-
#180
by
MATTBLAK
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:45
-
"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.
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.
-
#181
by
raketa
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:45
-
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.
-
#182
by
TomH
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:46
-
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.
-
#183
by
MATTBLAK
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:47
-
Looking forward to hear those words again... "You are GO for TLI"... 
This brings tears to my eyes.
...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... :')
-
#184
by
Nomadd
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:51
-
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)
-
#185
by
Arcas
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:52
-
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.
-
#186
by
TomH
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:52
-
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.
-
#187
by
launchwatcher
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:54
-
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.
-
#188
by
manoweb
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:55
-
I am so happy that regular citizens, and not government employees, are now first in line for this kind of trip. Also I hope this is the last nail in the coffin for expensive government programs that have slowed down, or in fact halted space exploration for the last several decades. Yes the launch date is very likely to slip; however, I hope they launch as soon as possible!
-
#189
by
Darkseraph
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:55
-
Speculating on who bought the tickets, it could be someone who has already been a space tourist like Anousheh Ansari or Dennis Tito.
-
#190
by
Rocket Science
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:56
-
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....
-
#191
by
joek
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:57
-
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.
-
#192
by
Bubbinski
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:58
-
Holy Schnikies.
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.
-
#193
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 27 Feb, 2017 22:58
-
NASA statement:
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
-
#194
by
gospacex
on 27 Feb, 2017 23:00
-
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.
-
#195
by
Oli
on 27 Feb, 2017 23:00
-
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.
-
#196
by
DOCinCT
on 27 Feb, 2017 23:02
-
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
I think more as there is a possibility that the FH will be partially expendable (equivalent to Red Dragon).
-
#197
by
Lars-J
on 27 Feb, 2017 23:02
-
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.
-
#198
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 27 Feb, 2017 23:03
-
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
My read too.
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.
-
#199
by
TomH
on 27 Feb, 2017 23:03
-
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!
