-
#1220
by
speedevil
on 14 Nov, 2017 12:04
-
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.
-
#1221
by
Negan
on 14 Nov, 2017 15:55
-
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?
-
#1222
by
Zed_Noir
on 14 Nov, 2017 15:58
-
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.
-
#1223
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 14 Nov, 2017 16:38
-
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...
-
#1224
by
cppetrie
on 14 Nov, 2017 16:51
-
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?
-
#1225
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 14 Nov, 2017 17:37
-
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?
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.
-
#1226
by
cppetrie
on 14 Nov, 2017 17:45
-
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?
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.
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.
-
#1227
by
Negan
on 14 Nov, 2017 18:14
-
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?
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.
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.
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.
-
#1228
by
Zed_Noir
on 14 Nov, 2017 18:28
-
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?
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.
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.
Well there is the spouses and significant others of the aspiring CircumLunar travelers.
-
#1229
by
QuantumG
on 14 Nov, 2017 21:04
-
At this point in time I almost feel like Falcon Heavy will be ready before Dragon 2.
-
#1230
by
envy887
on 14 Nov, 2017 21:06
-
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.
-
#1231
by
QuantumG
on 14 Nov, 2017 21:08
-
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.
-
#1232
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 14 Nov, 2017 23:23
-
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?
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.
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.
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.tplNote as well that these sections are not aimed particularly at the public at large, but at those folks actually riding the rocket.
-
#1233
by
QuantumG
on 14 Nov, 2017 23:27
-
§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.
-
#1234
by
cppetrie
on 14 Nov, 2017 23:31
-
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.
-
#1235
by
QuantumG
on 14 Nov, 2017 23:34
-
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...
-
#1236
by
cppetrie
on 14 Nov, 2017 23:40
-
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.
-
#1237
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 14 Nov, 2017 23:58
-
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.
-
#1238
by
QuantumG
on 15 Nov, 2017 00:04
-
Ultimately, I think the FAA will ask SpaceX to send them a document three times and then stamp it approved.
-
#1239
by
gongora
on 15 Nov, 2017 00:06
-
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.
§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.
