-
#360
by
Jim
on 28 Feb, 2017 13:36
-
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
-
#361
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 28 Feb, 2017 13:37
-
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.
-
#362
by
Jim
on 28 Feb, 2017 13:39
-
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.
-
#363
by
Proponent
on 28 Feb, 2017 13:40
-
People need to forget the Apollo paradigm.
Most of all, Congress needs to forget the Apollo paradigm.
-
#364
by
gospacex
on 28 Feb, 2017 13:53
-
-
#365
by
Jim
on 28 Feb, 2017 13:53
-
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.
-
#366
by
gospacex
on 28 Feb, 2017 13:54
-
-
#367
by
Proponent
on 28 Feb, 2017 14:03
-
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.
-
#368
by
yg1968
on 28 Feb, 2017 14:16
-
I don't know what the Trump administration will decide. But it would be interesting to see the new NASA Administrator and Congress adopt a number of human spaceflight initiatives that can be acheived before 2020. A SpaceX crewed circumlunar mission with NASA astronauts would have been interesting. A Dream Chaser to Hubble mission and an Orion/SLS crewed mission would all be interesting initiatives. If they were all pursued, at least one of these is likely to be completed before 2020. I would think that SpaceX would have the edge in this race.
-
#369
by
Proponent
on 28 Feb, 2017 14:19
-
Why Dream Chaser to Hubble?
-
#370
by
montyrmanley
on 28 Feb, 2017 14:22
-
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.
-
#371
by
yg1968
on 28 Feb, 2017 14:24
-
-
#372
by
Kaputnik
on 28 Feb, 2017 14:24
-
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?
-
#373
by
Proponent
on 28 Feb, 2017 14:29
-
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.
-
#374
by
Phil Stooke
on 28 Feb, 2017 14:46
-
CraigLieb: do a search on 'Space Burial' and you will find two private companies who will already do this for you. Both offer a lunar burial as well as orbital and suborbital options. The lunar burials are currently slated to be carried by GLXP landers, but any future lander would be an option as well, subject to negotiation.
-
#375
by
Tim S
on 28 Feb, 2017 14:47
-
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.
-
#376
by
Jim
on 28 Feb, 2017 14:56
-
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
-
#377
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 28 Feb, 2017 14:58
-
-
#378
by
ChrisWilson68
on 28 Feb, 2017 15:10
-
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.
-
#379
by
ppb
on 28 Feb, 2017 15:21
-
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
Aerobrake around the Earth ala Mars orbiters. See what Planet is doing with their cubesats.
