/2017 03:45 pm
If NASA can convince itself that it's safe to fly people on the first flight of STS and the second flight of SLS, why is it hard to believe SpaceX could convince itself it's safe to fly people on the second flight of Falcon Heavy? Falcon 9 flights might not retire all the risk of Falcon Heavy, but surely they retire a lot more of it than was retired before the first flight of STS and will be retired before the second flight of SLS.
FH with dragon will have different aerodynamic properties (impact of the airflow on the side boosters) than either F9 or FH with a fairing or F9 with dragon. FH/dragon will probably also fly a different trajectory than F9/dragon especially given the relatively low payload vs capability.
But, the differences may be sufficiently easy to predict that they'll be happy to just go for it.
Cheers, Martin
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 04/16/2017 06:44 pm
Landing with a drogue doesn't make sense to me. The landing is not survivable without the retro rockets firing. If you have to use the retro rockets just do a propulsive landing the drogues add nothing.Not quite true. Drogues would reduce terminal velocity a bit, therefore requiring less propellant for the landing itself.
That said, until they prove (really prove) the SuperDraco propulsive landing with the Cargo Dragons, I don't see them stopping the use of full parachutes. They may move to land landings, though. At least there is the Russian precedent for that. And Dragon landings would probably be a good deal softer.
What is the expected mass difference with a cargo dragon vs a Dragon 2? Aren't they different in body, capability and mass?
There are as far as I know, no definitive statements on Dragon / Dragon 2 mass from SpaceX. There are only 3rd party estimates.
Dragon is supposedly about 4.5 tonnes (dry)
Red Dragon (based on Dragon 2) is 5 tonnes as modeled by NASA (but it has probably changed considerably since then)
Dragon 2 is probably a bit more than Red Dragon.
Dragon 2 carries more fuel (perhaps 2 tonnes) than Dragon, Red Dragon carries about 3 tonnes of fuel.
Dragon 2 can probably land with the full payload (because it needs to do that in aborts), as far as I can tell Dragon has so far not landed with a full payload, it is unclear if that is because it can't or because there is less pressurized cargo to be returned.
Dragon 2 trunk is likely lighter than the Dragon trunk as it does not have the deployable solar arrays.
Although Dragon has changed much less than F9 over the last few years, there have been minor changes to it since the first operational flight to ISS, which have probably changed its mass slightly.
The SpaceX internal mass estimates of Dragon 2 (which we do not have access to) have almost certainly changed over the last couple of years, due to design refinement, and might change some more before first flight.
Post by: jpo234 on 05/18/2017 07:13 am
http://www.energia.ru/en/news/news-2017/news_05-02_1.html
Post by: woods170 on 05/18/2017 08:53 am
http://www.space.com/36884-spacex-moon-mission-russia-rsc-energia.html
http://www.energia.ru/en/news/news-2017/news_05-02_1.htmlQuote from: Douglas MessierThe head of Russia's most prominent spaceflight company questioned whether Elon Musk's SpaceX will be able to launch people around the moon next year.<snip>
"As for the state of affairs specifically at Elon Musk's company, it would be difficult to carry out such a mission in 2018, and even in 2020," Vladimir Solntsev, general director of RSC Energia <snip>
"Nobody has yet even seen the designs. There’s no launch vehicle, no spacecraft," Solntsev added. "The Crew Dragon spacecraft designed for missions to the ISS and Falcon 9 launch vehicle are a far cry from a spacecraft and a rocket that are needed for a mission towards the moon."
Looks like mr. Solntsev is completely out of touch with reality. The rocket (FH) is built and being tested as we speak. The spacecraft is being built and tested as we speak, with first flight scheduled in 2018. Mr. Solntsev appears fully unaware that SpaceX designed crew Dragon to be much more capable than "just" a LEO spacecraft. Heatshield, ECLSS, Thermal Control systems, Longevity, Crew Systems, etc. are all designed for much more demanding missions than "just" flying to the ISS. As EM indicated only a few systems need modding for the circumlunar mission. Most notably the comms system to be deep-space comms enabled.
Mr. Solntsev also forgets that a LEO spacecraft (Soyuz) was modified by the Soviet Union into a craft (Zond) for unmanned circumlunar missions, with the intent of using that same design for eventual manned circumlunar missions. Exactly the same thing that SpaceX is doing for their circumlunar mission.
Note: the linked article on space.com was written by someone who was banned from this forum for "having an agenda" with regards to SpaceX.
Post by: Jet Black on 05/18/2017 08:58 am
Dragon 2 can probably land with the full payload (because it needs to do that in aborts), as far as I can tell Dragon has so far not landed with a full payload, it is unclear if that is because it can't or because there is less pressurized cargo to be returned.
Dragon 2 may not be able to land with a full payload as no landing scenario includes anything in the trunk. WHile the LAS takes the trunk with it when it is firing, the trunk is jettisoned before it lands. Keeping the trunk during landing would ruin the aerodynamics.
Post by: AncientU on 05/18/2017 10:04 am
http://www.space.com/36884-spacex-moon-mission-russia-rsc-energia.html
http://www.energia.ru/en/news/news-2017/news_05-02_1.htmlQuote from: Douglas MessierThe head of Russia's most prominent spaceflight company questioned whether Elon Musk's SpaceX will be able to launch people around the moon next year.<snip>
"As for the state of affairs specifically at Elon Musk's company, it would be difficult to carry out such a mission in 2018, and even in 2020," Vladimir Solntsev, general director of RSC Energia <snip>
"Nobody has yet even seen the designs. There’s no launch vehicle, no spacecraft," Solntsev added. "The Crew Dragon spacecraft designed for missions to the ISS and Falcon 9 launch vehicle are a far cry from a spacecraft and a rocket that are needed for a mission towards the moon."
Looks like mr. Solntsev is completely out of touch with reality. The rocket (FH) is built and being tested as we speak. The spacecraft is being built and tested as we speak, with first flight scheduled in 2018. Mr. Solntsev appears fully unaware that SpaceX designed crew Dragon to be much more capable than "just" a LEO spacecraft. Heatshield, ECLSS, Thermal Control systems, Longevity, Crew Systems, etc. are all designed for much more demanding missions than "just" flying to the ISS. As EM indicated only a few systems need modding for the circumlunar mission. Most notably the comms system to be deep-space comms enabled.
Mr. Solntsev also forgets that a LEO spacecraft (Soyuz) was modified by the Soviet Union into a craft (Zond) for unmanned circumlunar missions, with the intent of using that same design for eventual manned circumlunar missions. Exactly the same thing that SpaceX is doing for their circumlunar mission.
Note: the linked article on space.com was written by someone who was banned from this forum for "having an agenda" with regards to SpaceX.
He seems unaware of Red Dragon, too, originally scheduled to fly in 2018 using essentially same launcher and spacecraft.
Post by: gospacex on 05/18/2017 11:16 am
http://www.space.com/36884-spacex-moon-mission-russia-rsc-energia.html
http://www.energia.ru/en/news/news-2017/news_05-02_1.htmlQuote from: Douglas MessierThe head of Russia's most prominent spaceflight company questioned whether Elon Musk's SpaceX will be able to launch people around the moon next year.<snip>
"As for the state of affairs specifically at Elon Musk's company, it would be difficult to carry out such a mission in 2018, and even in 2020," Vladimir Solntsev, general director of RSC Energia <snip>
"Nobody has yet even seen the designs. There’s no launch vehicle, no spacecraft," Solntsev added. "The Crew Dragon spacecraft designed for missions to the ISS and Falcon 9 launch vehicle are a far cry from a spacecraft and a rocket that are needed for a mission towards the moon."
Looks like mr. Solntsev is completely out of touch with reality. The rocket (FH) is built and being tested as we speak. The spacecraft is being built and tested as we speak, with first flight scheduled in 2018. Mr. Solntsev appears fully unaware that SpaceX designed crew Dragon to be much more capable than "just" a LEO spacecraft.
Well, he is far from being alone in this. What's currently happening all over aerospace industry is an example for a psychology textbook (and maybe for a business textbook too, "how to NOT deal with a disruptive competitor"). New reality is so tough to swallow that whole organizations simply refuse to acknowledge it.
Post by: jpo234 on 05/18/2017 11:27 am
Is CCP certification on the critical path for Grey Dragon? Could SpaceX launch Grey Dragon before CCP certification?
Post by: rockets4life97 on 05/18/2017 11:32 am
From the new GAO report http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684626.pdf we learn that SpaceX plans to certify the commercial crew vehicles in Q3/2018 (see page 47). This is awfully close to the proposed date for the Grey/Silver Dragon mission.
Is CCP certification on the critical path for Grey Dragon? Could SpaceX launch Grey Dragon before CCP certification?
I'd say yes. The CCP certification will follow from a thorough review of the crewed test flight. I expect that the people riding on the flyby will want to see that thorough review completed.
Post by: envy887 on 05/18/2017 01:07 pm
From the new GAO report http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684626.pdf we learn that SpaceX plans to certify the commercial crew vehicles in Q3/2018 (see page 47). This is awfully close to the proposed date for the Grey/Silver Dragon mission.
Is CCP certification on the critical path for Grey Dragon? Could SpaceX launch Grey Dragon before CCP certification?
Certification happens after both demo flights and before regular crewed flights, correct? Musk said they would start regular crewed flights before the lunar mission.
Post by: abaddon on 05/18/2017 01:38 pm
Post by: tvg98 on 05/18/2017 02:33 pm
There is no hard window here, so it is virtually certain they will slide the mission to the right until the required boxes are checked off (crewed flight, certification, confidence in FH as a launcher).
Agreed. This flight is different than most since the payload isn't going to create revenue for the costumer since the payload(s) are the costumers, so hopefully there'll be no rush to do this mission. I would hope they have an idea that this kind of stuff isn't easy and that it takes time to certify everything, and that delays are almost inevitable. All in all, I think this is one of those flights where I'd let SpaceX off the hook if they delayed the flight by a year or two, as a LOC would be devastating for them.
Post by: clongton on 05/18/2017 03:38 pm
There is no hard window here, so it is virtually certain they will slide the mission to the right until the required boxes are checked off (crewed flight, certification, confidence in FH as a launcher).
It's pretty hard to use "there is no hard window here" and "they will slide the mission to the right" in the same sentence. Aren't the 2 statements mutually exclusive?
Post by: jpo234 on 05/18/2017 03:42 pm
There is no hard window here, so it is virtually certain they will slide the mission to the right until the required boxes are checked off (crewed flight, certification, confidence in FH as a launcher).
It's pretty hard to use "there is no hard window here" and "they will slide the mission to the right" in the same sentence. Aren't the 2 statements mutually exclusive?
Hard window as in "launch window to Mars". If you miss the original date, you can pick another one without having to wait long for "the stars to align".
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/18/2017 04:45 pm
First of them is enough experience with FH.
Suggest you time FH integration and time to next FH flight. When these become predictable/effective, that limit may go.
Next up, Dragon 2 demonstration of a week of ECLSS operation (in space?).
Integration of deep space comms.
Discussion of mission contingencies.
Post by: jak Kennedy on 05/18/2017 05:00 pm
Post by: Bynaus on 05/18/2017 05:06 pm
Post by: kch on 05/18/2017 05:25 pm
The Moon is always half in daylight...
... as is the Earth.
Post by: saliva_sweet on 05/18/2017 05:32 pm
Note: the linked article on space.com was written by someone who was banned from this forum for "having an agenda" with regards to SpaceX.
I don't know, but I think that's ridiculous. I don't think he has an agenda. He's just a bitter jerk (like me).
Post by: envy887 on 05/18/2017 05:39 pm
The Moon is always half in daylight...... But the point of closest approach is dictated by your approach from Earth. Since it's a flyby, the passengers will only get to see a small part of the Moon surface close up, probably the far side towards the leading edge. I'm sure they will want that part sunlit.
Post by: jpo234 on 05/18/2017 06:09 pm
The Moon is always half in daylight...Nit picking: not during a Lunar eclipse.
Post by: manoweb on 05/18/2017 06:19 pm
some of the last comments about the window got me thinking. Won't they try and line up the window so that a large amount of the moon is in daylight as they swing by? It would suck to go all that way if you can not see much.
I understand what you mean here but you have a good window at least once a month, compared to a much larger interval for a Mars mission... if there is a delay, just go a month later no?
Post by: clongton on 05/19/2017 12:54 am
The Moon is always half in daylight...Nit picking: not during a Lunar eclipse.
That's called nightlight (ducking now).
Post by: deruch on 05/19/2017 02:02 am
From the new GAO report http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684626.pdf we learn that SpaceX plans to certify the commercial crew vehicles in Q3/2018 (see page 47). This is awfully close to the proposed date for the Grey/Silver Dragon mission.From a technical standpoint, no. There's no reason why they would have to wait for certification before the lunar mission. At least, not assuming that they've satisfied themselves and their customers on their technical proficiency. But, from a business standpoint, I think yes. I would be very surprised to learn that they hadn't sold the mission as being flown on a capsule certified by NASA (though not for this mission, just certified for NASA HSF missions to ISS). Also, and maybe more importantly, there's the question of capsule production. Where is SpaceX getting the Dragon capsule for this mission? Right now, according to latest public info I have seen, they have 4 in production. One each for the 2 demonstration missions for CC, then they've sold 2 Post-Certification Missions and presumably have started production on those. Also, they need to produce cargo-variant Dragon 2s for CRS2. If they are reusing a "flight-proven" capsule this is much less of an issue.
Is CCP certification on the critical path for Grey Dragon? Could SpaceX launch Grey Dragon before CCP certification?
Post by: meekGee on 05/19/2017 02:10 am
There is no hard window here, so it is virtually certain they will slide the mission to the right until the required boxes are checked off (crewed flight, certification, confidence in FH as a launcher).
It's pretty hard to use "there is no hard window here" and "they will slide the mission to the right" in the same sentence. Aren't the 2 statements mutually exclusive?
Hard window as in "launch window to Mars". If you miss the original date, you can pick another one without having to wait long for "the stars to align".
I normally wouldn't, but since you nit picked, I'll reverse nit:
The idiom is "waiting for planets to align", and for a reason.... :)
Post by: TomH on 05/19/2017 03:09 am
The Moon is always half in daylight...
Your tag line states that you are a planetary scientist??? Luna is not always half in daylight! Can you say...........lunar eclipse?
Post by: obi-wan on 05/19/2017 03:28 am
some of the last comments about the window got me thinking. Won't they try and line up the window so that a large amount of the moon is in daylight as they swing by? It would suck to go all that way if you can not see much.
I understand what you mean here but you have a good window at least once a month, compared to a much larger interval for a Mars mission... if there is a delay, just go a month later no?
The Apollo limitation of monthly launch windows was driven by the constraint to land shortly after lunar dawn at the landing site, so you're looking down-sun and there are elongated shadows to show obstacles in the landing field. If you're just doing a fly-by, you could launch almost any day - and with a preliminary parking orbit in LEO, with wide launch windows.
Post by: manoweb on 05/19/2017 05:21 am
But, from a business standpoint, I think yes. I would be very surprised to learn that they hadn't sold the mission as being flown on a capsule certified by NASA
Unless the customer is internal to SpaceX, and has access to data that make a NASA certification less relevant
Post by: jpo234 on 05/19/2017 07:04 am
I normally wouldn't, but since you nit picked, I'll reverse nit:
The idiom is "waiting for planets to align", and for a reason.... :)
Touché!
Post by: Bynaus on 05/19/2017 07:43 am
The Moon is always half in daylight...
Your tag line states that you are a planetary scientist??? Luna is not always half in daylight! Can you say...........lunar eclipse?
Jup, that is a (mostly) correct and witty comment - although I was obviously talking of the general situation here. But if you want to take nit-picking a step further, the Moon is still half in daylight even during a lunar eclipse: it's just that the sunlight that still reaches its surface has been refracted, and strongly reduceced in total intensity by the Earth's atmosphere - hence the red color. :)
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/20/2017 03:41 pm
Quote
There's a rumour in industry that RSC Energia have a pool of paying customers for Moon flyover, and two of them switched to SpaceX recently.
https://twitter.com/tosikceres/status/865715509496606720 (https://twitter.com/tosikceres/status/865715509496606720)
The tweet is earlier today and so sounds like a current rumour, which obviously would mean a subsequent flight to the one Elon announced.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/20/2017 04:10 pm
Also, one of the reasons this is so "vague" a market is because both demand and ability to serve being small.
When the number of providers increases (doubling with SX), you'd expect first "switchers", then a few new ones.
I'd put the number of potential committed "customers" at around a dozen worldwide. After Dragon-2 flies with crew, expect about half of these to become signed.
Two things will increase confidence that this will happen:
1) FH flies two time w/o incident
2) Dragon 2 demonstrates on-orbit operation with ECLSS/consumables for the length of the free return flight.
(If I were SX, I'd take the crewed demo flight, and have it well stocked with consumables/props, and after ISS arrival, undock, and move a safe distance (KOS?) away and "formation fly" for free return duration, then redock and complete demo mission.)
It might be possible to "move" the ISS slightly to "grab" a Dragon if the worst case failure were to occur, as an ultimate backup to such a test (depending on stabilization of the disabled Dragon worst case).
Such a Demo mission would prove to ASAP the same mission capability that it wants from Orion before EM-2. That would demonstrate to NASA Dragon-2's capabilities beyond simple ISS missions, perhaps even as a potential LON vehicle for any SLS/Orion missions, which is not a bad thing to have.
As well as encouraging customers for free return. BTW, same would be true for a Soyuz for the RSC Energia too.
Post by: Negan on 05/20/2017 04:40 pm
2) Dragon 2 demonstrates on-orbit operation with ECLSS/consumables for the length of the free return flight.
I could see a failure of such a demonstration pose some serious questions with regard to NASA's certification process.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/20/2017 05:06 pm
You misunderstand the point of such testing.2) Dragon 2 demonstrates on-orbit operation with ECLSS/consumables for the length of the free return flight.
I could see a failure of such a demonstration pose some serious questions with regard to NASA's certification process.
Testing always delivers confidence. Especially if it fails, because you bring on such a failure in the context of well-planned and on the scene contingencies. You won't have these during actual missions.
Always think "belt and suspenders". As to certification process, it either finds holes for Starliner/Orion, or it confirms the process with actual flight data. There's nothing bad. And its cheaper than EFT-2.
Now, for NASA only - such a capability for long duration flight is a substantial proof for a potential LON capability, extremely cheaply obtained. What else would you need:
1) additional delta-v to allow Dragon-2 to enter/leave LLO (or other). (Or only fly Orion to near lunar halo/EML orbits both can already reach.) Possibly extended tanks in trunk, or propulsion pallet in trunk.
2) demonstrated unmanned mission (Dragon 1) to validate heat shield. Something akin to ETF-1, might even be possible with just a F9 on a highly elliptical orbit.
LON mission concept: Before flight, prep a FH/Dragon-2 for flight with propulsion pallet in HIF. On emergency, prepare/validate for flight, erect, launch.
If no emergency, remove propulsion pallet from free return commercial flight that would fly in a week.
Now, its likely that Orion flights would never need this. However, the public is very unforgiving of "Marooned" astro's, out there suffocating. And at the moment, Dragon-2 would be the "best bet". Cheap contingency.
Don't you think?
Post by: Negan on 05/20/2017 05:27 pm
LON mission concept: Before flight, prep a FH/Dragon-2 for flight with propulsion pallet in HIF. On emergency, prepare/validate for flight, erect, launch.
If no emergency, remove propulsion pallet from free return commercial flight that would fly in a week.
Now, its likely that Orion flights would never need this. However, the public is very unforgiving of "Marooned" astro's, out there suffocating. And at the moment, Dragon-2 would be the "best bet". Cheap contingency.
Don't you think?
I think cheap contingency could also equal cheap replacement so yeah sounds like a good plan to me.
Post by: Negan on 05/20/2017 05:41 pm
You misunderstand the point of such testing.
Testing always delivers confidence. Especially if it fails, because you bring on such a failure in the context of well-planned and on the scene contingencies. You won't have these during actual missions.
Always think "belt and suspenders". As to certification process, it either finds holes for Starliner/Orion, or it confirms the process with actual flight data. There's nothing bad. And its cheaper than EFT-2.
Yes I see your point. Definitely a good idea for NASA to encourage SpaceX to do this test before certification is complete.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/20/2017 05:47 pm
LON mission concept: Before flight, prep a FH/Dragon-2 for flight with propulsion pallet in HIF. On emergency, prepare/validate for flight, erect, launch.
If no emergency, remove propulsion pallet from free return commercial flight that would fly in a week.
Now, its likely that Orion flights would never need this. However, the public is very unforgiving of "Marooned" astro's, out there suffocating. And at the moment, Dragon-2 would be the "best bet". Cheap contingency.
Don't you think?
I think cheap contingency could also equal cheap replacement so yeah sounds like a good plan to me.
They aren't qualified or spec'd the same. For rescue, Dragon ECLSS might just barely cut it.
I'm not surprised though you'd think this. Any emergency capability would be viewed the same way. I believe that's part of the thinking that got Soyuz into the role it plays as transporting American crews to the ISS.
add:
Although come to think of it, that works both ways. What if there were a Russian need for crew transport on demand? Perhaps from high inclination LEO, or even cislunar/lunar?
"Practice makes perfect"
Post by: Proponent on 05/20/2017 07:27 pm
The Apollo limitation of monthly launch windows was driven by the constraint to land shortly after lunar dawn at the landing site, so you're looking down-sun and there are elongated shadows to show obstacles in the landing field. If you're just doing a fly-by, you could launch almost any day - and with a preliminary parking orbit in LEO, with wide launch windows.
If I were the tourist paying for the flight, I think I'd want a low sun angle at the point of closest approach.
Post by: alang on 05/20/2017 08:02 pm
The Apollo limitation of monthly launch windows was driven by the constraint to land shortly after lunar dawn at the landing site, so you're looking down-sun and there are elongated shadows to show obstacles in the landing field. If you're just doing a fly-by, you could launch almost any day - and with a preliminary parking orbit in LEO, with wide launch windows.
If I were the tourist paying for the flight, I think I'd want a low sun angle at the point of closest approach.
I'd like a flight over the poles and along the terminator, if it were compatible with an achievable free return orbit. It would be something new for a human cargo.
Post by: QuantumG on 05/20/2017 11:59 pm
Post by: matthewkantar on 05/21/2017 12:43 am
Matthew
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/21/2017 09:29 am
Post by: rockets4life97 on 05/21/2017 09:42 am
I really don't think it's likely at all that SpaceX would change the demo mission into one that tests long-term crewed free-flight by Dragon like that. NASA wouldn't like it, and it also brings unnecessary risk for SpaceX.
This has been debated quite a bit in the FH Demo thread. The main reason that SpaceX is unlikely to launch a dragon on the demo flight is that the demo flight is an important step for FH certification of DoD satellite missions. So the payload (likely dummy) needs to be in a fairing and go to GTO.
Post by: rpapo on 05/21/2017 09:43 am
You're confusing the Falcon Heavy Demo with the Crewed Dragon 2 Demo.I really don't think it's likely at all that SpaceX would change the demo mission into one that tests long-term crewed free-flight by Dragon like that. NASA wouldn't like it, and it also brings unnecessary risk for SpaceX.
This has been debated quite a bit in the FH Demo thread. The main reason that SpaceX is unlikely to launch a dragon on the demo flight is that the demo flight is an important step for FH certification of DoD satellite missions. So the payload (likely dummy) needs to be in a fairing and go to GTO.
Post by: rockets4life97 on 05/21/2017 09:50 am
You're confusing the Falcon Heavy test flight with the Crewed Dragon 2 Demo.I really don't think it's likely at all that SpaceX would change the demo mission into one that tests long-term crewed free-flight by Dragon like that. NASA wouldn't like it, and it also brings unnecessary risk for SpaceX.
This has been debated quite a bit in the FH Demo thread. The main reason that SpaceX is unlikely to launch a dragon on the demo flight is that the demo flight is an important step for FH certification of DoD satellite missions. So the payload (likely dummy) needs to be in a fairing and go to GTO.
My mistake. That tells you how unlikely it is that I think the Crew Dragon Demo flights will be changed. They will happen as planned as per SpaceX's contract with NASA. My brain went to the only other demo flight that *could* possibly be changed.
Post by: mikelepage on 06/25/2017 10:22 am
Basically I was wondering what other "destinations" were possible with a crewed Dragon on the Falcon Heavy, that would also be a stepping stone for Mars exploration plans.
Two elements here:
1) As someone who has experienced a total solar eclipse (Cairns 2011), I totally get why "eclipse chasers" exist - partial solar eclipses, and lunar eclipses are cool and all, but I defy anyone not to have a profound emotional experience during the seconds of solar eclipse totality where you can actually take your solar protective glasses off and look at the corona.
This got me to wondering about seeing a total solar eclipse... but with Earth as the occluding body. This hypothetical "ultimate eclipse chaser" mission would do a flyby of the moon, then out to just inside Sun-Earth L2, at ~1.35 million km. Small burn at apogee brings you back to Earth surface in around 65 days (I think).
2) For the exercise of it, the mission could continues as a Mars-analogue upon touch-down, say in some remote wilderness. (For example, here: -52.9679073, 73.3056220). Say an advance team has put an inflatable greenhouse with non-perishable supplies at the location. The astronaut(s) would have to climb out of the Dragon themselves after 2 months in space, and set up the camp. The only living plants/animals would come with them in the Dragon, so it would basically be a (sort of) rehearsal process for what would actually happen upon landing on Mars. Useful I think, and personally I would love to do this...
Post by: MATTBLAK on 06/25/2017 11:03 am
Post by: spacenut on 06/25/2017 12:08 pm
Post by: MATTBLAK on 06/25/2017 12:15 pm
Post by: rsdavis9 on 06/25/2017 01:32 pm
I doubt they will make the December 2018 'deadline'. Other Apollo 50th anniversaries they could aim for would be March 2019 for Apollo 10, July 2019 for Apollo 11, December 2019 for Apollo 12 and April 2020 for Apollo 13...
I hope they don't try for apollo 13...
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/25/2017 04:12 pm
Basically I was wondering what other "destinations" were possible with a crewed Dragon on the Falcon Heavy, that would also be a stepping stone for Mars exploration plans.
It's an interesting topic, but not the topic of this thread. This thread is specifically for one particular mission that is planned for 2018.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 06/25/2017 08:19 pm
I used that Anniversary in my story :) (see page 54 of this thread, if you haven't already ;))I doubt they will make the December 2018 'deadline'. Other Apollo 50th anniversaries they could aim for would be March 2019 for Apollo 10, July 2019 for Apollo 11, December 2019 for Apollo 12 and April 2020 for Apollo 13...
I hope they don't try for apollo 13...
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 06/26/2017 02:40 am
This got me to wondering about seeing a total solar eclipse... but with Earth as the occluding body.
Just wait until nightfall! :)
I'm assuming you mean the situation where the Earth exactly covers the disc of the Sun and you can then see the corona and prominences etc? Unfortunately, the amount of sunlight refracted through the Earth's atmosphere precludes this.
However, there are many points in cislunar space (off-Earth) where the Moon exactly covers the disc of the Sun. Perhaps it's possible, if you get the geometry right, that some of these points could lie on a circumlunar orbital trajectory? Alternatively (simultaneously?), you might be able to maintain the eclipse for an extended period of time? But you'd need someone more expert in orbital mechanics than I am to answer those questions!
Post by: mainmind on 06/28/2017 04:35 pm
Quote
“We’ll be flying Arabsat to [geostationary transfer orbit] on the second Falcon Heavy flight, and then we’ll be flying STP-2, an Air Force mission,” she said.
http://spacenews.com/spacexs-final-falcon-9-design-coming-this-year-two-falcon-heavy-launches-next-year/
Post by: abaddon on 06/28/2017 04:41 pm
Post by: jak Kennedy on 06/28/2017 04:50 pm
Post by: mainmind on 06/28/2017 04:59 pm
The SpaceNews article cites the Space Show interview, in which she does mention the Lunar mission. She even said it was a mission she would be interested in (unlike going to Mars). It is predicated on the crew missions and FH going well first, is all.
Ah. Thanks for clarifying that! Didn't have time to listen to the whole interview. Here's a link to that show for those who do have time: http://www.thespaceshow.com/show/22-jun-2017/broadcast-2934-ms.-gwynne-shotwell
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/28/2017 05:10 pm
So after a search in this discussion, I don't see any reference to whether the Dragon would be able to do a Direct Return Burn as the Apollo was capable of doing. I know without adding extra fuel and motors it currently isn't able to but wouldn't this be critical?
Assuming the 2nd stage stays on the Dragon after the TLI burn, it could do a direct abort.
Post by: envy887 on 06/28/2017 05:14 pm
So after a search in this discussion, I don't see any reference to whether the Dragon would be able to do a Direct Return Burn as the Apollo was capable of doing. I know without adding extra fuel and motors it currently isn't able to but wouldn't this be critical?
Depends how the risk analysis trades out. Adding some fuel and motors increases the risk of something going wrong, and of course if something does go wrong there's a good chance that it will kill your return motor (this happened on Apollo 13, BTW). There are a limited number of scenarios where a return motor does more good than it harms.
So adding other system redundancies might be worth more than a return motor.
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/28/2017 05:42 pm
So after a search in this discussion, I don't see any reference to whether the Dragon would be able to do a Direct Return Burn as the Apollo was capable of doing. I know without adding extra fuel and motors it currently isn't able to but wouldn't this be critical?
Apollo went into orbit around the Moon, then had to do a burn to go from lunar orbit back to Earth. This mission won't go into orbit around the Moon, so there's no need for a further burn. It will just be in an orbit around the Earth that is highly eccentric -- eccentric enough to go all the way around the Moon. It will come back to very near the Earth. A very small burn (or perhaps even a nudge from the Moon's gravity) will cause the orbit to intersect with Earth's atmosphere and it will reenter.
Post by: jak Kennedy on 06/28/2017 06:03 pm
So after a search in this discussion, I don't see any reference to whether the Dragon would be able to do a Direct Return Burn as the Apollo was capable of doing. I know without adding extra fuel and motors it currently isn't able to but wouldn't this be critical?
Assuming the 2nd stage stays on the Dragon after the TLI burn, it could do a direct abort.
Unless the second stage has a problem
Post by: jak Kennedy on 06/28/2017 06:05 pm
So after a search in this discussion, I don't see any reference to whether the Dragon would be able to do a Direct Return Burn as the Apollo was capable of doing. I know without adding extra fuel and motors it currently isn't able to but wouldn't this be critical?
Apollo went into orbit around the Moon, then had to do a burn to go from lunar orbit back to Earth. This mission won't go into orbit around the Moon, so there's no need for a further burn. It will just be in an orbit around the Earth that is highly eccentric -- eccentric enough to go all the way around the Moon. It will come back to very near the Earth. A very small burn (or perhaps even a nudge from the Moon's gravity) will cause the orbit to intersect with Earth's atmosphere and it will reenter.
No I was thinking if the second stage is not able to complete the burn. Perhaps then Dragon would just loop below the moon and return anyway
Post by: envy887 on 06/28/2017 06:15 pm
So after a search in this discussion, I don't see any reference to whether the Dragon would be able to do a Direct Return Burn as the Apollo was capable of doing. I know without adding extra fuel and motors it currently isn't able to but wouldn't this be critical?
Assuming the 2nd stage stays on the Dragon after the TLI burn, it could do a direct abort.
Unless the second stage has a problem
If the 2nd stage has a problem during TLI that leaves Dragon in an orbit short of the correct lunar free return, Dragon can always do a burn with its Dracos that lowers it's apogee significantly and gets it back to Earth in no more than 8 hours and probably much less.
After TLI, the 2nd stage would likely be jettisoned. Dragon has enough fuel (for the landing engines) to shorten it's return significantly for some time after TLI. After it reaches a certain point of no return, it's going round the Moon regardless...
Apollo did the same thing, although its point of no return was much further than Dragon's would be.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/20/2017 06:12 am
The SpaceNews article cites the Space Show interview, in which she does mention the Lunar mission. She even said it was a mission she would be interested in (unlike going to Mars). It is predicated on the crew missions and FH going well first, is all.The Dragon circumlunar flight is all the spaceflight I would ever need. Would that I could afford it!! :) :'(
Post by: jstrout on 11/14/2017 03:49 am
I can't find it now, but I'm sure I read at the time that this the two participants would begin training around the end of this year (2017).
Since the original announcement, I haven't seen anything at all. Chirping crickets, all quiet on the space front.
But the community here is more in touch with space goings-on than anywhere else... any signs of life for this mission? Any chance it's still on target for launch a year from now?
Post by: Jarnis on 11/14/2017 06:24 am
In February, SpaceX announced (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/spacex-says-it-will-send-two-people-around-the-moon-in-late-2018/) that they would be flying two paying tourists around the Moon in 2018 (see also Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Lunar_Tourism_Mission)).
I can't find it now, but I'm sure I read at the time that this the two participants would begin training around the end of this year (2017).
Since the original announcement, I haven't seen anything at all. Chirping crickets, all quiet on the space front.
But the community here is more in touch with space goings-on than anywhere else... any signs of life for this mission? Any chance it's still on target for launch a year from now?
First, until the first FH flies (and flies good, ie. no unplanned disassembly events), the schedule is very notional. There are at least 2 other unmanned FH missions prior to the lunar trip and Dragon 2 itself has to be proven (for Commercial Crew). So many major tickboxes that need to be filled which, if any issues crop up, instantly push this mission to the right.
2018 is theoretically possible but would require about half-dozen major items going right on first try without further delays. 2019 is far more likely, but the date is very much up in the air until we have FH and Dragon 2 tested and working.
No news that I've heard about any training etc. I thought the paying customers wanted to keep low profile until closer to launch - which makes sense, because it would look mighty silly to go public and then end up getting delayed and delayed due to any problems that cropped up. They really have no reason to publicize anything until few months prior to the mission when actual hardware for the mission is built and "happening"-status is "go".
Post by: vapour_nudge on 11/14/2017 06:56 am
Perhaps you could start a thread for crowd funding Matt's circumlunar trip through NSF?The SpaceNews article cites the Space Show interview, in which she does mention the Lunar mission. She even said it was a mission she would be interested in (unlike going to Mars). It is predicated on the crew missions and FH going well first, is all.The Dragon circumlunar flight is all the spaceflight I would ever need. Would that I could afford it!! :) :'(
Post by: Bob Shaw on 11/14/2017 07:39 am
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/14/2017 07:59 am
I'd approve that! ;) I'd even face my extreme distaste for being motion-sick for the privilege of doing such a mission. And at age 52; I'm still plenty young enough to do it. But in my story 'Flight Of The Lunar Dragon'; the characters of 'John Smith' and 'Peter Jones' will have to act instead as my avatars on a ship of the imagination... (I'm writing the sequel now ;) )Perhaps you could start a thread for crowd funding Matt's circumlunar trip through NSF?The SpaceNews article cites the Space Show interview, in which she does mention the Lunar mission. She even said it was a mission she would be interested in (unlike going to Mars). It is predicated on the crew missions and FH going well first, is all.The Dragon circumlunar flight is all the spaceflight I would ever need. Would that I could afford it!! :) :'(
Post by: Svetoslav on 11/14/2017 08:22 am
Saturn V flew for a first time on 9 November 1967 as an unmanned test - Apollo 4. Then if flew for another test - Apollo 6. It took a year+another month to send humans around the Moon - in December 1968.
Thus said, if the first Falcon Heavy is successful (which I doubt) in December 2017, I see the first lunar mission in January 2019 at the earliest. Not impossible, but very improbable. SpaceX doesn't have an Apollo budget, the vehicle should have some successful unmanned flights before a manned lunar shot. Plus we're not living in Apollo times, companies aren't in hurry and they launch when they feel confident.
Post by: Lar on 11/14/2017 10:28 am
Post by: woods170 on 11/14/2017 10:52 am
In February, SpaceX announced (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/spacex-says-it-will-send-two-people-around-the-moon-in-late-2018/) that they would be flying two paying tourists around the Moon in 2018 (see also Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Lunar_Tourism_Mission)).
I can't find it now, but I'm sure I read at the time that this the two participants would begin training around the end of this year (2017).
Since the original announcement, I haven't seen anything at all. Chirping crickets, all quiet on the space front.
But the community here is more in touch with space goings-on than anywhere else... any signs of life for this mission? Any chance it's still on target for launch a year from now?
SpaceX stated that the mission could fly as early as 2018. More specifically SpaceX noted a 2018 -2020 timeframe. Which means that the 2018 date was very much a NET: No Earlier Then. Which, in the case of SpaceX, automatically translates into: Probably Later Then.
Also, this circumlunar mission will not fly until Crew Dragon has proven itself on both its demo missions and at least one operational mission. Given the current delays in CCP it is fairly safe to guesstimate that the circumlunar mission will not occur before 2019.
Also: FH needs to be fully operational. That requires several launches.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/14/2017 10:59 am
Falcon Heavy; yes, three or four launches at minimum.In February, SpaceX announced (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/spacex-says-it-will-send-two-people-around-the-moon-in-late-2018/) that they would be flying two paying tourists around the Moon in 2018 (see also Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Lunar_Tourism_Mission)).
I can't find it now, but I'm sure I read at the time that this the two participants would begin training around the end of this year (2017).
Since the original announcement, I haven't seen anything at all. Chirping crickets, all quiet on the space front.
But the community here is more in touch with space goings-on than anywhere else... any signs of life for this mission? Any chance it's still on target for launch a year from now?
SpaceX stated that the mission could fly as early as 2018. More specifically SpaceX noted a 2018 -2020 timeframe. Which means that the 2018 date was very much a NET: No Earlier Then. Which, in the case of SpaceX, automatically translates into: Probably Later Then.
Also, this circumlunar mission will not fly until Crew Dragon has proven itself on both its demo missions and at least one operational mission. Given the current delays in CCP it is fairly safe to guesstimate that the circumlunar mission will not occur before 2019.
Also: FH needs to be fully operational. That requires several launches.
Post by: Star One on 11/14/2017 11:55 am
Post by: speedevil on 11/14/2017 12:04 pm
With all the things that have to go right first and be tested out 2018 has always seem a rather ludicrous timeframe.
And clearly, if Musk is involved, Ludicrous Speed is impossible.
Post by: Negan on 11/14/2017 03:55 pm
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/14/2017 03:58 pm
Apollo 12 flew through Earth’s shadow back in 1969, and recorded the event on film. Been there, done that!
But not in 3D 8K video. :P
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 11/14/2017 04:38 pm
Apollo 12 flew through Earth’s shadow back in 1969, and recorded the event on film. Been there, done that!Not for the majority of the world's population - not even for the majority of Americans alive today. Most people alive right now were not alive for any humans traveling farther than LEO. It's really sad - even depressing. To think we haven't ventured more than a few hundred miles off our surface for over a half a century is astounding, but I'm definitely excited for seeing that rectified soon...
Post by: cppetrie on 11/14/2017 04:51 pm
I'm wondering how the cancellation of propulsive landings will play into this. I would have guessed a used Dragon would have been planned, but now that will require an even more expensive refurbishment. This along with the possibility of having to launch a demo mission of FH with Dragon before a crewed flight is allowed could add considerably cost. How long before SpaceX decides the mission is just too costly and pulls the plug?Allowed by whom?
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 11/14/2017 05:37 pm
Presumably, the poster meant SpaceX. It’s worth noting as well, however, that the FAA will have to issue a launch license, so they have no small say in the matter.I'm wondering how the cancellation of propulsive landings will play into this. I would have guessed a used Dragon would have been planned, but now that will require an even more expensive refurbishment. This along with the possibility of having to launch a demo mission of FH with Dragon before a crewed flight is allowed could add considerably cost. How long before SpaceX decides the mission is just too costly and pulls the plug?Allowed by whom?
Post by: cppetrie on 11/14/2017 05:45 pm
The FAA’s role AIUI is to guard the public’s safety. This isn’t a regularly scheduled transport service so they aren’t going to get involved with what two informed people want to risk their lives doing. Unless this launch poses some risk to the public beyond what any other launch of FH does, the FAA won’t be a hurdle. NASA doesn’t need to man-rate it because their astros aren’t flying on it. SpaceX might want to fly FH with Dragon to demonstrate it works, but they wouldn’t have to. To me the post implied an outside entity needed to approve the launch/mission. AIUI that isn’t the case. I could easily be wrong though.Presumably, the poster meant SpaceX. It’s worth noting as well, however, that the FAA will have to issue a launch license, so they have no small say in the matter.I'm wondering how the cancellation of propulsive landings will play into this. I would have guessed a used Dragon would have been planned, but now that will require an even more expensive refurbishment. This along with the possibility of having to launch a demo mission of FH with Dragon before a crewed flight is allowed could add considerably cost. How long before SpaceX decides the mission is just too costly and pulls the plug?Allowed by whom?
Post by: Negan on 11/14/2017 06:14 pm
The FAA’s role AIUI is to guard the public’s safety. This isn’t a regularly scheduled transport service so they aren’t going to get involved with what two informed people want to risk their lives doing. Unless this launch poses some risk to the public beyond what any other launch of FH does, the FAA won’t be a hurdle. NASA doesn’t need to man-rate it because their astros aren’t flying on it. SpaceX might want to fly FH with Dragon to demonstrate it works, but they wouldn’t have to. To me the post implied an outside entity needed to approve the launch/mission. AIUI that isn’t the case. I could easily be wrong though.Presumably, the poster meant SpaceX. It’s worth noting as well, however, that the FAA will have to issue a launch license, so they have no small say in the matter.I'm wondering how the cancellation of propulsive landings will play into this. I would have guessed a used Dragon would have been planned, but now that will require an even more expensive refurbishment. This along with the possibility of having to launch a demo mission of FH with Dragon before a crewed flight is allowed could add considerably cost. How long before SpaceX decides the mission is just too costly and pulls the plug?Allowed by whom?
If the FAA views this flight like any other that would be great, but several respected posters indicated this would not be the case and insisted a demo flight with Dragon would need to happen. I asked about the extra cost and received some pretty smug answers with no real reasoning of why SpaceX would have to eat the cost.
Edit: I think your right cppetrie. Probably just some concern trolling by those posters.
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/14/2017 06:28 pm
The FAA’s role AIUI is to guard the public’s safety. This isn’t a regularly scheduled transport service so they aren’t going to get involved with what two informed people want to risk their lives doing. Unless this launch poses some risk to the public beyond what any other launch of FH does, the FAA won’t be a hurdle. NASA doesn’t need to man-rate it because their astros aren’t flying on it. SpaceX might want to fly FH with Dragon to demonstrate it works, but they wouldn’t have to. To me the post implied an outside entity needed to approve the launch/mission. AIUI that isn’t the case. I could easily be wrong though.Presumably, the poster meant SpaceX. It’s worth noting as well, however, that the FAA will have to issue a launch license, so they have no small say in the matter.I'm wondering how the cancellation of propulsive landings will play into this. I would have guessed a used Dragon would have been planned, but now that will require an even more expensive refurbishment. This along with the possibility of having to launch a demo mission of FH with Dragon before a crewed flight is allowed could add considerably cost. How long before SpaceX decides the mission is just too costly and pulls the plug?Allowed by whom?
:)
Well there is the spouses and significant others of the aspiring CircumLunar travelers.
:)
Post by: QuantumG on 11/14/2017 09:04 pm
Post by: envy887 on 11/14/2017 09:06 pm
At this point in time I almost feel like Falcon Heavy will be ready before Dragon 2.
I don't see how it wouldn't be. FH has 3 flights scheduled before the D2 demo.
Post by: QuantumG on 11/14/2017 09:08 pm
I don't see how it wouldn't be. FH has 3 flights scheduled before the D2 demo.
... and for once it seems like they might actually get one of those done.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 11/14/2017 11:23 pm
The FAA’s role AIUI is to guard the public’s safety. This isn’t a regularly scheduled transport service so they aren’t going to get involved with what two informed people want to risk their lives doing. Unless this launch poses some risk to the public beyond what any other launch of FH does, the FAA won’t be a hurdle. NASA doesn’t need to man-rate it because their astros aren’t flying on it. SpaceX might want to fly FH with Dragon to demonstrate it works, but they wouldn’t have to. To me the post implied an outside entity needed to approve the launch/mission. AIUI that isn’t the case. I could easily be wrong though.Presumably, the poster meant SpaceX. It’s worth noting as well, however, that the FAA will have to issue a launch license, so they have no small say in the matter.I'm wondering how the cancellation of propulsive landings will play into this. I would have guessed a used Dragon would have been planned, but now that will require an even more expensive refurbishment. This along with the possibility of having to launch a demo mission of FH with Dragon before a crewed flight is allowed could add considerably cost. How long before SpaceX decides the mission is just too costly and pulls the plug?Allowed by whom?
If the FAA views this flight like any other that would be great, but several respected posters indicated this would not be the case and insisted a demo flight with Dragon would need to happen. I asked about the extra cost and received some pretty smug answers with no real reasoning of why SpaceX would have to eat the cost.
Edit: I think your right cppetrie. Probably just some concern trolling by those posters.
Not concern-trolling. Pointing out actual, binding federal regulations for space launches from U.S. territory by U.S. companies, which does (ahem) cover human commercial spaceflight (with both "crew" and "space flight participants.").
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1facab8f25aeaa211c978dda645b6cc2&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr460_main_02.tpl
Note as well that these sections are not aimed particularly at the public at large, but at those folks actually riding the rocket. ;)
Post by: QuantumG on 11/14/2017 11:27 pm
An operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight participant on board during a flight. Verification must include flight testing.
Seems relevant. I imagine most people would interpret that to mean Dragon 2 has to fly on Falcon Heavy, and possibly even into cis-lunar space, before any spaceflight participant is allowed to make the flight.
Post by: cppetrie on 11/14/2017 11:31 pm
Post by: QuantumG on 11/14/2017 11:34 pm
Curious how NASA was considering putting people on the first SLS flight that quite clearly would not have been verified beforehand with a test flight. I guess the government is exempt from following its own rules.
Of course.
Insight or something...
Post by: cppetrie on 11/14/2017 11:40 pm
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 11/14/2017 11:58 pm
Actually, upon reading the document further, the verification section applies to flights with crew (Part A). Part B applies to flight with “Space Flight Participants”. There is no such verification section present, only a section on informing the participant(s) of the material risks involved in launch and landing. As this flight would have no crew (automated flight control) all parties onboard would be participants. It’s a close reading of the regulation but appears permitted.
That is the "out" that was given with an eye towards both automated tourist-y flights as well as what to do with paying passengers on otherwise-crewed missions (e.g., the puking cargo for Virgin Galactic and BO suborbital hops).
However, the key here is what constitutes both "informed consent" and "material risks." Informed consent is one of those things that seems pretty straightforward to engineers and analytic types, but which is a lot more complicated in practice. Are all those rote warnings in drug commercials on TV enough warning to elicit "informed consent" or must a doctor still spend 30 minutes with you going over the real-world risks he may or may not have seen in his own practice from use of that drug? Is the form you sign before going into surgery enough information to give consent when you don't know ahead of time that the doc has settled a dozen medical malpractice claims in the last couple years? Now extrapolate the same *concept* (not details) to a brand new field of commercial endeavor ...
Same goes for materiality of risks. Exploding rockets is an obvious, material risk. But what about a statistical risks of a solar flare/CME, or ECLSS failures? Is some small-but-estimable risk "material" enough to require the spaceflight provider to disclose it to the participant? And if so, in what form must that disclosure be made? (See the first point above). Are several pages of fine print enough or do participants have to have detailed personal discussions with representatives of the provider?
For some people, all of these concepts are old-hat and obvious; for others, they less so. But these are the kinds of real-world details that will get hammered out in practice over the coming years.
Post by: QuantumG on 11/15/2017 12:04 am
Post by: gongora on 11/15/2017 12:06 am
Actually, upon reading the document further, the verification section applies to flights with crew (Part A). Part B applies to flight with “Space Flight Participants”. There is no such verification section present, only a section on informing the participant(s) of the material risks involved in launch and landing. As this flight would have no crew (automated flight control) all parties onboard would be participants. It’s a close reading of the regulation but appears permitted.
Quote
§460.3 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to:
(1) An applicant for a license or permit under this chapter who proposes to have flight crew on board a vehicle or proposes to employ a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
(2) An operator licensed or permitted under this chapter who has flight crew on board a vehicle or who employs a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
It still applies if you don't have crew members on board.
Post by: eric z on 11/15/2017 12:27 am
Post by: cppetrie on 11/15/2017 12:39 am
The regulations lay out what specifically must be provided to participants. Clearly there is a need to explain what some/all of it means but at some point the onus is on the guy/gal climbing aboard to understand there is risk and you could potentially be killed. If they sign off and still climb onboard, they’ve accepted the risk.Actually, upon reading the document further, the verification section applies to flights with crew (Part A). Part B applies to flight with “Space Flight Participants”. There is no such verification section present, only a section on informing the participant(s) of the material risks involved in launch and landing. As this flight would have no crew (automated flight control) all parties onboard would be participants. It’s a close reading of the regulation but appears permitted.
That is the "out" that was given with an eye towards both automated tourist-y flights as well as what to do with paying passengers on otherwise-crewed missions (e.g., the puking cargo for Virgin Galactic and BO suborbital hops).
However, the key here is what constitutes both "informed consent" and "material risks." Informed consent is one of those things that seems pretty straightforward to engineers and analytic types, but which is a lot more complicated in practice. Are all those rote warnings in drug commercials on TV enough warning to elicit "informed consent" or must a doctor still spend 30 minutes with you going over the real-world risks he may or may not have seen in his own practice from use of that drug? Is the form you sign before going into surgery enough information to give consent when you don't know ahead of time that the doc has settled a dozen medical malpractice claims in the last couple years? Now extrapolate the same *concept* (not details) to a brand new field of commercial endeavor ...
Same goes for materiality of risks. Exploding rockets is an obvious, material risk. But what about a statistical risks of a solar flare/CME, or ECLSS failures? Is some small-but-estimable risk "material" enough to require the spaceflight provider to disclose it to the participant? And if so, in what form must that disclosure be made? (See the first point above). Are several pages of fine print enough or do participants have to have detailed personal discussions with representatives of the provider?
For some people, all of these concepts are old-hat and obvious; for others, they less so. But these are the kinds of real-world details that will get hammered out in practice over the coming years.
Post by: mme on 11/15/2017 12:46 am
Why would SpaceX not want to have commander-type on a flight like this? Automatic-controlled or not? Even just from a confidence/PR point-of-view, if nothing else.The same reason that elevators don't have operators anymore.
Also, even though IIRC Mr. Musk offered NASA a seat there has been no interest expressed by them in taking up the offer, at least that I have heard of. ???NASA does not need to go on joy rides on commercial spacecraft.
Post by: eric z on 11/15/2017 01:16 am
Post by: Negan on 11/15/2017 01:18 am
§460.17 Verification program.
An operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight participant on board during a flight. Verification must include flight testing.
Seems relevant. I imagine most people would interpret that to mean Dragon 2 has to fly on Falcon Heavy, and possibly even into cis-lunar space, before any spaceflight participant is allowed to make the flight.
So does this mean all verification must include flight testing? Operational flight environments can be simulated and would seem to me as a reasonable substitute considering the extreme cost of flight testing in this case. My guess if the FAA takes the all or nothing stance this mission isn't happening.
Edit: I don't see this likely. FAA's going to it's due diligence to CYA and the mission will go forward at least on their end. There's wiggle room and it's the same wiggle room SpaceX and the customers (or should I say their lawyers) saw when the decided to go forward with this.
Post by: cppetrie on 11/15/2017 01:22 am
My reading of that is that part A applies whether the crew on board is operating the vessel or it is remotely operated. But passengers are not crew. Crew get paid. Passengers pay. Passengers are under part B.Actually, upon reading the document further, the verification section applies to flights with crew (Part A). Part B applies to flight with “Space Flight Participants”. There is no such verification section present, only a section on informing the participant(s) of the material risks involved in launch and landing. As this flight would have no crew (automated flight control) all parties onboard would be participants. It’s a close reading of the regulation but appears permitted.Quote§460.3 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to:
(1) An applicant for a license or permit under this chapter who proposes to have flight crew on board a vehicle or proposes to employ a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
(2) An operator licensed or permitted under this chapter who has flight crew on board a vehicle or who employs a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
It still applies if you don't have crew members on board.
The reality is none of us really knows at this point. I’m excited, though, that a company is exploring this part of the code and on the verge of putting it into practice. Exciting times for sure.
Post by: mme on 11/15/2017 01:39 am
I wouldn't compare a flight to the moon to an elevator ride, nor would I call a flight to the moon a joy ride, even though it may be a lot of fun! I would say that if a NASA astronaut, or maybe a retired-one still in good shape, flew in the crew I would not want to see NASA impose a lot of special requirements on that participation, any more than good old common-sense. The next era of space exploration will need a lot of cooperation between the public and private sectors, and this would IMHO be a good symbolic move for all concerned. Plus, don't forget the role COTS and CC have provided for in setting a foundation for this endeavor.If I spent the money to fly around the Moon in an automated capsule with a friend I would have no interest in adding a crew member that will literally have nothing to do. I suspect the mystery participants are intelligent and adventurous. The flight participants will be trained to reset whatever equipment can be reset, flip through binders, and radio for further instructions. I would argue that the trip becomes much more fun having some responsibility for your own safety and learning how to comport yourself.
I am not belittling it by calling it a "joy ride". If I had made better life choices and had more money than I knew what to do with, I would totally go for it. It would be the experience of a lifetime.
It's not NASA's mission. If NASA wants to pay for a mission they are free to do so. Furthermore I doubt NASA wants to fly BEO on anything other than Orion as that could raise some inquisitive eyebrows.
Post by: Proponent on 11/15/2017 01:40 am
Curious how NASA was considering putting people on the first SLS flight that quite clearly would not have been verified beforehand with a test flight.
And didn't just consider it, but stated that it could be done, it would just cost more.
Post by: gongora on 11/15/2017 01:46 am
My reading of that is that part A applies whether the crew on board is operating the vessel or it is remotely operated. But passengers are not crew. Crew get paid. Passengers pay. Passengers are under part B.Actually, upon reading the document further, the verification section applies to flights with crew (Part A). Part B applies to flight with “Space Flight Participants”. There is no such verification section present, only a section on informing the participant(s) of the material risks involved in launch and landing. As this flight would have no crew (automated flight control) all parties onboard would be participants. It’s a close reading of the regulation but appears permitted.Quote§460.3 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to:
(1) An applicant for a license or permit under this chapter who proposes to have flight crew on board a vehicle or proposes to employ a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
(2) An operator licensed or permitted under this chapter who has flight crew on board a vehicle or who employs a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
It still applies if you don't have crew members on board.
The reality is none of us really knows at this point. I’m excited, though, that a company is exploring this part of the code and on the verge of putting it into practice. Exciting times for sure.
Part B is in addition to Part A, not a completely separate set of rules.
Post by: deruch on 11/15/2017 01:52 am
Actually, upon reading the document further, the verification section applies to flights with crew (Part A). Part B applies to flight with “Space Flight Participants”. There is no such verification section present, only a section on informing the participant(s) of the material risks involved in launch and landing. As this flight would have no crew (automated flight control) all parties onboard would be participants. It’s a close reading of the regulation but appears permitted.Quote§460.3 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to:
(1) An applicant for a license or permit under this chapter who proposes to have flight crew on board a vehicle or proposes to employ a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
(2) An operator licensed or permitted under this chapter who has flight crew on board a vehicle or who employs a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
It still applies if you don't have crew members on board.
Dragon is autonomous not remote operated they are distinct. Personally, I'm in the camp that says the verification requirement doesn't apply, but I'm sure we'll find out eventually which camp is right.
Post by: QuantumG on 11/15/2017 02:04 am
Dragon is autonomous not remote operated
No it isn't. There's a whole ground-ops team. They even call themselves that.
Post by: envy887 on 11/15/2017 02:04 am
§460.17 Verification program.
An operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight participant on board during a flight. Verification must include flight testing.
Seems relevant. I imagine most people would interpret that to mean Dragon 2 has to fly on Falcon Heavy, and possibly even into cis-lunar space, before any spaceflight participant is allowed to make the flight.
A test flight has a differential cost of an additional second stage and Dragon+FH booster recovery & refurbishment. Most likely worthwhile to retire the associated risks with deep space flight and reentry even if it wasn't required by the FAA (and I agree with the interpretation that it is required).
Post by: Negan on 11/15/2017 02:08 am
§460.17 Verification program.
An operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight participant on board during a flight. Verification must include flight testing.
Seems relevant. I imagine most people would interpret that to mean Dragon 2 has to fly on Falcon Heavy, and possibly even into cis-lunar space, before any spaceflight participant is allowed to make the flight.
A test flight has a differential cost of an additional second stage and Dragon+FH booster recovery & refurbishment. Most likely worthwhile to retire the associated risks with deep space flight and reentry even if it wasn't required by the FAA (and I agree with the interpretation that it is required).
I thought there was no guarantee the core stage could be recovered. Did that change?
Post by: envy887 on 11/15/2017 02:10 am
§460.17 Verification program.
An operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight participant on board during a flight. Verification must include flight testing.
Seems relevant. I imagine most people would interpret that to mean Dragon 2 has to fly on Falcon Heavy, and possibly even into cis-lunar space, before any spaceflight participant is allowed to make the flight.
A test flight has a differential cost of an additional second stage and Dragon+FH booster recovery & refurbishment. Most likely worthwhile to retire the associated risks with deep space flight and reentry even if it wasn't required by the FAA (and I agree with the interpretation that it is required).
I thought there was no guarantee the core stage could be recovered. Did that change?
That was for Red Dragon. There is no official word on Lunar Dragon, but it is likely a lighter payload to a much lower orbit, so the core is definitely recoverable IMO.
Post by: DreamyPickle on 11/15/2017 02:11 am
If I spent the money to fly around the Moon in an automated capsule with a friend I would have no interest in adding a crew member that will literally have nothing to do.Exactly! We don't know the identity of the passengers but they might very well be a couple in a relationship. They wouldn't want a stranger to tag along on their week-long vacation in a cramped capsule.
If more people were involved it would have been part of the initial announcement. It would also impact life support.
Post by: guckyfan on 11/15/2017 02:26 am
Why would SpaceX not want to have commander-type on a flight like this? Automatic-controlled or not? Even just from a confidence/PR point-of-view, if nothing else.The same reason that elevators don't have operators anymore.Also, even though IIRC Mr. Musk offered NASA a seat there has been no interest expressed by them in taking up the offer, at least that I have heard of. ???NASA does not need to go on joy rides on commercial spacecraft.
To me this offer had the taste of a calculated insult. This may be slightly overstated.
Post by: Negan on 11/15/2017 02:29 am
Curious how NASA was considering putting people on the first SLS flight that quite clearly would not have been verified beforehand with a test flight.
And didn't just consider it, but stated that it could be done, it would just cost more.
Good point. Dragon 2 and FH will be going through more flight testing than this mission would have.
Post by: yg1968 on 11/15/2017 02:35 am
Curious how NASA was considering putting people on the first SLS flight that quite clearly would not have been verified beforehand with a test flight. I guess the government is exempt from following its own rules.
Yes, the rules specify that the regulations do not apply to Space activities carried out by the United States Government on behalf of the United States Government. See 400.2.
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/15/2017 02:36 am
As well, the Shuttle could never have flown with crew under this rule. It would have required an unmanned orbital flight test, which, the way the Shuttle was designed, was not possible. It was not a spacecraft that could be both launched and landed without crew; the gear could not be deployed except manually. Any automation of gear deployment was deemed so dangerous (in case gear deploy came early) that the system was designed with lockouts; I've read in a number of places that NASA refused to consider automating gear deployment under any circumstances. Meaning that, if you abandoned a Shuttle orbiter with TPS damage (something planned for in post-Columbia thinking), you could try to auto-enter the abandoned orbiter, but under no circumstances could you try to land it -- since you could not extend the gear. If it survived the entry, you still had to ditch it in the ocean somewhere.
So, the question begged is thus -- why can NASA get away with s**t that commercial carriers aren't allowed to? Doesn't that seem somehow illegal to y'all?
Post by: yg1968 on 11/15/2017 02:48 am
Post by: gongora on 11/15/2017 02:49 am
If this type of rule had been in effect during Apollo (and applied to same), NASA would have been forced to attempt an unmanned LM landing before landing it with crew aboard -- even though chances of such an unmanned landing to succeed were considered very slim, and NASA rejected the notion even before the Fire. But, without an unmanned demonstration, you'd be blocked from trying the manned landing...
As well, the Shuttle could never have flown with crew under this rule. It would have required an unmanned orbital flight test, which, the way the Shuttle was designed, was not possible. It was not a spacecraft that could be both launched and landed without crew; the gear could not be deployed except manually. Any automation of gear deployment was deemed so dangerous (in case gear deploy came early) that the system was designed with lockouts; I've read in a number of places that NASA refused to consider automating gear deployment under any circumstances. Meaning that, if you abandoned a Shuttle orbiter with TPS damage (something planned for in post-Columbia thinking), you could try to auto-enter the abandoned orbiter, but under no circumstances could you try to land it -- since you could not extend the gear. If it survived the entry, you still had to ditch it in the ocean somewhere.
So, the question begged is thus -- why can NASA get away with s**t that commercial carriers aren't allowed to? Doesn't that seem somehow illegal to y'all?
Nonsense. The FAA rules require testing before "space flight participants", a.k.a. passengers, are flown. Crew is allowed on the test flights.
It is assumed that NASA has done a large amount of analysis and verification before they fly a new vehicle. The same cannot be assumed of every commercial company that wants to start flying paying passengers.
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/15/2017 03:10 am
If this type of rule had been in effect during Apollo (and applied to same), NASA would have been forced to attempt an unmanned LM landing before landing it with crew aboard -- even though chances of such an unmanned landing to succeed were considered very slim, and NASA rejected the notion even before the Fire. But, without an unmanned demonstration, you'd be blocked from trying the manned landing...
As well, the Shuttle could never have flown with crew under this rule. It would have required an unmanned orbital flight test, which, the way the Shuttle was designed, was not possible. It was not a spacecraft that could be both launched and landed without crew; the gear could not be deployed except manually. Any automation of gear deployment was deemed so dangerous (in case gear deploy came early) that the system was designed with lockouts; I've read in a number of places that NASA refused to consider automating gear deployment under any circumstances. Meaning that, if you abandoned a Shuttle orbiter with TPS damage (something planned for in post-Columbia thinking), you could try to auto-enter the abandoned orbiter, but under no circumstances could you try to land it -- since you could not extend the gear. If it survived the entry, you still had to ditch it in the ocean somewhere.
So, the question begged is thus -- why can NASA get away with s**t that commercial carriers aren't allowed to? Doesn't that seem somehow illegal to y'all?
Nonsense. The FAA rules require testing before "space flight participants", a.k.a. passengers, are flown. Crew is allowed on the test flights.
It is assumed that NASA has done a large amount of analysis and verification before they fly a new vehicle. The same cannot be assumed of every commercial company that wants to start flying paying passengers.
The quoted sections of the FAA regulations have been interpreted above to mean that you cannot have crew on a flight that has not essentially been performed without *any* crew, though any and all flight regimes that the spacecraft may be asked to encounter with crew aboard. Not just that has not yet been performed without qualified test pilots, or some such. That is where the comparisons to the LM and Shuttle came in -- these were two spacecraft that literally could not be flown through their entire anticipated regimes unmanned.
Your assertion that "crew is allowed on the test flights" is exactly what is being challenged by a majority of the posters above. If nonsense means you don't agree with the majority (not my definition, but...) then you're the one spouting nonsense, not me.
And, I wasn't stating that these FAA rules ought to have been applied during Apollo or Shuttle, just that they seem to be designed to accomplish a very uneven playing field. I will admit, I forgot my smiley when I asked if applying different standards to NASA and to commercial projects is illegal -- I know how governments like to make most things illegal, except when they do them themselves. It's not moral or ethical, but that's life.
Post by: gongora on 11/15/2017 03:28 am
The quoted sections of the FAA regulations have been interpreted above to mean that you cannot have crew on a flight that has not essentially been performed without *any* crew, though any and all flight regimes that the spacecraft may be asked to encounter with crew aboard. Not just that has not yet been performed without qualified test pilots, or some such. That is where the comparisons to the LM and Shuttle came in -- these were two spacecraft that literally could not be flown through their entire anticipated regimes unmanned.
Your assertion that "crew is allowed on the test flights" is exactly what is being challenged by a majority of the posters above. If nonsense means you don't agree with the majority (not my definition, but...) then you're the one spouting nonsense, not me.
The interpretation that crew isn't allowed on a test flight is complete and utter nonsense. Spaceship Two doesn't fly unmanned, Lynx wasn't going to fly unmanned, and if you actually read the words on that site it does not say crew isn't allowed on the test flights, it says passengers aren't allowed on the test flights.
Post by: Negan on 11/15/2017 04:00 am
Post by: woods170 on 11/15/2017 08:33 am
Part B is in addition to Part A, not a completely separate set of rules.
The correct answer is in the document itself:
PART 431—LAUNCH AND REENTRY OF A REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (RLV)
Quote
§431.8 Human space flight.
To obtain a license, an applicant proposing to conduct a reusable launch vehicle mission with flight crew or a space flight participant on board must demonstrate compliance with §§460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51 and 460.53 of this subchapter.
[Doc. No. FAA-2005-23449, 71 FR 75632, Dec. 15, 2006]
PART 435—REENTRY OF A REENTRY VEHICLE OTHER THAN A REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (RLV)
Quote
§435.8 Human space flight.
An applicant for a license to conduct a reentry with flight crew or a space flight participant on board the vehicle must demonstrate compliance with §§460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51 and 460.53 of this subchapter.
[Doc. No. FAA-2005-23449, 71 FR 75632, Dec. 15, 2006]
So, regardless of the launcher or reentry vehicle being reusable or not, AND regardless of there being crew or space flight participants, the applicant for a license must demonstrate compliance with:
Quote
§460.5 Crew qualifications and training.
(a) Each crew member must—
(1) Complete training on how to carry out his or her role on board or on the ground so that the vehicle will not harm the public; and
(2) Train for his or her role in nominal and non-nominal conditions. The conditions must include—
(i) Abort scenarios; and
(ii) Emergency operations.
(b) Each member of a flight crew must demonstrate an ability to withstand the stresses of space flight, which may include high acceleration or deceleration, microgravity, and vibration, in sufficient condition to safely carry out his or her duties so that the vehicle will not harm the public.
(c) A pilot and a remote operator must—
(1) Possess and carry an FAA pilot certificate with an instrument rating.
(2) Possess aeronautical knowledge, experience, and skills necessary to pilot and control the launch or reentry vehicle that will operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). Aeronautical experience may include hours in flight, ratings, and training.
(3) Receive vehicle and mission-specific training for each phase of flight by using one or more of the following—
(i) A method or device that simulates the flight;
(ii) An aircraft whose characteristics are similar to the vehicle or that has similar phases of flight to the vehicle ;
(iii) Flight testing; or
(iv) An equivalent method of training approved by the FAA through the license or permit process.
(4) Train in procedures that direct the vehicle away from the public in the event the flight crew abandons the vehicle during flight; and
(5) Train for each mode of control or propulsion, including any transition between modes, such that the pilot or remote operator is able to control the vehicle.
(d) A remote operator may demonstrate an equivalent level of safety to paragraph (c)(1) of this section through the license or permit process.
(e) Each crew member with a safety-critical role must possess and carry an FAA second-class airman medical certificate issued in accordance with 14 CFR part 67, no more than 12 months prior to the month of launch and reentry.
§460.7 Operator training of crew.
(a) Implementation of training. An operator must train each member of its crew and define standards for successful completion in accordance with §460.5.
(b) Training device fidelity. An operator must
(1) Ensure that any crew-training device used to meet the training requirements realistically represents the vehicle's configuration and mission, or
(2) Inform the crew member being trained of the differences between the two.
(c) Maintenance of training records. An operator must continually update the crew training to ensure that it incorporates lessons learned from training and operational missions. An operator must—
(1) Track each revision and update in writing; and
(2) Document the completed training for each crew member and maintain the documentation for each active crew member.
(d) Current qualifications and training. An operator must establish a recurrent training schedule and ensure that all crew qualifications and training required by §460.5 are current before launch and reentry.
§460.11 Environmental control and life support systems.
(a) An operator must provide atmospheric conditions adequate to sustain life and consciousness for all inhabited areas within a vehicle. The operator or flight crew must monitor and control the following atmospheric conditions in the inhabited areas or demonstrate through the license or permit process that an alternate means provides an equivalent level of safety—
(1) Composition of the atmosphere, which includes oxygen and carbon dioxide, and any revitalization;
(2) Pressure, temperature and humidity;
(3) Contaminants that include particulates and any harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases, or vapors; and
(4) Ventilation and circulation.
(b) An operator must provide an adequate redundant or secondary oxygen supply for the flight crew.
(c) An operator must
(1) Provide a redundant means of preventing cabin depressurization; or
(2) Prevent incapacitation of any of the flight crew in the event of loss of cabin pressure.
§460.13 Smoke detection and fire suppression.
An operator or crew must have the ability to detect smoke and suppress a cabin fire to prevent incapacitation of the flight crew.
§460.15 Human factors.
An operator must take the precautions necessary to account for human factors that can affect a crew's ability to perform safety-critical roles, including in the following safety critical areas—
(a) Design and layout of displays and controls;
(b) Mission planning, which includes analyzing tasks and allocating functions between humans and equipment;
(c) Restraint or stowage of all individuals and objects in a vehicle; and
(d) Vehicle operation, so that the vehicle will be operated in a manner that flight crew can withstand any physical stress factors, such as acceleration, vibration, and noise.
§460.17 Verification program.
An operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight participant on board during a flight. Verification must include flight testing.
§460.51 Space flight participant training.
An operator must train each space flight participant before flight on how to respond to emergency situations, including smoke, fire, loss of cabin pressure, and emergency exit.
§460.53 Security.
An operator must implement security requirements to prevent any space flight participant from jeopardizing the safety of the flight crew or the public. A space flight participant may not carry on board any explosives, firearms, knives, or other weapons.
So, three (3) observations:
- Subpart A and Subpart B go together. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
- For the manned circumlunar mission SpaceX must have demonstrated Crew Dragon to comply with $460.17. And that includes flight testing.
- Crew is allowed on test flights. Spaceflight participants are not allowed on test flights.
However: the nature of the referenced flight testing is NOT clear from Chapter C. And that could very well mean that the planned Crew Dragon demo missions for CCP, as well as stand-alone test flights of FH, are sufficient to allow the circumlunar mission without a dedicated test flight of the FH/Crew Dragon combination.
Post by: envy887 on 11/15/2017 01:50 pm
QuoteAn operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment......
...
However: the nature of the referenced flight testing is NOT clear from Chapter C. And that could very well mean that the planned Crew Dragon demo missions for CCP, as well as stand-alone test flights of FH, are sufficient to allow the circumlunar mission without a dedicated test flight of the FH/Crew Dragon combination.
"Integrated performance" reads to me like they have to actually test Dragon 2 on FH. Dragon 2 on F9 is a different integrated vehicle with different hardware and software than FH. Likewise a commsat on FH is a different integrated vehicle than FH with Dragon.
Also the "operational flight environment" for Dragon on a FH launch and in cis-lunar space is significantly different than Dragon on F9 launch or in LEO.
Post by: Negan on 11/15/2017 02:41 pm
Also the "operational flight environment" for Dragon on a FH launch and in cis-lunar space is significantly different than Dragon on F9 launch or in LEO.
The operational flight environment in cis-lunar is different, but very well understood. Why is a test flight to cis-lunar the only way to prove a Dragon can operate successfully there?
Post by: gongora on 11/15/2017 02:47 pm
Also the "operational flight environment" for Dragon on a FH launch and in cis-lunar space is significantly different than Dragon on F9 launch or in LEO.
The operational flight environment in cis-lunar is different, but very well understood. Why is a test flight to cis-lunar the only way to prove a Dragon can operate successfully there?
It might be nice for Dragon's computers to be tested outside of LEO, even if it doesn't go all the way to the moon.
Post by: Negan on 11/15/2017 02:58 pm
Also the "operational flight environment" for Dragon on a FH launch and in cis-lunar space is significantly different than Dragon on F9 launch or in LEO.
The operational flight environment in cis-lunar is different, but very well understood. Why is a test flight to cis-lunar the only way to prove a Dragon can operate successfully there?
It might be nice for Dragon's computers to be tested outside of LEO, even if it doesn't go all the way to the moon.
The computers have been tested to very, very high radiation environments in labs already, plus the many operational flights. Nice sure, but I don't see the need.
http://aviationweek.com/blog/dragons-radiation-tolerant-design
Post by: envy887 on 11/15/2017 03:21 pm
Also the "operational flight environment" for Dragon on a FH launch and in cis-lunar space is significantly different than Dragon on F9 launch or in LEO.
The operational flight environment in cis-lunar is different, but very well understood. Why is a test flight to cis-lunar the only way to prove a Dragon can operate successfully there?
It might be nice for Dragon's computers to be tested outside of LEO, even if it doesn't go all the way to the moon.
The computers have been tested to very, very high radiation environments in labs already, plus the many operational flights. Nice sure, but I don't see the need.
http://aviationweek.com/blog/dragons-radiation-tolerant-design
Nav, comms, ECLSS endurance, and radiation can be verified in LEO and the lab. IMO the hardest thing to replicate in either ground testing or LEO flight testing is lunar return entry heating, but even that might be possible using a steeper than normal entry trajectory from LEO, perhaps on the Dragon 2 demo flight.
Post by: tvg98 on 11/15/2017 03:37 pm
PS: Now that I think about it, I may have asked this before.
Post by: ugordan on 11/15/2017 03:46 pm
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but Elon has said that they would not do a direct entry and would instead do several passes before returning from orbit. However, that would require the trunk to be ejected right? And if so, just how long can Crew Dragon last without it?
Several passes? Do you mean a skip reentry? Those would take of the same order of magnitude as Dragon takes during launch, after going on internal power and up to solar panel deployment. Minutes, not hours.
Post by: tvg98 on 11/15/2017 03:49 pm
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but Elon has said that they would not do a direct entry and would instead do several passes before returning from orbit. However, that would require the trunk to be ejected right? And if so, just how long can Crew Dragon last without it?
Several passes? Do you mean a skip reentry? Those would take of the same order of magnitude as Dragon takes during launch, after going on internal power and up to solar panel deployment. Minutes, not hours.
Interesting. This is where Elon spoke about this earlier this year: https://youtu.be/BqvBhhTtUm4?t=39m32s
Post by: Eerie on 11/15/2017 03:49 pm
Post by: llanitedave on 11/15/2017 03:58 pm
If this type of rule had been in effect during Apollo (and applied to same), NASA would have been forced to attempt an unmanned LM landing before landing it with crew aboard -- even though chances of such an unmanned landing to succeed were considered very slim, and NASA rejected the notion even before the Fire. But, without an unmanned demonstration, you'd be blocked from trying the manned landing...
As well, the Shuttle could never have flown with crew under this rule. It would have required an unmanned orbital flight test, which, the way the Shuttle was designed, was not possible. It was not a spacecraft that could be both launched and landed without crew; the gear could not be deployed except manually. Any automation of gear deployment was deemed so dangerous (in case gear deploy came early) that the system was designed with lockouts; I've read in a number of places that NASA refused to consider automating gear deployment under any circumstances. Meaning that, if you abandoned a Shuttle orbiter with TPS damage (something planned for in post-Columbia thinking), you could try to auto-enter the abandoned orbiter, but under no circumstances could you try to land it -- since you could not extend the gear. If it survived the entry, you still had to ditch it in the ocean somewhere.
So, the question begged is thus -- why can NASA get away with s**t that commercial carriers aren't allowed to? Doesn't that seem somehow illegal to y'all?
Apollo was 48 years ago. The first space shuttle flight was 36 years ago. If the technology had existed then to have what are essentially off the shelf capabilities today, chances are the rules would have been different. The time constraints are different now, too.
Doing autonomous operations in space is no longer exotic, so it seems like a much more reasonable requirement today than it was then.
Post by: Negan on 11/15/2017 04:03 pm
Nav, comms, ECLSS endurance, and radiation can be verified in LEO and the lab. IMO the hardest thing to replicate in either ground testing or LEO flight testing is lunar return entry heating, but even that might be possible using a steeper than normal entry trajectory from LEO, perhaps on the Dragon 2 demo flight.
Both Stardust's and Dragon's heat shields were tested in a lab up to their operational temperatures. I don't see why the same couldn't be done here.
Post by: Negan on 11/15/2017 05:03 pm
"Integrated performance" reads to me like they have to actually test Dragon 2 on FH. Dragon 2 on F9 is a different integrated vehicle with different hardware and software than FH. Likewise a commsat on FH is a different integrated vehicle than FH with Dragon.
Isn't the actual integration done with the second stage which
Edit: I guess there's some speculation of changes to both the FH and Dragon for beyond LEO. Musk has indicated only changes to Dragon 2's communication systems would be needed.
Edit: Also compare this to the crewed EM-2 with a non-flight proven second stage.
Post by: deruch on 11/16/2017 12:25 am
QuoteAn operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment......
...
However: the nature of the referenced flight testing is NOT clear from Chapter C. And that could very well mean that the planned Crew Dragon demo missions for CCP, as well as stand-alone test flights of FH, are sufficient to allow the circumlunar mission without a dedicated test flight of the FH/Crew Dragon combination.
"Integrated performance" reads to me like they have to actually test Dragon 2 on FH. Dragon 2 on F9 is a different integrated vehicle with different hardware and software than FH. Likewise a commsat on FH is a different integrated vehicle than FH with Dragon.
Also the "operational flight environment" for Dragon on a FH launch and in cis-lunar space is significantly different than Dragon on F9 launch or in LEO.
To me it sounds like they just mean that component and system level tests are insufficient. If they were just using FH to launch a spec Crewed Dragon capsule to LEO, I would expect their experience with launching them on F9 (as well as non-Dragon launches) and a understanding of FH flight characteristics would be enough. The issues of the changes necessary for BEO operation of Dragon 2 and experience in the cis-lunar environment seem more weighty.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/16/2017 08:21 am
Quote
Shotwell: no updates on plans announced early this year for a crewed circumlunar Dragon flight. Surprising that there are as many people as there are who want to fly such a mission and can afford it. #NewSpaceEurope
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089167764869120
Post by: jebbo on 11/16/2017 08:24 am
Quote
Shotwell: expect we’ll do BFR/BFS missions to the Moon before Mars, given administration’s interest. Hope it will be for a permanent settlement. #NewSpaceEurope
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089584640884737 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089584640884737)
--- Tony
Post by: jpo234 on 11/16/2017 08:57 am
QuoteShotwell: no updates on plans announced early this year for a crewed circumlunar Dragon flight. Surprising that there are as many people as there are who want to fly such a mission and can afford it. #NewSpaceEurope
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089167764869120
This chimes with a previous comment from her, that this might be a viable business.
Post by: cscott on 11/16/2017 12:38 pm
QuoteShotwell: expect we’ll do BFR/BFS missions to the Moon before Mars, given administration’s interest. Hope it will be for a permanent settlement. #NewSpaceEurope
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089584640884737 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089584640884737)
That is, they think they might be able to get the government to pay for a (significant fraction of the cost of a) lunar mission.
Like with CRS, Shotwell is adept at working the funding available to accomplish SpaceX goals, even if that means tweaking SpaceX plans (like F1 or "Mars first").
Post by: Negan on 11/16/2017 04:48 pm
Also the "operational flight environment" for Dragon on a FH launch and in cis-lunar space is significantly different than Dragon on F9 launch or in LEO.
The operational flight environment in cis-lunar is different, but very well understood. Why is a test flight to cis-lunar the only way to prove a Dragon can operate successfully there?
It might be nice for Dragon's computers to be tested outside of LEO, even if it doesn't go all the way to the moon.
Another reason why I find this hard to believe as necessary is due to the 210 day on orbit attached to station requirement. Why is 7 days beyond LEO so different than 210 days in LEO?
Edit: We're talking about the affect on computers.
Post by: gongora on 11/16/2017 04:54 pm
Another reason why I find this hard to believe as necessary is due to the 210 day on orbit attached to station requirement. Why is 7 days beyond LEO so different than 210 days in LEO?
The Van Allen Belts?
Post by: nacnud on 11/16/2017 04:56 pm
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/16/2017 05:16 pm
Post by: Negan on 11/16/2017 05:30 pm
Another reason why I find this hard to believe as necessary is due to the 210 day on orbit attached to station requirement. Why is 7 days beyond LEO so different than 210 days in LEO?
The Van Allen Belts?
So a couple of passes through the Van Allen Belts are worse than 210 days in LEO?
Edit: Maybe they can copy Apollo and avoid the worst of the belts.
Edit: From the Moon mission conspiracy debunking sights, I don't see how this would be a consideration since the time in the belts is so short.
Post by: Negan on 11/16/2017 06:00 pm
And thermal environment, and outside the magnetosphere and longer range comms. Etc. All well understood but different to LEO
True. Apollo proved one spacecraft could be designed to operate in both environments, and that was before all the knowledge spacecraft designers have today. Heck they were even thinking of using Gemini for a circumlunar mission.
Post by: gongora on 11/16/2017 07:42 pm
Another reason why I find this hard to believe as necessary is due to the 210 day on orbit attached to station requirement. Why is 7 days beyond LEO so different than 210 days in LEO?
The Van Allen Belts?
So a couple of passes through the Van Allen Belts are worse than 210 days in LEO?
Edit: Maybe they can copy Apollo and avoid the worst of the belts.
The environment is different outside the Van Allen belts.
Post by: Negan on 11/16/2017 10:28 pm
Another reason why I find this hard to believe as necessary is due to the 210 day on orbit attached to station requirement. Why is 7 days beyond LEO so different than 210 days in LEO?
The Van Allen Belts?
So a couple of passes through the Van Allen Belts are worse than 210 days in LEO?
Edit: Maybe they can copy Apollo and avoid the worst of the belts.
The environment is different outside the Van Allen belts.
And Dragon 2 is designed to operate in both environments (with the exception of communications) like Apollo was.
Edit: Added quote from article https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2017/02/spacex-private-moon-mission-2018/
"Musk said Dragon 2 could come back from the Moon, too. "The heat shield is quite massively over-designed," he said. Musk also said the vehicle was sufficiently hardened against radiation to keep its crew safe beyond the Earth's protective radiation belts. Dragon 2's systems are "triple redundant," Musk added, and the only major upgrade needed would be in communications systems."
https://nepp.nasa.gov/files/24815/GOMAC2003_LaBel_HBD_Validation_pres.pdf
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/18/2017 05:09 pm
QuoteShotwell: no updates on plans announced early this year for a crewed circumlunar Dragon flight. Surprising that there are as many people as there are who want to fly such a mission and can afford it. #NewSpaceEurope
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089167764869120
More than a half hundred confirmable. Now, how many of those ... want to beat US/China/Russia governments(!) to a very public visit to the vicinity of the moon?
(https://i.imgur.com/SEwlQi3.gif)
Keep in mind the impact of Apollo 8. While far from "flag and footprints" of Apollo 11, everyone on earth knew that America was certain to land on the moon.
But ... adventurers on a free return won't have such a presumption. It may take a decade more before a single one of them can touch the surface.
What's it worth to buy "bragging rights" to "pwn" all of the earth's governments ... for more than a decade?
That's what will power the economics of lunar free return adventurer flights.
I'm certain that even with Jeff Bezos considerable pride, the first time adventurers return from a SX Dragon 2 free return flight safe, he'll not be able to wait for it. Knowing him, he'd dare Musk to do it himself, and somehow work out a means "to make it so" for both.
It's increasingly likely to happen. Whether that causes anything else to follow as a result, who knows?
Post by: Ludus on 11/19/2017 03:18 am
Is there some confirmation of 50 people with the money who want to fly around the moon?QuoteShotwell: no updates on plans announced early this year for a crewed circumlunar Dragon flight. Surprising that there are as many people as there are who want to fly such a mission and can afford it. #NewSpaceEurope
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089167764869120
More than a half hundred confirmable. Now, how many of those ... want to beat US/China/Russia governments(!) to a very public visit to the vicinity of the moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/19/2017 03:30 am
I could imagine a follow-up mission to this that could have SpaceX testing Dragons in 'deep space' at either DRO orbits or even L-2. Two Dragons docked 'nose to nose' would have enough internal volume for two or even three folk to loiter out there with supplies for more than a month. Part stunt; part deep space shakedown, testing life support systems, radiation mitigation, communications and navigation. Hey - I'm gonna use that idea for my next story... ;)
Post by: nacnud on 11/19/2017 03:34 am
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/19/2017 03:45 am
Post by: nacnud on 11/19/2017 03:48 am
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/19/2017 03:54 am
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz_bo.html
Post by: nacnud on 11/19/2017 04:08 am
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/19/2017 06:24 am
But I digress...
Post by: AncientU on 11/19/2017 11:42 am
Yes - or a reused Dragon 1.0 module. Or even base a Bigelow with a basic propulsion bus out at DRO or L-2. The idea is increased habitable volume for living, supply storage and experiments. It would have to be 'Beam 2.0' version. But even that wouldn't launch prefabricated with all the needed equipment. The Beam could be packed on top of the Falcon upper stage and after the TLI burn; it inflates and the crew docks with it and extracts it from the upper stage. The Dragon with crew of 2 could be packed to the eyeballs with supplies and equipment, which the crew could transfer to the Beam to free up lots of room in the capsule. The Beam - filled with water and food supplies - could then become the solar storm shelter for the crew. At the end of the mission, the Dragon burns back towards Earth. Filled with trash and uneeded equipment; the Beam is then jettisoned to burn up on re-entry.
Try this approach without destroying hardware on each trip... only way it will be repeatable at any significant cadence. Maybe leave the Beam or Beam derivative with station-keeping capability in Lunar orbit (suggest EML-1 or 2 better than DRO), either bring back the trash(like good backpackers do) or temporarily stow it in an expendable 'trash bag' which is sent on course to burn up in atmosphere.
Post by: nacnud on 11/19/2017 12:23 pm
The only way to do that is to add people to the trip each paying less than the current price but cumulatively the profit is more. There is also a time limit on this as once BFS is available it would be significantly cheaper.
Post by: gongora on 11/19/2017 02:31 pm
Post by: meekGee on 11/19/2017 04:43 pm
Why go to the expense of two dragons, take a BEAM instead. Add an extended duration pallet to the trunk too, if needed... Could make for some interesting stories.Because then they'll be dependent on Bigelow, and I don't think they want that. Plus, Dragons are reusable.
Post by: guckyfan on 11/19/2017 05:31 pm
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/19/2017 07:02 pm
The same FH configuration flown. The same Dragon 2 + consumables + deep space comm. Nothing else added. Because then it leverages (and it in turn is leveraging) the CC program, both in proven new capabilities as well as scope of operation/mission profiles.
Remember that they're not taking Dragon past this point. NASA has no belly for it. So forget ambitions for Dragon, as long as there are no other "NASA class customers" asking for them. All serviceable market for Dragon is spoken for. BFS is next end of story. Just accept that. It'll be an amazing accomplishment just one free return mission.
Now to address "+ consumables + deep space comm". Propellant+ congingency is likely covered by existing launch abort capacity, ECLSS capacity is likely an addition/prove/qualification. Additional crew needs as well.
Deep space comm likely an addition under the docking adapter cap. Using a derivative of the MER/MSL HGA integrated into the avionics and software systems is what I'd start with. This is likely the "long pole".
FWIW, here's work on the Iris cubesat DSN transponder at JPL (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3083&context=smallsat). This a a low gain, low bandwidth application, but it gives one an example of scope of this activity.
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/19/2017 09:48 pm
To add extra DV would require service module, which needs between trunk and US. Can't be in trunk as is that is mass limited by LAS requirements.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/19/2017 10:11 pm
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/20/2017 12:45 am
Props are solely required for midcourse/entry corrections. There's already excess. Likewise, FH has excess delta V for this mission.
So lets say the vehicles are fixed, all the equipment (per my post above) is set no changes. What else might you do?
(Also lets assume DSN/Stargate/commercial supplement comm/tracking operations).
You're going to fly from 39A - the only pad with crew access. 39A/40 have been used to prep Dragon. West coast recovery and Hawthorne refit. Dragon mission outfitting local to pad. Every 3-6 months a CRS/CC mission, 2-6 slots for free return missions, so 6-10 annual mission rate for Dragon. 8-16 F9 reuse boosters, 2-6 FH core boosters, 6-10 F9US in total per year. That's a very healthy amount of operations for a HSF side of the business (nor counting recovery/reprocessing costs).
This would exceed Soyuz/Progress and only be surpassed by Shuttle in the past. Past a singular mission, reaching this kind of activity level would be a remarkable follow-on achievement. Cost of operations would drop significantly.
If all of this were to happen, well before EM1, you'd have a cost per seat of a lunar capable mission architecture in common use by NASA. The excess delta V in the capsule, LV, excess payload capacity, and vehicle flight rates/history ... would leave a lot of room for NASA/others to address mission planning shortfalls/contingencies with.
Anything that might result as HSF "follow on" for Dragon would come from that capability, refreshed by successive Dragon flights.
Even after Apollo flew, Gemini was constantly "resurrected". The cost basis alone made it too easy to do, even though it hadn't flown missions for a fair portion of a decade, unlike this case. A lot can happen in the in-determinant future.
But it's not SX or space cadet ideas that would arrive at such. Just the cold, hard realities of need. Like that of avoiding LOM/LOC.
add:
One other thing I forgot to add. It is possible for lunar and high C3 missions with certain orientations to fly an extremely lofted trajectory. This would be more difficult to track/navigate/guide than "normal", but it would allow vehicle recovery while imparting more delta-V to the payload, since its the downrange boost back and the horizontal velocity that increase stress on the booster recovery, not the vertical velocity as much.
So the vehicle doesn't rotate until after staging, you have certain concerns about trajectory and guidance, so this is far from an easy choice. It would mean longer entry burns for all three boosters, higher vertical decelleration/heating. But net/net more propellant into a delta-v into a highly elliptical orbit that would have to coincide with the TLI burn's ascending/descending node opposite the planet from launch. (And, if it were done from a higher latitiude like at Vandenberg, one could gain an interesting "advantage" from the lunar trajectory. One could also as a side effect bring along a geosynch payload that could "rideshare" after separation.)
Post by: guckyfan on 11/20/2017 05:44 am
Dragon doesn't have DV to enter and return from any lunar orbit. Flyby is all it is capable of.
To add extra DV would require service module, which needs between trunk and US. Can't be in trunk as is that is mass limited by LAS requirements.
Is this really true? Sure it can not reach LLO. But the available delta-v without powered landing, should be enough to reach a DRO orbit.
Post by: envy887 on 11/20/2017 01:02 pm
Dragon doesn't have DV to enter and return from any lunar orbit. Flyby is all it is capable of.
Very high lunar orbits only require about 300 m/s to enter and leave, and L2 NRHOs require about 650 to 700 m/s to enter and leave with a lunar flyby. Both are likely within reach of a stock D2, although cargo mass, flight time, and orbit utility and stability may vary.
DROs tend to be about 1200 to 1400 m/s to enter and leave, so only Orion can reach and return from those without upgrades.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140003573.pdf
Post by: HMXHMX on 12/11/2017 05:47 pm
Apparently a transference of affections to SpaceX...
Post by: flyright on 12/11/2017 08:11 pm
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/12/10/youll-guess-space-adventures-planned-send-moon/#more-63273
Apparently a transference of affections to SpaceX...
I don't see any reference to SpaceX in the article.
Post by: Phil Stooke on 12/11/2017 08:14 pm
Post by: Darkseraph on 12/11/2017 08:19 pm
Speculating on who bought the tickets, it could be someone who has already been a space tourist like Anousheh Ansari or Dennis Tito.
Since it has now come out that Ansari was one of the ticket holders for the Space Adventures/Russian circumlunar flight which appears to have fallen through, perhaps she is booked for SpaceX circumlunar voyage. :)
Post by: flyright on 12/11/2017 08:26 pm
It does sound like Ansari and McPike may be possible customers for SpaceX, but there's nothing in the article to that effect.
Post by: Dave G on 12/14/2017 12:05 am
Deep space comm likely an addition under the docking adapter cap.Why not the trunk?
Post by: nacnud on 12/14/2017 12:31 am
Deep space comm likely an addition under the docking adapter cap.Why not the trunk?
Perhaps they want to bring it back?
Post by: deruch on 12/14/2017 04:53 am
Oh, and Dragon also already has a sensor bay with a hatch ... a boom and a HGA assembly also might be made to fit there as well.Deep space comm likely an addition under the docking adapter cap.Why not the trunk?
Yeah, no need for a grapple fixture on a circumlunar trip. As long as they can get it all to fit without interfering with any of the star-trackers that I believe are also in there, that seems like a good potential location.
Post by: Comga on 12/15/2017 04:45 am
They also don’t need the two SpaceX lidar systems in there, but we are speculating on technical minutiae.Oh, and Dragon also already has a sensor bay with a hatch ... a boom and a HGA assembly also might be made to fit there as well.Deep space comm likely an addition under the docking adapter cap.Why not the trunk?
Yeah, no need for a grapple fixture on a circumlunar trip. As long as they can get it all to fit without interfering with any of the star-trackers that I believe are also in there, that seems like a good potential location.
Someone here may be able to estimate the size of the antenna they need, given assumptions about the receiver dishes, an adequate data rate, and power considerations.
Or perhaps we can’t with so many options.
Post by: StealthGhost on 01/26/2018 05:33 pm
SpaceX still hasn't even told the public who the two would-be lunar tourists will be yet. So does anyone know anything about their first lunar tourism plans? All I know is it’s likely not going to occur untill 2019 or 2020 because Dragon V2 has been delayed by commercial crew again & from what I’ve read NASA wants at least 7 successful flights of Falcon 9 before they can consider launching crew on Dragon V2 atop a Falcon 9 which could cause further Dragon V2 delays.
Post by: Inoeth on 01/29/2018 03:10 am
NASA's requirements don't have much of any bearing on any private SpaceX lunar mission with the Dragon 2- NASA isn't contributing any money or any astronauts towards this mission... However, given the delays in both Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy, it'll probably line up just fine irregardless... I won't be surprised if there's something in their agreement with the two private persons about number of FH flights and number of manned Dragon 2 flights before they attempt the Lunar flight- tho the details of which I doubt we'll ever learn, or at most it'll be in L2, but i kind of doubt it when we're dealing with something entirely private...
I do agree that at this point it'll be sometime in early to mid 2019 at the earliest and possibly as late as 2020, tho on something like this, a 2 year delay isn't that terrible nor that unexpected...
There is also the question of this happening at all, and that will indeed depend on the readiness of FH, the Dragon 2 and possibly politics both with the Federal government and with NASA itself... Perhaps SpaceX's ties and contracts with NASA and making NASA look bad in terms of SLS and DSG ambitions will put a stop to this mission, or perhaps delaying this for BFR depending on the timeline of that... That being said, in my opinion, which can't count for that much, I do think that this will happen, but It'll probably take place mid-late 2019 at the earliest to mid 2020 at the latest... Probably after at least 3-5 FH launches and at least 3 manned Dragon 2 missions...
Post by: geza on 01/29/2018 05:44 am
With the Flacon Heavy maiden flight likely to occur within the next two weeks & Dragon V2 set to perform an unmanned test flight to the ISS later this year (likely in November or December) almost all the pieces for the SpaceX lunar tourism mission are starting to come together.What about Lunar reentry? I know that the heat shild is designed for that. Still, it might need redisign of entry trajectory, software update, testing in simulation, if not in flight. Or, it is more trivial, than I assume?
Post by: Roy_H on 01/29/2018 06:02 am
Post by: meberbs on 01/29/2018 06:13 am
...The 7 flights is not likely to be a driving factor. The counter starts as soon as they start flying Block 5 (probably around March) With their current and expected flight rate, they may get 7 launches done of Block 5 before the unmanned launch (currently planned for August). They don't need the 7 launches until the manned test flight though, and barring a launch failure, this won't be a problem.
All I know is it’s likely not going to occur untill 2019 or 2020 because Dragon V2 has been delayed by commercial crew again & from what I’ve read NASA wants at least 7 successful flights of Falcon 9 before they can consider launching crew on Dragon V2 atop a Falcon 9 which could cause further Dragon V2 delays.
I am not sure where you got November or December for the unmanned test, I don't think a slip by 3-4 months is likely at this point.
I don't expect an update on the lunar mission until mid to late this year, maybe after the unmanned test. They have no obligation to say anything about it long before the launch, so depending on the wishes of the people who bought the tickets, we might not hear anything until we see launch permits, or an extra Falcon Heavy rolling out of the factory.
Post by: geza on 01/29/2018 04:05 pm
Nothing is trivial in space flight. I would expect SpaceX to do a full trial run including sling shot past moon, testing communications, testing ECLSS, test radiation levels inside capsule and landing before sending any people on this trip.Once I assumed that miden flight of FH would be used for this purpose. No, midnight cherry, instead.
Post by: rockets4life97 on 01/29/2018 05:08 pm
Nothing is trivial in space flight. I would expect SpaceX to do a full trial run including sling shot past moon, testing communications, testing ECLSS, test radiation levels inside capsule and landing before sending any people on this trip.Once I assumed that miden flight of FH would be used for this purpose. No, midnight cherry, instead.
I don't think there will be lunar flyby without passengers before a crewed version, unless those buying the ride pay for it. I think SpaceX will be confident after they fly crew to ISS. From the reports from Commercial Crew, it looks like NASA is taking a heavy hand to Dragon 2. I expect everything will have been throughly reviewed.
Post by: gongora on 01/29/2018 05:19 pm
I think SpaceX will be confident after they fly crew to ISS. From the reports from Commercial Crew, it looks like NASA is taking a heavy hand to Dragon 2. I expect everything will have been throughly reviewed.
The Commercial Crew program isn't certifying the Dragon for that mission duration, reentry profile, or operation outside of LEO. SpaceX will be doing additional work to make sure it's safe for the different mission.
Post by: Nate_Trost on 01/29/2018 05:26 pm
Even if they weren't, there is still no way it would happen before the first ISS crew flight. And also not before at least a few flights of the Heavy in its final Block 5 form.
In other words, I don't see how this happens before 2020.
Post by: Negan on 01/29/2018 05:54 pm
The Commercial Crew program isn't certifying the Dragon for that mission duration
So what mission duration is commercial crew certifying for and for how many people?
Post by: abaddon on 01/29/2018 06:16 pm
So what mission duration is commercial crew certifying for and for how many people?Duration is long (200+ days) but most of that is docked to the station, and all of it is in the (relatively) benign environment of LEO (benign as far as radiation is concerned). Don't know what the expected max duration crewed is but I'd guess maybe four or five days?
Crew size appears to be four; although there was mention that Crew Dragon could hypothetically seat seven early on I haven't seen mention of that lately.
Post by: Roy_H on 01/29/2018 06:25 pm
Crew size appears to be four; although there was mention that Crew Dragon could hypothetically seat seven early on I haven't seen mention of that lately.From NASA perspective they mandated both Dragon and Starliner be designed to carry a crew of 4 normally and 7 in an emergency. While docked the extra 3 seats are installed in case an emergency evacuation of the ISS is required. Before normal departure the extra seats are removed and stored on the ISS. It is possible that the 7 seat configuration will be used to deliver people to alternate destinations like Bigelow's B330.
Post by: Zed_Noir on 01/29/2018 06:43 pm
Of course that brings up the idea of using a modified used cargo Dragon for the Circumlunar flight if you are testing the various sub-system with a cargo Dragon to begin with.
Post by: Negan on 01/29/2018 06:59 pm
So what mission duration is commercial crew certifying for and for how many people?Duration is long (200+ days) but most of that is docked to the station, and all of it is in the (relatively) benign environment of LEO (benign as far as radiation is concerned). Don't know what the expected max duration crewed is but I'd guess maybe four or five days?
Crew size appears to be four; although there was mention that Crew Dragon could hypothetically seat seven early on I haven't seen mention of that lately.
So 8 to 10 days for a crew of two plus triple-redundant systems to handle the radiation environment.
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/29/2018 07:22 pm
Radiation mitigation techniques that work well at ISS's orbit should be able to work fine in deep space with a few tweaks.
Post by: jpo234 on 02/04/2018 01:05 pm
If for instance Harald McPike and/or Anousheh Ansari are present, what other reason could there be?
Post by: cscott on 02/04/2018 01:12 pm
We know that SpaceX will host VIPs in the Exploration Tower for the FH launch. I would assume that the moon tourists will be present for the first launch of their ride. Is there a public list of the guests?I heard "press" not "VIPs". FWIW.
If for instance Harald McPike and/or Anousheh Ansari are present, what other reason could there be?
Post by: neoforce on 02/04/2018 05:11 pm
But how cool would it be if everything goes perfectly and they actually pull off a July 16, 2019 launch date? That fits Elon’s flair for the dramatic.
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/04/2018 05:39 pm
Plus BFS could have a toilet on board, which is priceless..
I guess what I'm saying is if BFR is to be ready around 2024, then it might be worthwhile to just wait for it and do this mission in style.
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/04/2018 09:41 pm
How much better and easier could BFR do this mission? A crew version of BFS could have 100 tourists making the trip in comfort, with presumably much better viewing. Even if the BFR launch cost ends up being $50m, SpaceX could charge a nice $1m per person and still make a 100% markup on the flight. Compared to $50m per person or whatever the 2 Dragon passangers are being charged.
Plus BFS could have a toilet on board, which is priceless..
I guess what I'm saying is if BFR is to be ready around 2024, then it might be worthwhile to just wait for it and do this mission in style.
Doing the trip in style later doesn't have the same doing it first bragging rights for the people with too much money. ;)
Post by: AncientU on 02/05/2018 12:09 am
How much better and easier could BFR do this mission? A crew version of BFS could have 100 tourists making the trip in comfort, with presumably much better viewing. Even if the BFR launch cost ends up being $50m, SpaceX could charge a nice $1m per person and still make a 100% markup on the flight. Compared to $50m per person or whatever the 2 Dragon passangers are being charged.Doing the trip in style later doesn't have the same doing it first bragging rights for the people with too much money. ;)
Plus BFS could have a toilet on board, which is priceless..
I guess what I'm saying is if BFR is to be ready around 2024, then it might be worthwhile to just wait for it and do this mission in style.
There may be a significant market for retro rides in an actual capsule by the mid-to-late 2020s. Just like people pay to ride in a biplane or hot air balloon today... They won't be around much after that unless there is strong tourist demand.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/05/2018 12:30 am
Life support in extreme environments is not only hard, it’s literally life changing. Have you been in a situation where your life is on the line, where you need to rely on training, preparation, and sheer grit in order to just not die?
I have.
It sucks - it sucks in a life altering way, in a way that doesn’t leave you even when you close your eyes.
Do not minimalize what this undertaking means, nor what the people who undertake will have to do to prepare. Definition of “astronaut” regardless.
Recognize this individual? I was supposed to be hosting her on this dive, but instead was fighting for my life in a hyperbaric chamber in northern FL instead... (Suni took that photo as encouragement for me and I’ll forever be grateful)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180205/a8b0ed4b179b4256107ad25ab79c936b.jpg)
Post by: su27k on 02/05/2018 01:00 am
The Commercial Crew program isn't certifying the Dragon for that mission duration
So what mission duration is commercial crew certifying for and for how many people?
Per https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/07/starliner-milestones-ula-switches-atlas-booster-maiden-flight/, Starliner is aiming for 60 hours of free flight (with 4 people I assume), which I think it's on the minimal side for commercial crew.
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/05/2018 01:25 am
You guys do realize that it’s more than just a rocket and it’s engine(s) that dictates a successful human mission, right?Yes...
Life support in extreme environments is not only hard, it’s literally life changing. Have you been in a situation where your life is on the line, where you need to rely on training, preparation, and sheer grit in order to just not die?
I have.
It sucks - it sucks in a life altering way, in a way that doesn’t leave you even when you close your eyes.
Do not minimalize what this undertaking means, nor what the people who undertake will have to do to prepare. Definition of “astronaut” regardless.
Recognize this individual? I was supposed to be hosting her on this dive, but instead was fighting for my life in a hyperbaric chamber in northern FL instead... (Suni took that photo as encouragement for me and I’ll forever be grateful)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180205/a8b0ed4b179b4256107ad25ab79c936b.jpg)
Post by: docmordrid on 02/05/2018 01:40 am
That said, AIUI SpaceX's ECLSS partner is Paragon SDC - who is also partnered with Honeywell to develop a long duration ECLSS for NASA and commercial programs.
Presser....(PDF) (http://psdc.mkfinterests.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Honeywell_Paragon_Teaming-Agreement_Final.pdf)
Quote
HONEYWELL AND PARAGON TO CREATE LIFE SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY FOR FUTURE NASA SPACE MISSIONS
Deal delivers a much-needed alternative to current environmental control and life support systems as
space missions evolve
PHOENIX, May 1, 2017 – Honeywell (NYSE: HON) and Paragon Space Development Corporation have announced a teaming agreement that will change the way astronauts experience life in space. The two companies will design, build, test and apply environmental control and life support systems for future human NASA and commercial programs.
>
“This agreement allows the Honeywell and Paragon team to provide fully integrated solutions to
NASA, combining our strengths of experience and innovation in technology with an agile and customer-focused responsiveness,” said Grant Anderson, president and CEO, Paragon Space Development Corporation. “Potential prime contractors and NASA will have access to a system-focused integration team with a catalog of proven and emerging technology to bring long-duration exploration of the Moon and Mars to practical implementation.”
>
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/05/2018 02:17 am
Yes, way more than once.Can we start a new thread for these Yes’s?
That said, AIUI SpaceX's ECLSS partner is Paragon SDC - who is also partnered with Honeywell to develop a long duration ECLSS for NASA and commercial programs.
Presser....(PDF) (http://psdc.mkfinterests.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Honeywell_Paragon_Teaming-Agreement_Final.pdf)QuoteHONEYWELL AND PARAGON TO CREATE LIFE SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY FOR FUTURE NASA SPACE MISSIONS
Deal delivers a much-needed alternative to current environmental control and life support systems as
space missions evolve
PHOENIX, May 1, 2017 – Honeywell (NYSE: HON) and Paragon Space Development Corporation have announced a teaming agreement that will change the way astronauts experience life in space. The two companies will design, build, test and apply environmental control and life support systems for future human NASA and commercial programs.
>
“This agreement allows the Honeywell and Paragon team to provide fully integrated solutions to
NASA, combining our strengths of experience and innovation in technology with an agile and customer-focused responsiveness,” said Grant Anderson, president and CEO, Paragon Space Development Corporation. “Potential prime contractors and NASA will have access to a system-focused integration team with a catalog of proven and emerging technology to bring long-duration exploration of the Moon and Mars to practical implementation.”
>
Honestly.
My story’s been told, but I’d love to hear the stories of others. I think it’s a valuable side resource for understanding those faceless individuals who add to the character of this forum.
Post by: JAFO on 02/05/2018 05:44 am
Have you been in a situation where your life is on the line, where you need to rely on training, preparation, and sheer grit in order to just not die?
Yes. In a few cases Luck* helped.
*"First of all, we all have our own personal beliefs and convictions, and I would never intrude on yours, so for the sake of discussion, we call our first factor "luck." You may call it whatever you wish."
Al Haynes
Captain, UAL 232
Post by: jpo234 on 02/05/2018 07:56 am
There may be a significant market for retro rides in an actual capsule by the mid-to-late 2020s. Just like people pay to ride in a biplane or hot air balloon today... They won't be around much after that unless there is strong tourist demand.
Different from the biplane there would probably be a significant price difference.
Lunar Dragon: Some 100mln $ per seat
Lunar Cruise on BFS: Some 1..10mln $ per seat
If there is real competition (Blue...), prices might fall below the $1mln mark.
Post by: AbuSimbel on 02/05/2018 09:20 am
If they reach their goals with BFR (1000 flights for both the BFR and the BFS in cislunar space) of 2-3M$ cost per flight they could offer one week cruises to the moon for 100k$ per person or less. Not to mention LEO trips (several orbits and the opportunity to finally marvel at our home planet in its entirety from space) for 5000$ or so (400 people or less with 1st class costlier tickets). Who wouldn't go?There may be a significant market for retro rides in an actual capsule by the mid-to-late 2020s. Just like people pay to ride in a biplane or hot air balloon today... They won't be around much after that unless there is strong tourist demand.
Different from the biplane there would probably be a significant price difference.
Lunar Dragon: Some 100mln $ per seat
Lunar Cruise on BFS: Some 1..10mln $ per seat
If there is real competition (Blue...), prices might fall below the $1mln mark.
Post by: speedevil on 02/05/2018 10:13 am
Life support in extreme environments is not only hard, it’s literally life changing. Have you been in a situation where your life is on the line, where you need to rely on training, preparation, and sheer grit in order to just not die?BFS is not an extreme environment.
Passengers do not need much training in life safety. They are not going to be taking a wrench and manfully working on the ECLSS during the trip. If they approach the ECLSS with a wrench, tie them up. All the training they need (perhaps absent suit ingress) is 'keep calm, and do what the staff tell you'.
For lunar passenger class missions, you can literally carry scuba tanks for everyone sufficient to provide atmosphere for the whole trip, as well as entirely self-contained thermal garments good from -40C to +50C or so.
The only case passengers might be at risk would be a rapid de-pressurisation or toxic gas leak or fire.
ECLSS - other than this, is not a prompt life safety risk.
It's a 'get everyone into their suits / segmented compartments sometime in the next ten hours' type of risk.
For transit to Mars, the prompt risk differs little - but you actually do need to fix the ECLSS.
Post by: MaxTeranous on 02/05/2018 10:34 am
Not to dismiss it entirely but peeps tend to focus on the "not done before" and not the "been there done that".
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 02/05/2018 01:48 pm
Life support isn't talked about for this mission simply because it's a "solved" problem for journeys of a few days. How many astronaut hours/days/years have the various space agencies racked up in LEO? How many fatalities from a life support failure? I can't find 1.Written like someone who’s never designed or maintained one of the systems providing that “solved problem.” ;)
Not to dismiss it entirely but peeps tend to focus on the "not done before" and not the "been there done that".
Read the L2 ISS Daily Status Reports sometime. For a solved problem, life support equipment fails depressingly often.
Post by: MaxTeranous on 02/05/2018 01:57 pm
Life support isn't talked about for this mission simply because it's a "solved" problem for journeys of a few days. How many astronaut hours/days/years have the various space agencies racked up in LEO? How many fatalities from a life support failure? I can't find 1.Written like someone who’s never designed or maintained one of the systems providing that “solved problem.” ;)
Not to dismiss it entirely but peeps tend to focus on the "not done before" and not the "been there done that".
Read the L2 ISS Daily Status Reports sometime. For a solved problem, life support equipment fails depressingly often.
Note the "for journeys of a few days" disclaimer. ISS's ongoing life support management on 30 year old kit is completely different to keeping 2 peeps alive for a week. I'm talking about the needs for this mission (and only this mission) not for the ISS, BFR, etc.
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 02/05/2018 07:07 pm
Read the L2 ISS Daily Status Reports sometime. For a solved problem, life support equipment fails depressingly often.
That's because it's designed to meet more criteria than 'reliable'. For instance: automatic, low-power, low-volume, low-mass, low need for re-supply, etc. The fact that "life support equipment fails depressingly often" tells you that 'not failing' is not the over-riding priority!
Post by: the_other_Doug on 02/05/2018 07:16 pm
Life support isn't talked about for this mission simply because it's a "solved" problem for journeys of a few days. How many astronaut hours/days/years have the various space agencies racked up in LEO? How many fatalities from a life support failure? I can't find 1.
Not to dismiss it entirely but peeps tend to focus on the "not done before" and not the "been there done that".
There has been one in-flight failure of a portion of the ECLSS -- the vent system -- which claimed the lives of the Soyuz 11 crew. You could also argue that, if the LiOH door scraping a wire bundle actually did provide the spark generator required, the early Apollo ECLSS was, if not responsible, at the very least involved in the Apollo 1 fire. That was not in-flight, of course.
But yeah, no fatalities involving ECLSS since 1971. That's not to say there have not been failures that pushed crews to use back-up systems for greater or lesser amounts of time, especially onboard ISS and the Mir and Salyuts. And those all happened in LEO, where, if your primary and backup systems both go down, you have the option of coming home instead of dying. That made a lot of people uncomfortable during Apollo, when the crews were, at times, up to three days from home, and makes people even more uncomfortable thinking about crews who are months or years away from home....
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/05/2018 07:25 pm
And if it proves itself repeatedly and consistently, with margin too ... it would be extremely valuable as a BLEO "safe lifeboat" at the least.Read the L2 ISS Daily Status Reports sometime. For a solved problem, life support equipment fails depressingly often.
That's because it's designed to meet more criteria than 'reliable'. For instance: automatic, low-power, low-volume, low-mass, low need for re-supply, etc. The fact that "life support equipment fails depressingly often" tells you that 'not failing' is not the over-riding priority!
Earlier here suggested a use of Dragon 2 + FH as a LON for Orion missions, when if it wasn't used, you'd fly a lunar free return mission with the stack to recoup the cost. A form of "public/private partnership?"
Post by: DrRobin on 02/05/2018 07:30 pm
Recognize this individual? I was supposed to be hosting her on this dive, but instead was fighting for my life in a hyperbaric chamber in northern FL instead... (Suni took that photo as encouragement for me and I’ll forever be grateful)I do! Captain Williams is probably the _second_ most famous graduate of Needham High, in the small Boston-area town where my family has lived for the past twenty years (Olympic Gold Medal Gymnast Aly Raisman being the first, at least with the general public.). The town recently broke ground just a few blocks from our house on what will soon be Sunita T. Williams Elementary School! https://patch.com/massachusetts/needham/needham-breaks-ground-sunita-t-williams-elementary-school (We had a parade in her honor back in 2007, where my family got a chance to meet her.)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180205/a8b0ed4b179b4256107ad25ab79c936b.jpg)
Post by: rockets4life97 on 02/05/2018 08:39 pm
Quote
Musk: looks like development of BFR is moving quickly, and won’t be necessary to qualify Falcon Heavy for crewed spaceflight..
So, can this mission fly on F9 or is any mission like this now going to have to wait for BFR?
Post by: jpo234 on 02/05/2018 08:40 pm
How much better and easier could BFR do this mission? A crew version of BFS could have 100 tourists making the trip in comfort, with presumably much better viewing. Even if the BFR launch cost ends up being $50m, SpaceX could charge a nice $1m per person and still make a 100% markup on the flight. Compared to $50m per person or whatever the 2 Dragon passangers are being charged.
Plus BFS could have a toilet on board, which is priceless..
I guess what I'm saying is if BFR is to be ready around 2024, then it might be worthwhile to just wait for it and do this mission in style.
Ha!
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/960628075171106816
Quote
Musk: looks like development of BFR is moving quickly, and won’t be necessary to qualify Falcon Heavy for crewed spaceflight.
Post by: envy887 on 02/05/2018 08:44 pm
Edit: Or they are planning to send the crew up on F9, and launch the departure vehicle uncrewed. Adds some costs, but could potentially be done sooner than crew-rating FH. Only the upper stage needs to be crew-rated, and that is the same as F9 anyway.
Post by: cebri on 02/05/2018 08:48 pm
Quote
Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust)
Musk: we kind of tabled Crew Dragon on Falcon Heavy (including the cislunar mission announced last Feb.) and focus our energies on BFR.
RIP Grey Dragon
Post by: jpo234 on 02/05/2018 08:48 pm
Wow. That's either real bad news about this circumlunar flight or real good news about BFR.
Edit: Or they are planning to send the crew up on F9, and launch the departure vehicle uncrewed. Adds some costs, but could potentially be done sooner than crew-rating FH. Only the upper stage needs to be crew-rated, and that is the same as F9 anyway.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/960630695788990465
Quote
Musk: we kind of tabled Crew Dragon on Falcon Heavy (including the cislunar mission announced last Feb.) and focus our energies on BFR.
Post by: envy887 on 02/05/2018 08:52 pm
Wow. That's either real bad news about this circumlunar flight or real good news about BFR.
Edit: Or they are planning to send the crew up on F9, and launch the departure vehicle uncrewed. Adds some costs, but could potentially be done sooner than crew-rating FH. Only the upper stage needs to be crew-rated, and that is the same as F9 anyway.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/960630695788990465QuoteMusk: we kind of tabled Crew Dragon on Falcon Heavy (including the cislunar mission announced last Feb.) and focus our energies on BFR.
Kind of sounds like he thinks BFR can launch before 2022.
Post by: Svetoslav on 02/05/2018 08:53 pm
Perhaps the Trump administation or NASA could change their mind about Falcon Heavy and come up with a lunar plan.
Post by: cebri on 02/05/2018 08:54 pm
Wow. That's either real bad news about this circumlunar flight or real good news about BFR.
Edit: Or they are planning to send the crew up on F9, and launch the departure vehicle uncrewed. Adds some costs, but could potentially be done sooner than crew-rating FH. Only the upper stage needs to be crew-rated, and that is the same as F9 anyway.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/960630695788990465QuoteMusk: we kind of tabled Crew Dragon on Falcon Heavy (including the cislunar mission announced last Feb.) and focus our energies on BFR.
Kind of sounds like he thinks BFR can launch before 2022.
Unless something fundamental changes and somehow the US goverment agrees to fund part of the development, this is not happening.
Post by: speedevil on 02/05/2018 08:54 pm
Kind of sounds like he thinks BFR can launch before 2022.
Maybe FH delay + BFR delay = 0?
Post by: jpo234 on 02/05/2018 08:59 pm
Kind of sounds like he thinks BFR can launch before 2022.
Maybe FH delay + BFR delay = 0?
FH delay = 5 years, so BFR delay = -5 years
2022 + (-5) = 2017. Did not happen.
Post by: speedevil on 02/05/2018 09:01 pm
Kind of sounds like he thinks BFR can launch before 2022.
Unless something fundamental changes and somehow the US goverment agrees to fund part of the development, this is not happening.
You may not - quite - need BFR to launch a round-the moon mission.
If you can for example do BFS-SSTO to an equatorial orbit (perhaps with a launch from an equatorial or more-so launch site) and then refuel 50 times in orbit before shuttling up the crew, ...
(I am aware you probably mean you don't believe in this either).
Post by: envy887 on 02/05/2018 09:08 pm
Kind of sounds like he thinks BFR can launch before 2022.
Maybe FH delay + BFR delay = 0?
FH delay = 5 years, so BFR delay = -5 years
2022 + (-5) = 2017. Did not happen.
Well the FH circumlunar mission wouldn't happen this year. Maybe 2019. That's the delay he's talking about.
Post by: Negan on 02/05/2018 09:13 pm
Wow. That's either real bad news about this circumlunar flight or real good news about BFR.
Edit: Or they are planning to send the crew up on F9, and launch the departure vehicle uncrewed. Adds some costs, but could potentially be done sooner than crew-rating FH. Only the upper stage needs to be crew-rated, and that is the same as F9 anyway.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/960630695788990465QuoteMusk: we kind of tabled Crew Dragon on Falcon Heavy (including the cislunar mission announced last Feb.) and focus our energies on BFR.
Kind of sounds like he thinks BFR can launch before 2022.
The 2022 date was for launching to Mars.
Post by: Norm38 on 02/06/2018 12:34 am
And it seems like they would have to do shakedown cruises before they can strike out for Mars.
So the Luna cruises (and they can do a lot of them quickly), set the stage for Mars.
I get the disappointment, but if crewed FH is a dead end, then every minute spent on it delays the Mars flights.
Post by: GWH on 02/06/2018 04:02 am
Post by: mlindner on 02/06/2018 04:36 am
Post by: aquanaut99 on 02/06/2018 05:55 am
Really brings the number of exciting future SpaceX launches down to zero.
Yes. It also suddenly made me far less excited about today's launch. I wonder if SpaceX is really being 100% truthful here...
*Conspiracy theory mode on* I could see some political pressure behind the scenes NOT to man-rate Falcon Heavy. Because, if a man-rated FH did carry out a circumlunar flight on the anniversary of Apollo 11, then NASA would be hard-pressed to justify continuing SLS ("why build a man-rated rocket that can loft 70 mT to LEO for 2 billion when we already have one that lofts 64mT for only 200 million?"). Without a man-rated FH, NASA can still claim SLS is needed because it's the only super-heavy launcher "safe enough for astronauts". As for BFR/BFS, looking at the past track-record of SpaceX, it will probably fly 5 years late, so around 2027. By then, even SLS should have had a few successful missions under its belt, making it harder to cancel. Actually, this might even be a win-win situation for both SpaceX and NASA, just not for the taxpayer... *Conspiracy theory mode off*
Post by: zodiacchris on 02/06/2018 07:04 am
Heavy really seems to be shrinking to an exercise in learning for SX, nice to have, but an evolutionary dead end on the way to Mars. Still, it’ll be great to see the monster fly tomorrow, and if it’s just to show that SX can deliver on their promises, which makes BFR much more real.
Onwards, upwards! 8)
Oh, I did spend five days in a barographic chamber, too, when I had the bends. Lying there in my claustrophobic glass tube, breathing pure oxygen and wearing paper undies, with the doctors voice crackling on the intercom, I thought to myself that this was probably the closest I’ll get to being in a space capsule. And way less painful than when I broke my back in a flying accident...
Post by: meberbs on 02/06/2018 07:28 am
Really brings the number of exciting future SpaceX launches down to zero.What about the first (or maybe second) commercially built vehicle performing a manned launch at the end of this year?
Or the first suborbital tests of a prototype integrated Mars ascent/Earth return vehicle next year?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/06/2018 08:06 am
I'll be very disappointed if the Lunar Tourist mission doesn't happen! :( I even wrote a story about it ;) Still; I'm intrigued by the possibility of another variant of the Lunar Dragon mission: 2x launches of Falcon 9, Block 5 - 1x reusable and 1x fully expendable...Kind of sounds like he thinks BFR can launch before 2022.
Maybe FH delay + BFR delay = 0?
FH delay = 5 years, so BFR delay = -5 years
2022 + (-5) = 2017. Did not happen.
Well the FH circumlunar mission wouldn't happen this year. Maybe 2019. That's the delay he's talking about.
Launch 1: Crew Dragon into Low Earth orbit. First stage lands on a barge fairly far out at sea.
Launch 2: Falcon 9, Block 5 places upper stage into orbit with the largest propellant load possible for a fully expendable launch: about 20 tons of prop. The Crew Dragon rendezvous and docks with the stage in less than 6 hours and then the Trans-Lunar injection burn happens. My question(s) is this - would there be enough delta-v to push that Dragon to escape velocity? Would the Dragon need an increased propellant supply to perform more maneuvers? Is the cost profile for 2x Falcon 9, Block 5 comparable to a single, all-up Falcon Heavy launch? Does the Falcon Heavy have to have some extra man-rating? I thought the whole Block 5 Falcon family was man-rated...
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/06/2018 08:09 am
Post by: Svetoslav on 02/06/2018 08:27 am
Nobody really believes BFR will be ready around 2025, right? The Heavy delays spread within a 5-year period. I'd say that if Musk says 2025, in reality this means 2030.
This in fact means more delays for beyond-Low Earth Orbit missions. However, I prefer for Musk and other private companies to stop talking too much about Moon and Mars and focus on near space. It's closer. How about sending a man to space before this decade is out?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/06/2018 08:40 am
Although this post will annoy certain people, this is a perfect proof on why Musk amazing peopleism is a bad thing. To put it short, SpaceX did show significant progress during the last few years. But he dropped far too many promising plans. Red Dragon. Lunar Dragon. Falcon Heavy for human missions.Falcon Heavy took about 5 years longer than promised to happen. I fully expect the much harder BFR/BFS to be as much as ten years late. I am a amazing people, I guess. But I'm a fairly realistic one. But I would be delighted to be wrong. I think there's what Elon wants, what the critics say will happen - and then there's reality. Sometimes; neither will get what they want.
Nobody really believes BFR will be ready around 2025, right? The Heavy delays spread within a 5-year period. I'd say that if Musk says 2025, in reality this means 2030.
This in fact means more delays for beyond-Low Earth Orbit missions. However, I prefer for Musk and other private companies to stop talking too much about Moon and Mars and focus on near space. It's closer. How about sending a man to space before this decade is out?
Post by: JamesH65 on 02/06/2018 08:47 am
Although this post will annoy certain people, this is a perfect proof on why Musk amazing peopleism is a bad thing. To put it short, SpaceX did show significant progress during the last few years. But he dropped far too many promising plans. Red Dragon. Lunar Dragon. Falcon Heavy for human missions.
Nobody really believes BFR will be ready around 2025, right? The Heavy delays spread within a 5-year period. I'd say that if Musk says 2025, in reality this means 2030.
This in fact means more delays for beyond-Low Earth Orbit missions. However, I prefer for Musk and other private companies to stop talking too much about Moon and Mars and focus on near space. It's closer. How about sending a man to space before this decade is out?
You think they were promising plans, SpaceX disagree, because they have dropped them. Who to beleive? My thoughts on Red/Grey dragon was they were a waste of development time. As with a human rated FH - they have the F9 for that. And that will certainly send humans to Earth orbit within two/three years.
2025 seems about right for BFx to me. Their 2022 aspiorational date seems too optimisitic.
Post by: Svetoslav on 02/06/2018 08:48 am
Just two years ago the Proton rocket had a large market. Now the almost total lack of customers is astounding. The smallsat revolution is just starting, and we've yet to see who'll purchase small and heavy lift vehicles.
On the other side, the question : "What market could BFR have?" should be paraphrased as : "What market could BFR have BESIDES human spaceflight and beyond-LEO missions?"
If the answer is "nothing", and the answer for Falcon Heavy is also "nothing", I dare say: use the rocket which already exists.
My prediction is that after Falcon Heavy achieves a successful flight (now or later), the ball is passed to the President and the Congress. If they push for Lunar mission, their decision will be the one who matters.
Post by: su27k on 02/06/2018 10:28 am
Although this post will annoy certain people, this is a perfect proof on why Musk amazing peopleism is a bad thing. To put it short, SpaceX did show significant progress during the last few years. But he dropped far too many promising plans. Red Dragon. Lunar Dragon. Falcon Heavy for human missions.
So what? The Russians and NASA dropped many many more promising plans than SpaceX. I propose the measurement of greatness should be how much actual progress has been made, not how many plans are dropped. (BTW, how is any of these related to "amazing peopleism" is beyond me...)
Post by: Svetoslav on 02/06/2018 10:47 am
So what? The Russians and NASA dropped many many more promising plans than SpaceX. I propose the measurement of greatness should be how much actual progress has been made, not how many plans are dropped. (BTW, how is any of these related to "amazing peopleism" is beyond me...)
It's good that you mentioned NASA and the Russians. While NASA didn't have anything besides the Shuttle, it was believed that Russia is able to send humans beyond LEO faster. Because of a heavy launch vehicle (Proton) + spacecraft that's ready (Soyuz) + an escape stage. You have the launch vehicle, you have the spacecraft - just add a reinforced heat shield and make the stage, and you're ready.
This was how you were supposed to send tourists to the Moon. SpaceX was to use a Falcon Heavy rocket and Dragon.
Don't get me wrong - what SpaceX is doing with regards to reusability and launch vehicles is very important. They're now an important factor of the launch market. However, launch vehicles can take you only that far. You still need to decide what you're going to do with these launch vehicles and whether you have the will to do it. Jumping from one launch vehicle to another and then to another doesn't seem wise.
Sending a car with a test dummy to Mars is one thing. But are we serious about sending humans beyond LEO? This questions needs to be answered. Public stunts won't send you to Mars.. or the Moon... or even to LEO.
Post by: speedevil on 02/06/2018 11:32 am
Launch 1: Crew Dragon into Low Earth orbit. First stage lands on a barge fairly far out at sea.
Launch 2: Falcon 9, Block 5 places upper stage into orbit with the largest propellant load possible for a fully expendable launch: about 20 tons of prop. The Crew Dragon rendezvous and docks with the stage in less than 6 hours and then the Trans-Lunar injection burn happens. My question(s) is this - would there be enough delta-v to push that Dragon to escape velocity? Would the Dragon need an increased propellant supply to perform more maneuvers? Is the cost profile for 2x Falcon 9, Block 5 comparable to a single, all-up Falcon Heavy launch? Does the Falcon Heavy have to have some extra man-rating? I thought the whole Block 5 Falcon family was man-rated...
Cost for a fully reusable FH launch should be less than two F9 launches.
Falcon Heavy is a different rocket for Falcon 9.
'Man Rating' - which is a sort-of-fuzzy concept if you're not in the NASA framework is for the whole system as launched generally, for good reasons.
'largest propellant load for an expendable stage' is not quite 22.8 tons remaining, if you launch it with no payload, I suspect it'll be close.
http://www.quantumg.net/rocketeq.html is useful.
For ISP of 348, initial mass of 111500, dry mass of 4000, you get a delta-v of 11.3km/s.
More relevantly, for the max payload 22800kg+4000, 26800 final mass, 111500+22800= 134300 initial mass, we get 5.5km/s.
Backing that out, and starting with an initial mass of 111500 comes out with 22250kg, which makes sense.
If we assume dragon 2 wet mass for everything you need for the trip is 10000kg, this gets you 2100m/s.
This is slighly short of what you want for TLI, but can probably be made up by the fact that you can start out in a moderately more energetic orbit than LEO, and a few hundred m/s from dragon.
If we transfer over propellant - even only LOX - to the 'launched empty' stage from the dragon one, it all gets rather better.
Post by: su27k on 02/06/2018 11:46 am
So what? The Russians and NASA dropped many many more promising plans than SpaceX. I propose the measurement of greatness should be how much actual progress has been made, not how many plans are dropped. (BTW, how is any of these related to "amazing peopleism" is beyond me...)
It's good that you mentioned NASA and the Russians. While NASA didn't have anything besides the Shuttle, it was believed that Russia is able to send humans beyond LEO faster. Because of a heavy launch vehicle (Proton) + spacecraft that's ready (Soyuz) + an escape stage. You have the launch vehicle, you have the spacecraft - just add a reinforced heat shield and make the stage, and you're ready.
This was how you were supposed to send tourists to the Moon. SpaceX was to use a Falcon Heavy rocket and Dragon.
And the Russians had this plan for what, 20 years? And it's going nowhere, hardly a convincing example of successful planning.
Also need to remember for SpaceX sending tourists to the Moon is not the objective, it's a means to an end, the end goal is City on Mars.
Quote
Don't get me wrong - what SpaceX is doing with regards to reusability and launch vehicles is very important. They're now an important factor of the launch market. However, launch vehicles can take you only that far. You still need to decide what you're going to do with these launch vehicles and whether you have the will to do it. Jumping from one launch vehicle to another and then to another doesn't seem wise.
SpaceX is not jumping to just another launch vehicle, EM made it clear they'll work on BFS next, that's Big Falcon Spaceship, not a simple LV.
Post by: woods170 on 02/06/2018 11:59 am
Although this post will annoy certain people, this is a perfect proof on why Musk amazing peopleism is a bad thing. To put it short, SpaceX did show significant progress during the last few years. But he dropped far too many promising plans. Red Dragon. Lunar Dragon. Falcon Heavy for human missions.
Respectfully, I disagree.
There was nothing promising about either Red Dragon or Lunar Dragon.
Red Dragon was always going to be a platform kit-bashed to do unmanned landings on Mars. From day 1 of the Red Dragon proposal it was clear that it would take a different spacecraft to actually land humans on Mars. As such, Red Dragon was mostly a distraction, courtesy of SpaceX involvement in the Commercial Crew Program. At best it would have replicated science that has already been done on Mars by NASA.
The two major aspects of Red Dragon, that could have contributed to ITS (aka BFR/BFS) were retro-propulsive Mars entry-and-descent and small-scale ISRU prototyping. Those are now deferred to the first, unmanned, missions of BFR/BFS. They are not off the table.
Lunar Dragon was a distraction as well because - again - it does not significantly contribute to the ultimate goal of SpaceX: humans to Mars. Flying just a few persons on such a small spacecraft does not generate enough revenue to significantly contribute to the budget needed for BFR/BFS. Flying 50 to 100 people around the Moon on a single flight is much more promising. Heck, for the same price-tag they might even land on the Moon.
Falcon Heavy was never intended to fly humans. Sticking a Crew Dragon on top for tourist missions to the Moon is a distraction. It requires mods to Falcon Heavy that were not originally intended to be part of the FH design. As such they add cost to the FH system and ties up engineering capability where those engineers really should be working on the actual Mars system (BFR/BFS). So, it is a distraction.
It was discussed in another thread that Crew Dragon is a technological dead-end once it is flying. And that is correct given that the Crew Dragon architecture has no place in the final Mars architecture. As such, any other mission based on the Crew Dragon architecture is therefor also a dead-end: Red Dragon, Lunar Dragon, DragonLab, etc.
Once Crew Dragon start flying CCP missions it becomes a sustainment program. But it will be killed, without remorse, the minute Crew Dragon missions are no longer needed by NASA.
Doing away with systems and architectures that have served their purpose but are no longer useful to SpaceX is part of what SpaceX is all about. There are plenty of examples: Falcon 1, Falcon 9 v1.0, Falcon 9 v1.1, Grasshopper, DragonLab, Red Dragon, Merlin 1A, Merlin 1C, Kestrel, Cargo Dragon (will be retired once the CRS-1 obligations have been met). Etc, etc.
It is as Elon stated it: from this point forward all balls are on BFR/BFS.
Post by: AbuSimbel on 02/06/2018 12:17 pm
Although this post will annoy certain people, this is a perfect proof on why Musk amazing peopleism is a bad thing. To put it short, SpaceX did show significant progress during the last few years. But he dropped far too many promising plans. Red Dragon. Lunar Dragon. Falcon Heavy for human missions.Yes it annoys people like me, for example.
Nobody really believes BFR will be ready around 2025, right? The Heavy delays spread within a 5-year period. I'd say that if Musk says 2025, in reality this means 2030.
This in fact means more delays for beyond-Low Earth Orbit missions. However, I prefer for Musk and other private companies to stop talking too much about Moon and Mars and focus on near space. It's closer. How about sending a man to space before this decade is out?
This whole 'Musk amazing peopleism' thing is really starting to annoying me. Not the alleged 'Musk amazing peoples' but the ones who engage in the noble battle of reminding others how stupid they're for trusting Musk, how irrational they're to think SpaceX's goals have a chance, how they should know better. I'm tired of people who start their arguments by discounting who disagrees with them and their opinion as wrong because they're 'irrational amazing peoples'. When you do it you do not become the bearer of the rational truth, you're just arrogant.
Guess what? From my experience I've found more irrationality and bias in the 'amazing people fighters' than in the ones they fight. It's not rational to engage in a personal crusade against an entrepreneur you don't even know because for whatever reason you hate his guts (not saying it is your case, just that I've seen many cases like this).
Most importantly: it's not rational to always assume the worst, it's not rational to predict the future basing solely on past performance pretending nothing has changed and progress doesn't exist.
No one in recent history has more experience in actually developing, building and operating rocket engines, reusable LVs, space capsules, building new launchpads and GSE, heck nobody has more actual, recent experience in flat-out rocket development than SpaceX has, at least not in the US! Despite all this many still treat them as inexperienced newcomers, dreamers with silly projects who don't know what they're talking about, always bet against them instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt.
To those people I say: that's irrationality! Always assuming the worst doesn't makes you a realist, it makes you a pessimist.
Quote
Nobody really believes BFR will be ready around 2025, right?Yes, yes I do. Guess I'm a amazing people for this right?
Well I'll tell you something: I'm convinced it's possible for it to launch into orbit well before 2022. The reason is many see the delays with FH, Crew Dragon, see Elon setting 'aspirational' deadlines and assume SpaceX is intrinsically not capable of delivering on schedule. I think there is more than that, and not analyzing the reasons behind those delays is superficial and leads to wrong conclusions. And those reasons are not only 'Elon sets impossible deadlines'. Thinking it all comes to that is not rational.
-FH is not 5 years late, the 2011 Falcon Heavy will never exist. Today's rocket is essentially its replacement with a different structural design, very different capabilities, reuse of the first stage. It wasn't only a different rocked for its design, but especially for its purpose: when it was introduced in 2011 the intentions were to 'launch as many Falcon 9s as Heavies', it was an important project, key to entering an existing market outside the capabilities of F9. But then, as the latter kept evolving, the purpose for FH kept eroding. With F9 Full thrust the design of the Heavy had to be heavily modified accordingly while its usefulness appeared more limited than ever, further slowing down its development.
None of this apply to BFR: it is now not only useful for SpaceX, but necessary for their constellation, Mars, and their sheer existence given how they're essentially betting everything on it. Also it doesn't have the disadvantage of depending on another evolving development flow like Falcon Heavy did with Falcon 9.
-Crew Dragon too had to adapt and change its development flow for Commercial Crew: Commercial Crew Crew Dragon is different from the manned capsule that Elon said would come 4 years after Cargo Dragon. Its development is late nonetheless, but 2 years late, not 5. Not only that, but those Commercial Crew delays are in part independent from SpaceX and, as many sources have stated, partly result from the difficulties of working with NASA and 'translating' between one development philosophy and another. Even in this case the BFR is a whole different story: they're trying to stay as independent as possible from other entities.
To sum up: the BFR is not only revolutionary as a vehicle: its development process is revolutionary in itself. It won't be paperwork-oriented, demonstrate it on paper before flight NASA style: it will leverage reusability from the start, with BFS suborbital testing and demonstrate its design by actually flying, cheaply, and acquiring flight history in doing so. Not to mention it will fully take advantage of SpaceX's development agility.
The genius lies in the fact that this Second stage + spacecraft design is so versatile that it's very prone to iteration: you can start by flying suborbitally the basic ship without the heath shield and acquire confidence in the design. Most of this confidence then gets passed by while the vehicle gradually transitions to the orbital cargo version by adding the heath shield, the payload interface and the dispensing equipment, and finally to a crew vehicle. Improvements can be even passed horizontally from one version to the others when they all fly. Other crewed capsules only acquire flight history by actually flying manned, the BFS will be proven in its reliability well before it flies crewed. The airframe, the propulsion systems, the tankage, the EDL will be flight tested with high fidelity from the beginning. I think it is possible for it to surclass every previous launch system in reliability very early in its development (1-2 years since the first orbital flight) and sport unprecedented reliability by expendable spaceflight standards (many orders of magnitude better) at the end of its development cycle (mid to late 2020s).
That's why I think it'll be much faster and easier to go from BFS cargo to the manned one (with cislunar ECLSS) than it has been to go from cargo dragon to crew dragon, and that a Lunar cruise could be possible in 2021-2022.
Post by: AbuSimbel on 02/06/2018 12:21 pm
Frankly, committing to the BFR (a vehicle designed with BEO in mind) seems to me much more serious than pursuing a one off, dangerous stunt like Gray Dragon was.So what? The Russians and NASA dropped many many more promising plans than SpaceX. I propose the measurement of greatness should be how much actual progress has been made, not how many plans are dropped. (BTW, how is any of these related to "amazing peopleism" is beyond me...)
It's good that you mentioned NASA and the Russians. While NASA didn't have anything besides the Shuttle, it was believed that Russia is able to send humans beyond LEO faster. Because of a heavy launch vehicle (Proton) + spacecraft that's ready (Soyuz) + an escape stage. You have the launch vehicle, you have the spacecraft - just add a reinforced heat shield and make the stage, and you're ready.
This was how you were supposed to send tourists to the Moon. SpaceX was to use a Falcon Heavy rocket and Dragon.
Don't get me wrong - what SpaceX is doing with regards to reusability and launch vehicles is very important. They're now an important factor of the launch market. However, launch vehicles can take you only that far. You still need to decide what you're going to do with these launch vehicles and whether you have the will to do it. Jumping from one launch vehicle to another and then to another doesn't seem wise.
Sending a car with a test dummy to Mars is one thing. But are we serious about sending humans beyond LEO? This questions needs to be answered. Public stunts won't send you to Mars.. or the Moon... or even to LEO.
Post by: Svetoslav on 02/06/2018 12:48 pm
Respectfully, I disagree.
There was nothing promising about either Red Dragon or Lunar Dragon.
Red Dragon was always going to be a platform kit-bashed to do unmanned landings on Mars. From day 1 of the Red Dragon proposal it was clear that it would take a different spacecraft to actually land humans on Mars. As such, Red Dragon was mostly a distraction, courtesy of SpaceX involvement in the Commercial Crew Program. At best it would have replicated science that has already been done on Mars by NASA.
That's just flatly wrong. And it's a perfect example of why such apologetics won't work. Initially it wasn't about BFR. BFR as a plan was embraced by Musk only after Dragon 2 was gutted so much during development, especially during the CCDev program, that it was abandoned. But initially it was Dragon advertised as the interplanetary spacecraft, outfitted with retro-rockets and capable of landing on any planetary bodies.
Now, when NASA oversees the crew vehicle development, we have a Dragon that serves the purpose of NASA, but no longer serves the dream of SpaceX. So Musk is pursuing his dream in the form of BFR.
Musk said the development of BFR is moving along quickly. Well, I don't believe it. What they have shown to us is an engine (a working one, indeed), and a powerpoint rocket.
Well, they can't build that powerpoint rocket without NASA and public funds. Just can't. They succeeded in building Falcon Heavy, but in order to cut costs, they are using two flight-proven boosters.
It won't work again with BFR, which is a brand new rocket.
Post by: mlindner on 02/06/2018 12:55 pm
Respectfully, I disagree.
There was nothing promising about either Red Dragon or Lunar Dragon.
Red Dragon was always going to be a platform kit-bashed to do unmanned landings on Mars. From day 1 of the Red Dragon proposal it was clear that it would take a different spacecraft to actually land humans on Mars. As such, Red Dragon was mostly a distraction, courtesy of SpaceX involvement in the Commercial Crew Program. At best it would have replicated science that has already been done on Mars by NASA.
That's just flatly wrong. And it's a perfect example of why such apologetics won't work. Initially it wasn't about BFR. BFR as a plan was embraced by Musk only after Dragon 2 was gutted so much during development, especially during the CCDev program, that it was abandoned. But initially it was Dragon advertised as the interplanetary spacecraft, outfitted with retro-rockets and capable of landing on any planetary bodies.
Now, when NASA oversees the crew vehicle development, we have a Dragon that serves the purpose of NASA, but no longer serves the dream of SpaceX. So Musk is pursuing his dream in the form of BFR.
Musk said the development of BFR is moving along quickly. Well, I don't believe it. What they have shown to us is an engine (a working one, indeed), and a powerpoint rocket.
Well, they can't build that powerpoint rocket without NASA and public funds. Just can't. They succeeded in building Falcon Heavy, but in order to cut costs, they are using two flight-proven boosters.
It won't work again with BFR, which is a brand new rocket.
I've heard this rhetoric before many times with SpaceX. Saying something is difficult or unlikely is one thing, but making blanket claims like "can't" or "won't work" has been proven again and again and again to hold no bearing for SpaceX. You'll end up on the wrong side a history, like many a pessimistic poster has done on this forum.
The first stages in rocket design is physics simulation and aerodynamic modeling via supercomputer with occasional testing to back up modeling. Vehicle profile aerodynamic modeling is very robust. The difficult bits are the engines and tank materials design. A lot of this testing will be done in simulation. They're already securing manufacturing facilities. You don't do that for a powerpoint rocket.
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/06/2018 01:01 pm
Respectfully, I disagree.
There was nothing promising about either Red Dragon or Lunar Dragon.
Red Dragon was always going to be a platform kit-bashed to do unmanned landings on Mars. From day 1 of the Red Dragon proposal it was clear that it would take a different spacecraft to actually land humans on Mars. As such, Red Dragon was mostly a distraction, courtesy of SpaceX involvement in the Commercial Crew Program. At best it would have replicated science that has already been done on Mars by NASA.
That's just flatly wrong. And it's a perfect example of why such apologetics won't work. Initially it wasn't about BFR. BFR as a plan was embraced by Musk only after Dragon 2 was gutted so much during development, especially during the CCDev program, that it was abandoned. But initially it was Dragon advertised as the interplanetary spacecraft, outfitted with retro-rockets and capable of landing on any planetary bodies.
Now, when NASA oversees the crew vehicle development, we have a Dragon that serves the purpose of NASA, but no longer serves the dream of SpaceX. So Musk is pursuing his dream in the form of BFR.
Musk said the development of BFR is moving along quickly. Well, I don't believe it. What they have shown to us is an engine (a working one, indeed), and a powerpoint rocket.
Well, they can't build that powerpoint rocket without NASA and public funds. Just can't. They succeeded in building Falcon Heavy, but in order to cut costs, they are using two flight-proven boosters.
It won't work again with BFR, which is a brand new rocket.
BFR was unveiled in 2016. That was before Red Dragon was cancelled. The scaled down BFR was presented in September 2017, as a more affordable alternative.
Red Dragon was always a mere precursor to BFR. Now they are just skipping that step.
Post by: Proponent on 02/06/2018 01:33 pm
On the other side, the question : "What market could BFR have?" should be paraphrased as : "What market could BFR have BESIDES human spaceflight and beyond-LEO missions?"
If the answer is "nothing", and the answer for Falcon Heavy is also "nothing", I dare say: use the rocket which already exists.
According to Musk, the purpose of the 6-hour coast for the demo is to demonstrate to DoD FH's ability to perform direct injection to GEO, so that's one market. Another is anything that flies on D4H (with the possible exception of very-high-energy missions?). Those are small markets, but since FH has so much in common with F9, it may well be enough to make FH viable, even if it's large capacity and relatively low cost don't engender additional uses.
Post by: Svetoslav on 02/06/2018 01:37 pm
Post by: speedevil on 02/06/2018 01:46 pm
If you want to go to Mars, there's a step which is unwise to be skipped. I'm talking, of course, about the Moon.Indeed.
Moon, Methone, Mercury, Mars.
Only makes sense.
Post by: rockets4life97 on 02/06/2018 01:51 pm
The mistake people make is comparing BFR development to FH instead of to F9. F9 is SpaceX's current workhorse. BFR is SpaceX's next workhorse. It is hard to say that F9 was 5 years late. I do expect BFR to fly in the early 2020s. I'm way more confident in BFR flying than the SLS full stack ever flying.
Post by: Svetoslav on 02/06/2018 02:03 pm
I'm asking once again: Will there be a market for BFR rocket? Who will buy it?
Post by: mme on 02/06/2018 02:04 pm
If you want to go to Mars, there's a step which is unwise to be skipped. I'm talking, of course, about the Moon.I'm not sold on that necessity (other than cislunar shakedown missions.) But even if it's wise to go to the Moon first, going there with the BFS is more relevant than going with FH and Crew Dragon.
This isn't a BFR thread...This is the crewed cislunar thread. I think the current plan is now to do it with BFR (maybe with the original customers even, but definitely for shakedown flights.) Supposedly (ignoring development cost) it will be relatively cheap to launch.
The mistake people make is comparing BFR development to FH instead of to F9. F9 is SpaceX's current workhorse. BFR is SpaceX's next workhorse. It is hard to say that F9 was 5 years late. I do expect BFR to fly in the early 2020s. I'm way more confident in BFR flying than the SLS full stack ever flying.
Post by: rockets4life97 on 02/06/2018 02:07 pm
I'm asking once again: Will there be a market for BFR rocket? Who will buy it?
Commercial and government satellite customers who buy F9 and FH currently, including SpaceX's Starlink constellation. Remember BFR can do all those flights fully reusable and half an order of magnitude cheaper than F9/FH.
Everything else after that (missions to the rest of the solar system, point-to-point travel) is gravy.
Post by: Svetoslav on 02/06/2018 02:09 pm
Post by: mme on 02/06/2018 02:12 pm
rockets4life97 may be right.Starlink for one. USG for their "Back to the Moon, no Mars, no an asteroid but call it Mars, no I mean the Moon" missions. It looks like it'll have VI so the USG for missions that require a heavy and VI.
I'm asking once again: Will there be a market for BFR rocket? Who will buy it?
If the fuel cost is less than the cost of a second stage and assorted recovery operations that's all that matters.
No idea if it'll happen but it doesn't seem impossible.
Post by: whitelancer64 on 02/06/2018 02:13 pm
If you want to go to Mars, there's a step which is unwise to be skipped. I'm talking, of course, about the Moon.
If you want to go to Mars, then the Moon is an expensive and unnecessary distraction. Just go to Mars.
Post by: envy887 on 02/06/2018 02:21 pm
Falcon Heavy took about 5 years longer than promised to happen. I fully expect the much harder BFR/BFS to be as much as ten years late.FH was hard, yes. But it was delayed mainly because SpaceX was focused on other projects (3 versions of F9, Dragon, Crew Dragon). SpaceX can do BFR faster by not having other development projects.
...
Post by: tdperk on 02/06/2018 02:26 pm
only after Dragon 2 was gutted so much during development, especially during the CCDev program, that it was abandoned
What else do you have wrong?, you should wonder. It is not abandoned at all. In fact, solely the propulsive landing was cancelled.
Musk said the development of BFR is moving along quickly. Well, I don't believe it.
You are free not to.
Well, they can't build that powerpoint rocket without NASA and public funds. Just can't. They succeeded in building Falcon Heavy, but in order to cut costs, they are using two flight-proven boosters.
It won't work again with BFR, which is a brand new rocket.
It was always the plan (after the unneeded F5 was cancelled) to have the side boosters be as similar as possible to the F9 center core--they were going to be F9 for about the last what, 7 years now?
It cost them $400mn to develop the FH, and in that time they also developed the Block 5 F9. FH and F9b5 let them earn about $400mn per year at least just from launches. They have the money to build the BFR system.
Will there be a market for BFR rocket? Who will buy it?
Anyone who wants access to space will gladly buy a ride on the cheapest launcher available. Possibly a fully re-usable smallsat launcher could undercut them on cost for LEO only very small payloads.
And as mentioned, the satellite internet constellation needs lofting and maintenance. For that matter the competing constellation operators may well find SpaceX is their bet for lifting their birds.
Post by: hkultala on 02/06/2018 03:34 pm
So what? The Russians and NASA dropped many many more promising plans than SpaceX. I propose the measurement of greatness should be how much actual progress has been made, not how many plans are dropped. (BTW, how is any of these related to "amazing peopleism" is beyond me...)
It's good that you mentioned NASA and the Russians. While NASA didn't have anything besides the Shuttle, it was believed that Russia is able to send humans beyond LEO faster. Because of a heavy launch vehicle (Proton) + spacecraft that's ready (Soyuz) + an escape stage. You have the launch vehicle, you have the spacecraft - just add a reinforced heat shield and make the stage, and you're ready.
Talk about using proton for manned launch is pure fantasy.
1) Proton is not a man-rated launched and will NEVER be. Russians are never going to put humans on board a rocket which is mainly using hypergolic fuels
2) Even if they would ignore all the safety considerations, they simply do not have a launch pad to launch humans on a proton.
3) You don't just plug in a "reinforced heat shield" into soyuz. Space capsules are not legoes.
Quote
This was how you were supposed to send tourists to the Moon. SpaceX was to use a Falcon Heavy rocket and Dragon.
Don't get me wrong - what SpaceX is doing with regards to reusability and launch vehicles is very important. They're now an important factor of the launch market. However, launch vehicles can take you only that far. You still need to decide what you're going to do with these launch vehicles and whether you have the will to do it. Jumping from one launch vehicle to another and then to another doesn't seem wise.
Sending a car with a test dummy to Mars is one thing. But are we serious about sending humans beyond LEO? This questions needs to be answered. Public stunts won't send you to Mars.. or the Moon... or even to LEO.
Developing both human-rated capsule with a good heat shield and human-rated heavy lifter and a launch site which can operate both will. SpaceX is doing exactly all the things that allow human missions higher than LEO
Russians, on the other hand, are only launching humans into LEO on the rockets and capsules Korolev designed some 60 years ago, and drawing new powerpoint rocket and capsule plans every two years.
Angara 1.1, Angara-3, Angara-7, Angara-5P, Soyuz-3, Rus-M, Kliper, what happened to you?
Soyuz-5/Soyuz-7, Angara-5P, Angara-5V, Proton Light, Proton Medium, Yenisei-5, Federatsiya, has any of these yet progressed from powerpoint stage?
Post by: hkultala on 02/06/2018 03:43 pm
Falcon Heavy was never intended to fly humans. Sticking a Crew Dragon on top for tourist missions to the Moon is a distraction. It requires mods to Falcon Heavy that were not originally intended to be part of the FH design. As such they add cost to the FH system and ties up engineering capability where those engineers really should be working on the actual Mars system (BFR/BFS). So, it is a distraction.
What mods are you talking about?
AFAIK FH was always meant to be similar enought to F9 that it can trivially be used to fly humans when F9 has been developed to fly humans.
Quote
It was discussed in another thread that Crew Dragon is a technological dead-end once it is flying.
Crew dragon is a vehicle that earns SpaceX money to develop BFS.
And it's not a complete dead end. There are many aspects that help manned BFS development in crew dragon; life support, docking systems, flight controls, seas, space suits etc.
Quote
Doing away with systems and architectures that have served their purpose but are no longer useful to SpaceX is part of what SpaceX is all about. There are plenty of examples: Falcon 1, Falcon 9 v1.0, Falcon 9 v1.1, Grasshopper, DragonLab, Red Dragon, Merlin 1A, Merlin 1C, Kestrel, Cargo Dragon (will be retired once the CRS-1 obligations have been met). Etc, etc.
Grashopper was always a prototype/research vehicle, never a product. Stupid to use it as an example.
And Merlin 1A->1D was just evolution fo the engine design. Of course they replace the old version with the new version..
Same can be said about the F9 evolution.
The only really abandoned thing here is F1.
Post by: OxCartMark on 02/06/2018 04:56 pm
His statement of not man rating it can be combined with his statement that FH obsoletes other super heavy competition to mean that he's now so confident that congress will stop funding SLS after (assuming) a FH demo flight or two that he's not going to fund man rating FH, he's betting on the U.S. government to come to his door begging for (and paying for) SpaceX to man rate FH.
Post by: woods170 on 02/06/2018 05:14 pm
Respectfully, I disagree.
There was nothing promising about either Red Dragon or Lunar Dragon.
Red Dragon was always going to be a platform kit-bashed to do unmanned landings on Mars. From day 1 of the Red Dragon proposal it was clear that it would take a different spacecraft to actually land humans on Mars. As such, Red Dragon was mostly a distraction, courtesy of SpaceX involvement in the Commercial Crew Program. At best it would have replicated science that has already been done on Mars by NASA.
That's just flatly wrong. And it's a perfect example of why such apologetics won't work. Initially it wasn't about BFR. BFR as a plan was embraced by Musk only after Dragon 2 was gutted so much during development, especially during the CCDev program, that it was abandoned. But initially it was Dragon advertised as the interplanetary spacecraft, outfitted with retro-rockets and capable of landing on any planetary bodies.
No, in fact you are flat-out wrong. SpaceX in general, and Elon Musk in general, has been working on BFR/BFS for a long time. Initial design-work began long before Red Dragon was cancelled.
Proof for this is in L2 where hints for BFR/BFS had been popping-up at least 3 years before the 2016 IAC reveal of ITS. Mind you, propulsive landing wasn't cut from Crew Dragon until late 2016.
Another point where you are flat-out wrong is about Crew Dragon being the interplanetary spacecraft. It was to be the UNMANNED interplanetary spacecraft. Crew Dragon never was capable of putting a crew on the Moon and leave again, let alone doing the same on Mars. One way trips only. And thus always planned to be unmanned, like Red Dragon. Only manned flights of the Crew Dragon architecture are LEO-and-back.
Post by: woods170 on 02/06/2018 05:16 pm
If you want to go to Mars, there's a step which is unwise to be skipped. I'm talking, of course, about the Moon.That is your personal opinion, and it is not supported by facts.
Post by: Svetoslav on 02/06/2018 05:23 pm
No, in fact you are flat-out wrong. SpaceX in general, and Elon Musk in general, has been working on BFR/BFS for a long time. Initial design-work began long before Red Dragon was cancelled.
Proof for this is in L2 where hints for BFR/BFS had been popping-up at least 3 years before the 2016 IAC reveal of ITS. Mind you, propulsive landing wasn't cut from Crew Dragon until late 2016.
Everybody relies on data he has access to. I'll get a L2 access, hopefully in the near future. But I admit - I may have missed certain information due to that.
Post by: envy887 on 02/06/2018 05:39 pm
Respectfully, I disagree.
There was nothing promising about either Red Dragon or Lunar Dragon.
Red Dragon was always going to be a platform kit-bashed to do unmanned landings on Mars. From day 1 of the Red Dragon proposal it was clear that it would take a different spacecraft to actually land humans on Mars. As such, Red Dragon was mostly a distraction, courtesy of SpaceX involvement in the Commercial Crew Program. At best it would have replicated science that has already been done on Mars by NASA.
That's just flatly wrong. And it's a perfect example of why such apologetics won't work. Initially it wasn't about BFR. BFR as a plan was embraced by Musk only after Dragon 2 was gutted so much during development, especially during the CCDev program, that it was abandoned. But initially it was Dragon advertised as the interplanetary spacecraft, outfitted with retro-rockets and capable of landing on any planetary bodies.
No, in fact you are flat-out wrong. SpaceX in general, and Elon Musk in general, has been working on BFR/BFS for a long time. Initial design-work began long before Red Dragon was cancelled.
Proof for this is in L2 where hints for BFR/BFS had been popping-up at least 3 years before the 2016 IAC reveal of ITS. Mind you, propulsive landing wasn't cut from Crew Dragon until late 2016.
Another point where you are flat-out wrong is about Crew Dragon being the interplanetary spacecraft. It was to be the UNMANNED interplanetary spacecraft. Crew Dragon never was capable of putting a crew on the Moon and leave again, let alone doing the same on Mars. One way trips only. And thus always planned to be unmanned, like Red Dragon. Only manned flights of the Crew Dragon architecture are LEO-and-back.
I've never seen any SpaceX plans for crewed landings with Dragon on any planetary body, or for crewed flights anywhere beyond cislunar space. They were always going to build a larger crewed ship for interplanetary flights. First it was the MCT, then ITS, then BFS.
However, I don't know how much "working on the design" is a useful metric for progress. The design has changed frequently, and I don't know that even now it's stable enough to go through the SpaceX equivalent of a PDR.
But SpaceX HAS been working on the fundamental technologies for BFS for a very long time. Raptor work started over 5 years ago, PICA-X at least 5 years before that. They have been working on LOX-compatible composite structures for some 13 years. Precision VTVL flight, supersonic retropropulsion, engine and structure refurbishment and reuse, deep space avionics, long duration ECLSS, and many more key technologies all have heritage in Falcon and Dragon.
Post by: llanitedave on 02/06/2018 05:44 pm
No, in fact you are flat-out wrong. SpaceX in general, and Elon Musk in general, has been working on BFR/BFS for a long time. Initial design-work began long before Red Dragon was cancelled.
Proof for this is in L2 where hints for BFR/BFS had been popping-up at least 3 years before the 2016 IAC reveal of ITS. Mind you, propulsive landing wasn't cut from Crew Dragon until late 2016.
Everybody relies on data he has access to. I'll get a L2 access, hopefully in the near future. But I admit - I may have missed certain information due to that.
Which is a good lesson in making sure you do have your facts prior to making emphatic claims about what is and is not possible. Otherwise, you send your credibility straight down the tubes.
Post by: Svetoslav on 02/06/2018 06:05 pm
Which is a good lesson in making sure you do have your facts prior to making emphatic claims about what is and is not possible. Otherwise, you send your credibility straight down the tubes.
I don't think that's a big problem.
1. I'm a biologist. I know the time to retract my claim when new and previously unaccessible information is presented to me. In the future, I will correct this, get the access to L2 and have more basis for my claims. It's not the end of the world if someone has more information than me. I won't cry because of that. Rather, I'll be happy to learn something new and move on.
2. I'm not a politician. Politicians care too much about their reputation, their belief systems and when new information contradicts what they believe in, they have to find another facts fitting into their world view. The option to retract claims is a virtue for those who conduct research.
3. I may be wrong for what is or not possible. Okay. But my basic claim was something different - entrepreneurs who give ambitions schedules they fail to meet, or cancel projects, are not doing a good favor to the society. I already wrote about that in New Shepard's thread. It crushes hopes. In the end, it's not important whether I'm wrong, as I'm not that famous. But it is important when a famous person promises something and fails to deliver.
Post by: Lar on 02/06/2018 06:41 pm
On topic factor is low.
Squabble factor is high.
Work on those numbers or the thread will be scrubbed...
Post by: envy887 on 02/07/2018 01:08 am
Wrong. BFR is much simpler than FH. BFS is a bit more complex, but that's why they are doing it first.This isn't a BFR thread...You're right.
The mistake people make is comparing BFR development to FH
BFR is more complex in every way except one
Quote
and it has even less of a need to exist than FH.
Also wrong. SpaceX's raison d'être is to transport humans to Mars and back. Falcon Heavy cannot transport humans to Mars and back. BFR/BFS can. To SpaceX, that is not just a reason, but the very exact reason they exist.
How many times did Musk say "We are going to finish development work shortly on everything else and focus all our energy on Falcon Heavy"? Never. Yet he says that all the time about BFR/BFS. Why do you think that is?
Post by: the_other_Doug on 02/07/2018 01:39 am
There are no sellable missions that currently exist that cannot be served by F9 and FH, so by definition BFR has no reason to exist besides speculation.
I'm gonna let others shoot down your bullet points. This one I couldn't pass up.
The reason BFR/BFS has to exist is that SpaceX wants to make the human race interplanetary, and thus want to create a transportation system capable of moving thousands of people (or more) to Mars in just a few decades. That is what the BFR/BFS is.
You can have whatever conclusion you like about whether they will be able to pull that off or not. But there can be no speculation as to the one, sole reason why SpaceX exists, and why it wants to build the BFR/BFS. That reason is extremely well documented.
And it ain't to launch comsats.
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/07/2018 01:46 am
...Nope.
There are no sellable missions that currently exist that cannot be served by F9 and FH, so by definition ...
Post by: envy887 on 02/07/2018 02:06 am
Everything about BFR is more complex:Wrong. BFR is much simpler than FH. BFS is a bit more complex, but that's why they are doing it first.This isn't a BFR thread...You're right.
The mistake people make is comparing BFR development to FH
BFR is more complex in every way except oneQuoteand it has even less of a need to exist than FH.
Also wrong. SpaceX's raison d'être is to transport humans to Mars and back. Falcon Heavy cannot transport humans to Mars and back. BFR/BFS can. To SpaceX, that is not just a reason, but the very exact reason they exist.
How many times did Musk say "We are going to finish development work shortly on everything else and focus all our energy on Falcon Heavy"? Never. Yet he says that all the time about BFR/BFS. Why do you think that is?
-more propellant, larger pad, faster propellant loading
-much more difficult engines, higher pressures, difficult cycle, many more engines on both stages
-difficult and brittle structural material that has been the bane of many past aerospace projects
-more difficult landing, landing puts the entire pad at risk
-reentry at 5-8 times the speeds of F9S1, and it's supposed to be "more easily refurbishable" in spite of that
-new pad/landing facilities needed rather than using existing infrastructure
-new pressurization/thruster system rather than what was used for F9
-new factory needed just to build it
-BFS has to be qualified in the same way as Dragon 2 or it will never get government support
-also would be the largest rocket ever built
I don't see how FH being multi-core is somehow more difficult than all of these things.
There are no sellable missions that currently exist that cannot be served by F9 and FH, so by definition BFR has no reason to exist besides speculation.
Reply here
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43920.0
Post by: envy887 on 02/07/2018 02:10 am
How many tickets to Mars were sold this year?
Where can I buy a ticket to Mars? No reputable operator is selling them, since there is not yet a viable means to fulfill them.
SpaceX sold tickets for a circumlunar flight (Oh, hi! There's the topic!). Probably a couple hundred million dollars worth of tickets. They have a viable means to complete that mission.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/07/2018 02:25 am
Could the Trunk be equipped with a 'propulsion pallet' consisting of a cluster of ordinary Dracos and a couple tons of hypergolics? Possible - but such a thing is on nobody's design budget or priority. It would give Dragon some excellent, increased future capabilities, though!!
Post by: FishInferno on 02/07/2018 02:40 am
The Dragon with the crew could be placed into a parking orbit by a reusable Falcon 9, Block 5. And the next day; a Falcon Heavy in reusable mode could place an upper stage with a docking collar on top of it and more than 30 tons of propellant left in that upper stage. The Dragon with crew could then rendezvous and dock with that upper stage, and carry out the mission more or less as outlined more than a year ago.
An easier way may be to launch on a crewed F9, then launch another (unmanned) Dragon 2 on Falcon Heavy. Crewed Dragon docks with uncrewed Dragon + FH upper stage and the crew transfers to the second Dragon. Eliminates the need to build a single-purpose docking collar and does away with any uncertainties related to burning with D2 only attached via a docking port.
Post by: deruch on 02/07/2018 02:58 am
Name some missions/payloads that exist today that cannot be done by Falcon Heavy or Falcon 9, and can be done by BFR.
At IAC 2017, Elon spoke specifically about BFR cannibalizing their other products. i.e. They are intentionally designing it so that it can fulfill all missions that are currently being served by F9, FH, and Dragon etc. You seem to see this as a drawback while those who are designing it see it as a hallmark of success. Maybe you aren't understanding why it's a good thing?
Quote from: Elon Musk
We can build a system that cannibalizes our own products, makes our own products redundant, then all the resources we use for Falcon Heavy and Dragon can be applied to one system
I'm assuming your original question about the existence of payloads/missions was excluding SpaceX's own plans for Mars missions? Because that's the whole point. They want to build a system that satisfies their needs and those for every other mission currently on their books. It isn't about enabling something new for other people.
Post by: Jim on 02/07/2018 02:11 pm
Okay. But my basic claim was something different - entrepreneurs who give ambitions schedules they fail to meet, or cancel projects, are not doing a good favor to the society.
That is reality in any field. Welcome to life. Be ready to be disappointed by many people, famous and obscure.
Post by: speedevil on 02/07/2018 02:18 pm
SpaceX sold tickets for a circumlunar flight (Oh, hi! There's the topic!). Probably a couple hundred million dollars worth of tickets. They have a viable means to complete that mission.
From a transcript of Elons post-launch press conference I did at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43154.msg1784964#msg1784964
Quote
Falcon Heavy opens up a new class of payload. It can launch more than twice as much payload as any other rocket in the world, so it's kind of up to customers what they might want to launch. It can launch things direct to Pluto and beyond with no need for a gravity assist or anything. Launch giant satellites, it can do anything you want. You could send people back to the moon with a bunch of Falcon Heavy and an orbital refilling. Two or three falcon heavies would equal the payload of a Saturn Five.
This could be either read as launching a payload, and then filling it from another payload, or refuelling FH upper stage.
Either of which says it clearly can do it.
He immediately goes on to say that you shouldn't do this, and BFR'd be much better.
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/07/2018 04:30 pm
Please tell me that I'm being too pessimistic!
Post by: rockets4life97 on 02/07/2018 04:38 pm
So, as someone who maybe hasn't been following developments as closely as many of the folks here, I kind of felt like Elon Musk dropped a bomb when he said they were no longer looking at man-rating Falcon Heavy and focusing instead on BFR. The negative/cynical interpretation is, hey, we've finally got this great capability that could enable exciting things, but we're not going to do much with it because we're shifting focus to this pie in the sky heavy lift vehicle with no commercial demand for it and a predicted development timeline that history suggests is far too ambitious and unrealistic.
Please tell me that I'm being too pessimistic!
I think Elon is saying they won't do the development (e.g. man-rating) on their own dime. If NASA or someone else wants to pay for the development, SpaceX might consider it. But the price has to be right, I'm sure.
Post by: butters on 02/07/2018 05:04 pm
FH is in this weird no-man's land where it's powerful enough that only the reusability penalty brings it into play for the heaviest satellites, but it's not quite powerful enough in expendable mode to be a single-launch lunar orbit shuttle system. It only makes sense in a lunar architecture without Dragon, delivering one-way cargo to a cislunar gateway station for example. Lunar CRS is worth pursuing. Crewed Dragon 2 on FH is not.
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/07/2018 06:06 pm
So there has yet to be a specific statement that Lunar Dragon is canceled and funds refunded to the buyers.
Post by: chipguy on 02/07/2018 06:24 pm
So, as someone who maybe hasn't been following developments as closely as many of the folks here, I kind of felt like Elon Musk dropped a bomb when he said they were no longer looking at man-rating Falcon Heavy and focusing instead on BFR. The negative/cynical interpretation is, hey, we've finally got this great capability that could enable exciting things, but we're not going to do much with it because we're shifting focus to this pie in the sky heavy lift vehicle with no commercial demand for it and a predicted development timeline that history suggests is far too ambitious and unrealistic.
Please tell me that I'm being too pessimistic!
I'd take the same set of facts in a positive fashion. SpaceX recognises that these frivolous little prestige
projects take resources disproportionate to their importance and diverts away from putting "all their wood
behind one arrow" that is BFR development. Worse yet, a mishap on such a project has major impact on
all of what SpaceX wants to achieve and would taint the company for years.
Post by: Ludus on 02/08/2018 03:05 am
So, as someone who maybe hasn't been following developments as closely as many of the folks here, I kind of felt like Elon Musk dropped a bomb when he said they were no longer looking at man-rating Falcon Heavy and focusing instead on BFR. The negative/cynical interpretation is, hey, we've finally got this great capability that could enable exciting things, but we're not going to do much with it because we're shifting focus to this pie in the sky heavy lift vehicle with no commercial demand for it and a predicted development timeline that history suggests is far too ambitious and unrealistic.
Please tell me that I'm being too pessimistic!
You’re being too pessimistic.
SpaceX is antifragile. They flexibly pivot to better alternatives all the time. Often these pivots are criticized as failures to meet plans. The delays in FH were in part just caused by making so much progress so fast in achieving rapid reusability with F9 that FH had to be redesigned around better and better performance numbers.
The FH we saw fly finally was vastly better for having been delayed and still within promised prices.
BFR/BFS is another pivot to much better alternatives. Block 5 hits the rapid reusability goals so well SpaceX can leverage this capacity to fly much more often while building many fewer rockets. Rather than this creating a crisis and threats of mass layoffs it’s the opportunity to shift resources to building BFR/BFS while supporting the company launching F9/FH.
Red Dragon was the best they could do to at least put something on Mars in the absence of any real MCT. It was always just settling for something practical, not really an objective in itself. The pivot to actually building BFR made it an unnecessary distraction.
The FH D2 lunar flyby was low hanging fruit in the absence of any more important focus. With really revolutionary spacecraft now coming in few years that can do that much better, why bother. Doing the lunar flyby with BFS a few years later is like launching FH late but with all three cores reusable, better and cheaper in every way than originally planned.
Post by: Klebiano on 02/08/2018 03:33 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7LJIuB2CHE
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/08/2018 04:40 am
I think Elon was expressing the difference involved with attaining a Human-Rating with NASA and what is needed for a FAA Commercial License for an "Experimental" launch with humans. There is a wide gulf between the costs for the two. Meaning no NASA human launches on FH without NASA fully paying for it. But that is not likely to happen because it ties up all those SpaceX engineering assets for a couple of years on a almost pure paperwork review exercise that would be more better spent designing BFR/BFS with a vehicle capable of taking humans at about the same point in time as having a NASA certified HRated FH.I think he's tired of the politics of govt HSF, and I don't blame him.
So there has yet to be a specific statement that Lunar Dragon is canceled and funds refunded to the buyers.
He's got a very economical platform to put considerable cislunar spacecraft payload mass ahead of anyone on earth, possibly by a factor of 8. If you want to mess with the moon in any capacity, it'll cost you dearly for every ounce.
Sure you can do it through Boeing with SLS, ... but it'll take you a while for the missions to build anything significant, and given a cost profile of 4-15x more than prior to F9/FH costing, you'll need to spread them over even more decades to afford them on the kind of budget afforded. Slow, slow, even slower. So that you can lose your advantage to others over time ... of economic lunar exploration.
Even Boeing knows it is at risk because of this. Because if they compel too much to the "slow" path ... not only would it be obvious that Boeing did so ... but that lack of progress might even hasten Boeing's programs being cancelled as being unreasonable and unaffordable.
So it makes perfect sense for SX to hold back on HSF for FH. (Which could be advanced by govt need if desired.) Because govt needs to decide how to reconcile what it needs with how it would get it, without threatening (too much) what it has underway. Clearly there is now a different story that can be had.
If BO's vehicles were present, the same would happen as well. Likely Musk is breaking ground for Bezos/others to travel upon as well.
We will see if this is another advantage to be squandered or used. In either case, SX moves onto its own agenda irrespectively.
Post by: jpo234 on 02/08/2018 07:16 am
Name some missions/payloads that exist today that cannot be done by Falcon Heavy or Falcon 9, and can be done by BFR.
I can't name one, but I'd bet that if they hit their price tag (less than $10mln) for a launch, there are a lot of missions that can't fly on F9 or FH. Not because these launchers don't have the performance but because they are too expensive.
People look at the performance numbers of BFR and think it's crazy, nobody needs that. But if BFR can launch a satellite like Formosat (that will look ridiculous in its cavernous cargo hold) for less money than other launchers, it has a market.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/08/2018 10:31 am
It's not a terrible idea - but it would add the cost of launching and recovering a second Dragon to the architecture. This is a complication and cost that shouldn't necessarily be added to the already increased cost of going to the 2-launch architecture anyway. If a two-launch mode was being adopted, I personally would prefer an actual landing was being incorporated into the whole shebang.The Dragon with the crew could be placed into a parking orbit by a reusable Falcon 9, Block 5. And the next day; a Falcon Heavy in reusable mode could place an upper stage with a docking collar on top of it and more than 30 tons of propellant left in that upper stage. The Dragon with crew could then rendezvous and dock with that upper stage, and carry out the mission more or less as outlined more than a year ago.
An easier way may be to launch on a crewed F9, then launch another (unmanned) Dragon 2 on Falcon Heavy. Crewed Dragon docks with uncrewed Dragon + FH upper stage and the crew transfers to the second Dragon. Eliminates the need to build a single-purpose docking collar and does away with any uncertainties related to burning with D2 only attached via a docking port.
Post by: AncientU on 02/15/2018 01:43 pm
Name some missions/payloads that exist today that cannot be done by Falcon Heavy or Falcon 9, and can be done by BFR.
I can't name one, but I'd bet that if they hit their price tag (less than $10mln) for a launch, there are a lot of missions that can't fly on F9 or FH. Not because these launchers don't have the performance but because they are too expensive.
People look at the performance numbers of BFR and think it's crazy, nobody needs that. But if BFR can launch a satellite like Formosat (that will look ridiculous in its cavernous cargo hold) for less money than other launchers, it has a market.
Why is this relevant -- missions/payloads that exist today -- since the SpaceX stated goals have nothing to do with serving only the existing market? BFR/BFS especially...
Post by: gongora on 02/15/2018 04:11 pm