-
#400 by montyrmanley on 28 Feb, 2017 16:53
-
The SLS procurement model, choice of key hardware, support of missions to leverage it and it's very existence are largely outside of NASA's control so I think it's pretty unfair to blame it on NASA.
It's NASA's program, and it's up to them to manage it. NASA is a government agency and thus is bound to the diktat of Congress, no doubt, but it's no different than any other federal agencies in that respect. It's also NASA's job to provide advice and guidance to Congress to establish national priorities, and it is in this area that NASA has fallen most criminally short. And not just in the SLS program, but...well, since they were founded, really. NASA's departmental remit is so nebulous and badly defined that NASA by default is often in the dark about their actual goals; and NASA leadership is often too spineless and rudderless to ask for more concrete direction. "But...but...Congress!" is no excuse.
SpaceX can justify sending two civilians on a pleasure-cruise around the moon for the simple reason that the civilians are willing to pay for the privilege. It's a fee-for-service deal. Musk may have larger ambitions, but he doesn't need to have larger ambiitions, or big-picture plans. If there's money to be made ferrying rich people to the moon and back, SpaceX can decide to be in that business simply by deciding if they have a capability to provide the service at a cost the market will bear. That's it. If they fail to execute on their strategy, they go out of business or reorganize into more profitable endeavors.
NASA can't do that -- it (as an agent of the Federal Government) has to justify the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on any program it oversees (whether developed in house or via contractors). NASA's decades-long inability to perform this essential task well is at the root of their present difficulties. Why has the Orion capsule's design stretched out for more than a decade and cost damned near $10 billion dollars when SpaceX could design the Dragon2 in far less time and for far less money? NASA needs to justify this to Congress and the Administration (i.e., representatives of the American people). Why is this taking so long and costing so much? If the Orion capsule is much more capable than Dragon 2, fine: let NASA explain how this additional capability will be used, and why it justifies the extra expense.
-
#401 by philw1776 on 28 Feb, 2017 17:05
-
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.
Why would it need to be piloted?
Is Red Dragon piloted?
No.
RD travels further, does interplanetary re-entry and lands on the surface of a planet tens of millions of miles away. -
#402 by gospacex on 28 Feb, 2017 17:05
-
The SLS procurement model, choice of key hardware, support of missions to leverage it and it's very existence are largely outside of NASA's control so I think it's pretty unfair to blame it on NASA.
This completely ignores the genesis of SLS: the Constellation program. It's a brainchild of a NASA admin, Michael Griffin. He fought tooth and nail against any proposal to adapt Atlas or Delta for crewed flights.
It was a golden opportunity to end this nonsense of government-designed launch vehicles, and _NASA_ leadership fought against it. Not only Congress. -
#403 by Jim on 28 Feb, 2017 17:08
-
It's NASA's program, and it's up to them to manage it. NASA is a government agency and thus is bound to the diktat of Congress, no doubt, but it's no different than any other federal agencies in that respect. It's also NASA's job to provide advice and guidance to Congress to establish national priorities, and it is in this area that NASA has fallen most criminally short. And not just in the SLS program, but...well, since they were founded, really. NASA's departmental remit is so nebulous and badly defined that NASA by default is often in the dark about their actual goals; and NASA leadership is often too spineless and rudderless to ask for more concrete direction. "But...but...Congress!" is no excuse.
Wrong takeaway on every point. Shows a lack of understanding on how the government works.
No, it is the administration's job to give NASA priorities. NASA does not set its own course.
And knock it off with the "criminally" terms. -
#404 by Helodriver on 28 Feb, 2017 17:09
-
The kestrel in the trunk idea is a non starter mainly because it's use of cryogenic propellants. Better would be a superDraco with a higher expansion ration for better ISP, and the storability of hypergolics. However this subject was discussed extensively in this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40318.0
As for "junk in the trunk" I don't see it becoming a service module but I do think it will likely carry one or even a few expendable free flying camera equipped cubesats or something similar that will separate, maneuver, and maintain somewhat close formation with the capsule as it swings by the moon to provide the ultimate drone imagery of the Dragon with the lunar surface rotating underneath. Images will be transmitted to the capsule as part of the tourist package and for SpaceX promotional use.
Such a thing could also be as simple as a few wifi GoPros or commercial 360 degree ball cameras ejected from under the nose cap. -
#405 by Donosauro on 28 Feb, 2017 17:14
-
This news that is exciting as all here on this forum is hardly getting any coverage from the UK television news other that a few brief mentions of tourist going round the moon. As I type this they are still racking over the Oscars gaff.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39115201 -
#406 by hydra9 on 28 Feb, 2017 17:17
-
Maybe this will put an end to the White House idea of using the SLS/Orion for a stunt mission around the Moon!
NASA's focus should be on using the SLS to deploy a Deep Space Hab to EML1 and deploying habitat modules and water extraction machinery to the lunar surface.
NASA should also be focusing on converting upper stage propellant tanks (SLS-EUS, Centaur, ACES 68, etc.) into reusable propellant manufacturing, storing, and distributing LOX/LH2 depots that can be deployed within cis-lunar space and beyond.
Marcel -
#407 by Kaputnik on 28 Feb, 2017 17:32
-
Aerobrake around the Earth ala Mars orbiters. See what Planet is doing with their cubesats.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
Erm, it's kind of important to consider *where* you do your braking. I hope you apply a little more logic when you drive your car! -
#408 by Jim on 28 Feb, 2017 17:34
-
Maybe this will put an end to the White House idea of using the SLS/Orion
There, fixed it for you -
#409 by meekGee on 28 Feb, 2017 17:42
-
The SLS procurement model, choice of key hardware, support of missions to leverage it and it's very existence are largely outside of NASA's control so I think it's pretty unfair to blame it on NASA.
This completely ignores the genesis of SLS: the Constellation program. It's a brainchild of a NASA admin, Michael Griffin. He fought tooth and nail against any proposal to adapt Atlas or Delta for crewed flights.
It was a golden opportunity to end this nonsense of government-designed launch vehicles, and _NASA_ leadership fought against it. Not only Congress.
That he did, but Bolden, for example fought against SLS until congress made them do it.
It may not be NASA's "Fault", but NASA by its definition is subject to congressional intervention down to "thou shall use SRBs, because reasons", and NASA can't change that, so it's part of NASA, fault or not.
This is all playing out as expected.
---
As for a Lunar landing, it's not only that this flight is not a technological enabler. It's that such a landing will require a lot of development and be a distraction from the Mars goal.
For this flight, they'll use an almost generic D2, and most everything they have to develop is "on the way to Mars".
Plus, it's a revenue source. If they do it once, and if the boosters and capsules are reusable, they might work up to flying once per month. This is so much more than a LEO flight. With care, this can rival comsat revenue.
---
Also - to land on the moon will require 2400 m/s dV. A Hydrazine motor with ISP of 240 will give a mass ratio of 2.7, so to land 100 kg mass, you need to start out with 270 kg. That's a reasonable package to put in the trunk, and plenty of space agencies and even universities would pay for a ride like that. -
#410 by kirghizstan on 28 Feb, 2017 17:42
-
Maybe this will put an end to the White House idea of using the SLS/Orion
There, fixed it for you
Is this Jim officially planting a anti-SLS/Orion flag. I'm sorry if I either misinterpreted or you planted this flag on a prior occasion. -
#411 by VulcanCafe on 28 Feb, 2017 17:42
-
Has anyone considered that the NASA announcement last week may have been a preemptive face-saving response to SpaceX. I assume here SpaceX notified NASA of their upcoming announcement, which prompted a quick re-analysis of the EM1 mission.
Complete and total speculation but I smell smoke.
Thoughts? -
#412 by dodo on 28 Feb, 2017 18:05
-
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.
Why would it need to be piloted?
Is Red Dragon piloted?
No.
RD travels further, does interplanetary re-entry and lands on the surface of a planet tens of millions of miles away.
Just from a psychological viewpoint it makes sense to have an experienced astronaut accompany the paying customers. Plus if something breaks you want someone who knows how it was put together. I'd be very surprised if Garrett Reisman is not in that flight.
* rests back in armchair
-
#413 by philw1776 on 28 Feb, 2017 18:07
-
Got the impression from Musk that the 2 wanted the Dragon to themselves.
I would.
If duct tape directions from ground control can't fix it. They're likely hosed.
-
#414 by ChrisWilson68 on 28 Feb, 2017 18:09
-
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.
Why would it need to be piloted?
Is Red Dragon piloted?
No.
RD travels further, does interplanetary re-entry and lands on the surface of a planet tens of millions of miles away.
Just from a psychological viewpoint it makes sense to have an experienced astronaut accompany the paying customers. Plus if something breaks you want someone who knows how it was put together. I'd be very surprised if Garrett Reisman is not in that flight.
* rests back in armchair
On the other hand, you're paying $100 million for a week-long vacation in a very small space with a person you want to be with. You might not want a third person you don't know very well also crammed in that small space.
-
#415 by Jim on 28 Feb, 2017 18:13
-
. Plus if something breaks you want someone who knows how it was put together.
Then that person is not an astronaut. Astronauts just know how to operate a vehicle, they don't build or design it. -
#416 by M.E.T. on 28 Feb, 2017 18:16
-
To NASA's credit, they're putting on a brave face and making it sound like it's at least partially their idea.
I don't understand all these assumptions that NASA (as if it's a monolith) has a problem with this. There are people in NASA that support Commercial Space. The whole point of Commercial Space is to foster this sort of thing.
NASA is a big organization with a lot of moving parts and people with different goals and beliefs. No doubt there are groups that are not fans of commercial space. But if we're going to refer to NASA as a monolith, they have been a huge supporter of SpaceX. If they were anti-SpaceX they could have down selected them and gone with Starliner only for crew. They could have said no to using Dragon 2 for latest commercial cargo contract. There are so many ways that NASA could have delayed or derailed SpaceX over the years and they haven't.
Eric Berger has a good piece on what parts of NASA may really be thinking about yesterday's announcement: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/if-you-think-nasa-is-frustrated-with-spacex-youre-probably-right/
Edit: clarified
I find that to be a rather negative article by Eric Berger, to be honest. At one point, in support of his overall argument, he quotes a certain Ms. Dittmar, who provides a negative view on Musk's endeavours. Only to reveal that Ms. Dittmar "serves as executive director of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, the organization formed by the principal contractors behind NASA's SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft".
Well shock and horror, the contractors building the SLS have bad things to say about SpaceX. What a surprise.
The general gist of it seems to be that NASA is bending over backwards for SpaceX despite SpaceX's commercial crew program slipping to 2018. No mention is made, however, of the fact that 2018 is still a year earlier than Boeing - a long established "old Space" company - can produce their version of a commercial crew vehicle.
-
#417 by rsnellenberger on 28 Feb, 2017 18:22
-
This announcement can also be viewed as a "Declaration of Independence" by SpaceX with respect to the capability that they've developed with the funds supplied by the Commercial Crew program. While acknowledging that SpaceX owes an obligation to continue meeting the terms of their agreement with NASA, they assert here their proprietary right to employ Dragon 2 & Falcon Heavy to perform other missions that they believe are in their commercial interest.
Assuming that they've done an adequate job of market research, "E-Ticket Ride to the Moon" has the advantage (commercially) that they can "own" the entire critical path of the effort rather than depend on some other entity (e.g., Bigelow) as a partner.
-
#418 by ChrisWilson68 on 28 Feb, 2017 18:33
-
This announcement can also be viewed as a "Declaration of Independence" by SpaceX with respect to the capability that they've developed with the funds supplied by the Commercial Crew program. While acknowledging that SpaceX owes an obligation to continue meeting the terms of their agreement with NASA, they assert here their proprietary right to employ Dragon 2 & Falcon Heavy to perform other missions that they believe are in their commercial interest.
SpaceX doesn't need to declare that. Nobody has ever doubted it. In fact, the idea that companies would find other customers for the vehicles they are using for NASA has been an explicitly-stated goal of NASA's commercial cargo and crew programs from day one, starting with the first CRS announcement.
The timing of this announcement is all about the customer. Someone agreed to pay for the trip, no more, no less.
-
#419 by wannamoonbase on 28 Feb, 2017 18:42
-
Maybe this will put an end to the White House idea of using the SLS/Orion
There, fixed it for you
Is this Jim officially planting a anti-SLS/Orion flag. I'm sorry if I either misinterpreted or you planted this flag on a prior occasion.
How can anyone, other than a member of congress, support SLS and Orion at their costs?
Capable vehicles, but my gosh!
We maybe living through a (two) decades long transition of NASA from the Apollo and Shuttle era to commercial space. I would not be surprised if in 5-10 years that NASA buys launch services and focuses on other things, like science and technology development.
