-
#320
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 28 Feb, 2017 07:29
-
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.
-
#321
by
TomH
on 28 Feb, 2017 07:41
-
This is not meant to be political, but to point out the effect of a political reality on the part of this discussion related to this mission and the correlation with EM-1. Trump today announced a $54B budget increase for the military coupled with commensurate cuts to discretionary spending, apparently to be equally shared as a percentage across the board. That would be about a 10% cut to NASA. If the HSF program has to absorb that kind of cut, I do not see how EM-1 could be manned. I don't even see how SLS/Orion could even survive. SpaceX may become the only manned provider the US has until Starliner and then BO come online. All US manned SF could become commercial in short order.
-
#322
by
vapour_nudge
on 28 Feb, 2017 07:57
-
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
-
#323
by
CJ
on 28 Feb, 2017 08:03
-
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?)
-
#324
by
jpo234
on 28 Feb, 2017 08:35
-
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.
-
#325
by
Rocket Science
on 28 Feb, 2017 08:40
-
-
#326
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 28 Feb, 2017 08:52
-
I'm calling a target launch date for late December 2018. Why? The Apollo 8 hemicenteniary. Imagine the PR value of livestreaming Earth-rise exactly 50 years after the first photograph was taken.
[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.
-
#327
by
Rocket Science
on 28 Feb, 2017 08:54
-
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...
-
#328
by
dodo
on 28 Feb, 2017 09:12
-
-
#329
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 28 Feb, 2017 09:26
-
-
#330
by
MATTBLAK
on 28 Feb, 2017 09:40
-
I wish to issue a challenge/proposal to all Nasaspaceflight.com family members:
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....
-
#331
by
HighlandRay
on 28 Feb, 2017 09:45
-
I would love to get together with fellow members and as I said in an earlier post I will be in Florida for two weeks of the last quarter of 2018. However, because in live in Scotland that will be my only opportunity to see the launch and I guess that it is a fairly long shot that my visit and the launch will intersect.
-
#332
by
Archibald
on 28 Feb, 2017 09:46
-
Exciting new for sure, and imagine a three-way lunar race - lunar Soyuz vs manned EM-1 vs lunar Dragon.
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.
-
#333
by
MATTBLAK
on 28 Feb, 2017 09:49
-
If not December 2018, maybe July 2019, 50 years since...
-
#334
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 28 Feb, 2017 10:13
-
A little bit of speculation on my part about how this mission could help NASA in the long run.
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).
-
#335
by
TaurusLittrow
on 28 Feb, 2017 10:52
-
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.
-
#336
by
gospacex
on 28 Feb, 2017 11:08
-
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.
-
#337
by
TaurusLittrow
on 28 Feb, 2017 11:20
-
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.
-
#338
by
jpo234
on 28 Feb, 2017 11:25
-
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.
-
#339
by
Kaputnik
on 28 Feb, 2017 11:41
-
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.
