-
#420 by dodo on 28 Feb, 2017 18:55
-
. 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.
Hmm... I had this romantic idea (perhaps from the Apollo era) that astronauts were very much involved in the design of systems. I may be (a) plain wrong or (b) outdated - specialization is a true devil. -
#421 by gospacex on 28 Feb, 2017 18:56
-
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.
In every big organization there are many different people, true.
However, organizations _as a whole_, regardless of the thoughts of individual people inside them, tend to act to self-preserve (because those which dont, disappear) and if possible, to grow. The same is true about departments inside big organizations.
You are a bad, unsuccessful manager if you allow your project to be canceled (even if the project is pointless). In the bureaucratic logic and politics, it does not actually matter whether project makes sense or not. You must survive at any cost. We all remember ESAS, which "proved" that EELVs are unsuitable for manned flights. Because Constellation had to survive no matter what. If you need to lie in order to achieve that, you do that. -
#422 by rsdavis9 on 28 Feb, 2017 19:09
-
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?
that thought crossed my mind too.
-
#423 by yg1968 on 28 Feb, 2017 19:12
-
See below:
Apparently, there is a Rumor that Trump will say something about returning to human spaceflight tonight. See tweets from Eric Berger and John Yang.
-
#424 by dglow on 28 Feb, 2017 19:13
-
The timing of this announcement is all about the customer. Someone agreed to pay for the trip, no more, no less.
The timing of the announcement is very calculated. Elon has too prominent a seat at the new administration's table for it not to be. -
#425 by yg1968 on 28 Feb, 2017 19:14
-
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?
It was mentionned in Chris' article:Quote from: Chris Bergin NSFA NASA HQ source claimed they were not informed about the announcement ahead of Elon’s comments on Monday, although he believes Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot and President Trump’s NASA “Landing Team” was briefed, which in turn – the source claimed – was why Mr. Lightfoot asked NASA to conduct a study into accelerating the schedule towards crewed missions on Orion.
-
#426 by Jim on 28 Feb, 2017 19:18
-
Hmm... I had this romantic idea (perhaps from the Apollo era) that astronauts were very much involved in the design of systems. I may be (a) plain wrong or (b) outdated - specialization is a true devil.
How old were the STS-135 astronauts in the early 70's? -
#427 by woods170 on 28 Feb, 2017 19:24
-
Jim has been openly sceptic about SLS/Orion for a long time. He merely confirmed what he has stated before.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. -
#428 by mn on 28 Feb, 2017 19:27
-
I understand that what they are planning is just to fly around the moon and not enter lunar orbit.
I would love to know in terms of fuel requirements, once you reach the moon how much additional fuel would be needed for orbit insertion and then escape lunar orbit and head back to earth.
If it takes X amount of fuel to do TLI, how much more would be needed for lunar orbit? are we talking about 20% more, 50% more, double? etc.
Just Curious.
TY -
#429 by Star One on 28 Feb, 2017 19:28
-
Really just a speculative article.
How much are SpaceX tourists actually paying to fly around the Moon?
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14763632/spacex-private-moon-flight-price-cost-estimate-nasa-space-adventures -
#430 by mvpel on 28 Feb, 2017 19:35
-
Hmm... I had this romantic idea (perhaps from the Apollo era) that astronauts were very much involved in the design of systems. I may be (a) plain wrong or (b) outdated - specialization is a true devil.
I've been involved in writing documentation for military systems, and have had the opportunity to spend a bit of time working with teams on site. There, as in the ISS, everything that is to be done with or to the systems is extensively and meticulously documented down to the letter, and any off-nominal work is done in close coordination with the engineering teams back home. The astronauts, as I see it, are not distinguished by their engineering prowess, but their generalist flexibility, their ability to learn new things easily, and most importantly to make connections among their various areas of knowledge and experience. Take a look at a space walk, such as the IDA installation, for example - there's no "winging it" in that situation. Each step is laid out and timed to the second, and the ideal mission never deviates from that plan. And when it does, the generalist flexibility of the astronauts enables them to fully and accurately assess the situation, whether it's a fussy connector or a malfunctioning suit, and work in close collaboration with others to identify, understand, solve the problem.
But just imagine how many heads are going to explode when the first high-school-graduate blue collar employee launches into space. Expert welder? Plumber? Electrician? Millwright? Janitor? We'll see.
But even if they don't have a PhD., they'll have that same kind of flexible generalist mindset which good astronauts exhibit.
Have you ever watched the "Gold Rush" series on the Discovery Channel? Rough-looking, dirt-covered, cussing, and endlessly tough folks with calloused hands unafraid of putting in grueling hours keeping enormous, dangerous, complex equipment up and running by any means necessary in the middle of a hostile wilderness miles from the nearest hardware store with only a supply of metal, welders, assorted large tools, and their wits, ingenuity, and substantial intelligence.
I'm descended from generations of Kansas farmers; these are my people. Snooty coastal elites tend to look down on them, but if you want to see what the Martian pioneers are going to look like - the ones who survive anyway - take in a few episodes of "Gold Rush" or "Bering Sea Gold." Instead of Au they'll be digging for H2O
In the long run, the foundations of Lunar and Martian civilization are going to be built by rednecks, not only by PhD's. Folks need to get over it. -
#431 by obi-wan on 28 Feb, 2017 19:53
-
I understand that what they are planning is just to fly around the moon and not enter lunar orbit.
I would love to know in terms of fuel requirements, once you reach the moon how much additional fuel would be needed for orbit insertion and then escape lunar orbit and head back to earth.
If it takes X amount of fuel to do TLI, how much more would be needed for lunar orbit? are we talking about 20% more, 50% more, double? etc.
Just Curious.
TY
As a rough rule of thumb, using storable propellants:
One kilogram on a translunar trajectory takes 4 kg in low Earth orbit
One kg in lunar orbit takes 4 kg in translunar trajectory
One kg on the lunar surface takes 4 kg in lunar orbit
One kg returned to Earth takes 4 kg on the lunar surface
Not suitable for use in navigation, but it supplies a good intuitive bound to the problem. -
#432 by wolfpack on 28 Feb, 2017 20:14
-
If they actually do what they're proposing WHEN they're proposing to do it,
I'll buy a Tesla. -
#433 by CitabriaFlyer on 28 Feb, 2017 20:32
-
Question for Jim (other professionals feel free to chime in)
Assume that I am a 45 year old lay person with some scientific acumen. Private practice doctor, former USAF flight doc, >1000 hours private pilot with instrument and aerobatic experience. Biology major with a little physics and math 25 years ago. Burning desire to fly in space since watching STS -1 in 4th grade. Assume I win Powerball and decide I want to purchase this trip free return around the moon with SpaceX.
What are the five most important questions I should ask SpaceX management as part of my due diligence as I consider paying for this trip? -
#434 by Rocket Science on 28 Feb, 2017 20:45
-
Years ago here on NSF I came up with the designation you are describing... "astronaut-technician"...Hmm... I had this romantic idea (perhaps from the Apollo era) that astronauts were very much involved in the design of systems. I may be (a) plain wrong or (b) outdated - specialization is a true devil.
I've been involved in writing documentation for military systems, and have had the opportunity to spend a bit of time working with teams on site. There, as in the ISS, everything that is to be done with or to the systems is extensively and meticulously documented down to the letter, and any off-nominal work is done in close coordination with the engineering teams back home. The astronauts, as I see it, are not distinguished by their engineering prowess, but their generalist flexibility, their ability to learn new things easily, and most importantly to make connections among their various areas of knowledge and experience. Take a look at a space walk, such as the IDA installation, for example - there's no "winging it" in that situation. Each step is laid out and timed to the second, and the ideal mission never deviates from that plan. And when it does, the generalist flexibility of the astronauts enables them to fully and accurately assess the situation, whether it's a fussy connector or a malfunctioning suit, and work in close collaboration with others to identify, understand, solve the problem.
But just imagine how many heads are going to explode when the first high-school-graduate blue collar employee launches into space. Expert welder? Plumber? Electrician? Millwright? Janitor? We'll see.
But even if they don't have a PhD., they'll have that same kind of flexible generalist mindset which good astronauts exhibit.
Have you ever watched the "Gold Rush" series on the Discovery Channel? Rough-looking, dirt-covered, cussing, and endlessly tough folks with calloused hands unafraid of putting in grueling hours keeping enormous, dangerous, complex equipment up and running by any means necessary in the middle of a hostile wilderness miles from the nearest hardware store with only a supply of metal, welders, assorted large tools, and their wits, ingenuity, and substantial intelligence.
I'm descended from generations of Kansas farmers; these are my people. Snooty coastal elites tend to look down on them, but if you want to see what the Martian pioneers are going to look like - the ones who survive anyway - take in a few episodes of "Gold Rush" or "Bering Sea Gold." Instead of Au they'll be digging for H2O
In the long run, the foundations of Lunar and Martian civilization are going to be built by rednecks, not only by PhD's. Folks need to get over it.
-
#435 by gospacex on 28 Feb, 2017 20:50
-
Actually, ESAS predicted the date of the Moon return quite correctly. A bit wrong about the launcher, tho
-
#436 by Phil Stooke on 28 Feb, 2017 21:12
-
And the lander...
-
#437 by wannamoonbase on 28 Feb, 2017 21:13
-
I understand that what they are planning is just to fly around the moon and not enter lunar orbit.
I would love to know in terms of fuel requirements, once you reach the moon how much additional fuel would be needed for orbit insertion and then escape lunar orbit and head back to earth.
If it takes X amount of fuel to do TLI, how much more would be needed for lunar orbit? are we talking about 20% more, 50% more, double? etc.
Just Curious.
TY
As a rough rule of thumb, using storable propellants:
One kilogram on a translunar trajectory takes 4 kg in low Earth orbit
One kg in lunar orbit takes 4 kg in translunar trajectory
One kg on the lunar surface takes 4 kg in lunar orbit
One kg returned to Earth takes 4 kg on the lunar surface
Not suitable for use in navigation, but it supplies a good intuitive bound to the problem.
So you're saying that we should be making liquid oxygen on the lunar surface?
I'm in! -
#438 by mn on 28 Feb, 2017 21:15
-
I understand that what they are planning is just to fly around the moon and not enter lunar orbit.
I would love to know in terms of fuel requirements, once you reach the moon how much additional fuel would be needed for orbit insertion and then escape lunar orbit and head back to earth.
If it takes X amount of fuel to do TLI, how much more would be needed for lunar orbit? are we talking about 20% more, 50% more, double? etc.
Just Curious.
TY
As a rough rule of thumb, using storable propellants:
One kilogram on a translunar trajectory takes 4 kg in low Earth orbit
One kg in lunar orbit takes 4 kg in translunar trajectory
One kg on the lunar surface takes 4 kg in lunar orbit
One kg returned to Earth takes 4 kg on the lunar surface
Not suitable for use in navigation, but it supplies a good intuitive bound to the problem.
Sorry I'm a bit lost here.
I was not thinking of lunar surface, so just translunar to lunar orbit and then lunar orbit back to translunar/earth
Thanks -
#439 by Oersted on 28 Feb, 2017 21:44
-
It's all very simple really:
The 2018 synod had closest Earth-Mars distance in July 2018.
SpaceX realised they wouldn't be ready for a 2018 Mars mission.
Going to the Moon in December 2018 (Apollo 8 anniversary) buys them half a year more.
Musk knows he has to motivate his employees with grand and lofty goals.
The December 2018 Moon shot fits the bill perfectly: being technically feasible and inspiring as well.
