-
#300
by
Ludus
on 28 Feb, 2017 04:40
-
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?
-
#301
by
mikelepage
on 28 Feb, 2017 04:40
-
I've been wondering when something like this would get announced. Circumlunar flights are within the capability of Dragon2 plus Falcon Heavy, with no additional improvements needed. It's too obvious a source of revenue for SpaceX to pass up. If it comes to the point where you want to send more than two people in relative comfort, send a BEAM module in the trunk, and do a flip-and-dock just after TLI.
-
#302
by
rakaydos
on 28 Feb, 2017 04:40
-
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.
-
#303
by
yg1968
on 28 Feb, 2017 05:07
-
I skimmed this whole fabulous thread before asking ...
Has the press conference audio popped up anywhere?
It hasn't.
-
#304
by
northenarc
on 28 Feb, 2017 05:08
-
Its very well played, I liked how it was noted they would of course deffer to a U.S. government mission with NASA astronauts, if they'd happen to like to fly some (hopefully) ready to go hardware. SpaceX is going anyway no matter what (well, except FH not being ready), they're funded. And of course it puts on a great cost effectiveness show for a new president who attests to the importance of such things. Is all this leading to a big NASA shakeup and the end of SLS, probably yes to the shakeup, but SLS will likely fly, its still a useful rocket, but it may end up flying even less than expected.
-
#305
by
Pipcard
on 28 Feb, 2017 05:24
-
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.
-
#306
by
MATTBLAK
on 28 Feb, 2017 05:24
-
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.
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.
-
#307
by
Bynaus
on 28 Feb, 2017 05:25
-
-
#308
by
Hauerg
on 28 Feb, 2017 05:26
-
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.
-
#309
by
MATTBLAK
on 28 Feb, 2017 05:27
-
My two questions:
- will there be a disposable "orbital module" similar to Soyuz/Shenzhou?
- and if not, where will the toilets be?
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.
-
#310
by
Surfdaddy
on 28 Feb, 2017 05:28
-
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.
-
#311
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 28 Feb, 2017 06:01
-
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
-
#312
by
ppb
on 28 Feb, 2017 06:10
-
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.
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.
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.
Or maybe a variation of the 'Inspiration Mars' flyby mission in 2021...
That will take years to get the needed ECLSS proof before flying.
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 ...
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.
-
#313
by
Star One
on 28 Feb, 2017 06:26
-
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.
-
#314
by
ChrisWilson68
on 28 Feb, 2017 06:31
-
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.
-
#315
by
Star One
on 28 Feb, 2017 06:35
-
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.
-
#316
by
ChrisWilson68
on 28 Feb, 2017 06:38
-
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.
-
#317
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 28 Feb, 2017 06:46
-
One question that this does answer: Yes, Crew Dragon's 'vanilla' ECLSS can handle 7 days in BLEO thermal conditions. I don't think Musk would be confidently talking about 2018 if they needed to design and build a whole different ECLSS for this mission.
-
#318
by
ChrisWilson68
on 28 Feb, 2017 06:47
-
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.
-
#319
by
sanman
on 28 Feb, 2017 07:20
-
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.
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.
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.