-
#520 by Surfdaddy on 01 Mar, 2017 16:51
-
Capture the cabin air with a pump, then just open the hatch? After the EVA is completed, close the hatch and return the air to the cabin.
a. What pumps? Never been done in space before.
b. Not everything in the cabin is compatible with a vacuum.
c. Again, the suits are not EVA suits.
How did Gemini do it?
Everything in the cabin must have been compatible with a vacuum. -
#521 by Negan on 01 Mar, 2017 16:56
-
Everything in the cabin must have been compatible with a vacuum.
Would be interesting to know what exactly SpaceX means by the when it says the Dragon 2 can operate in full vacuum. -
#522 by DanielW on 01 Mar, 2017 16:58
-
Everything in the cabin must have been compatible with a vacuum.
Would be interesting to know what exactly SpaceX means by the when is says the Dragon 2 can operate in full vacuum.
When did SpaceX say that? What did I miss? -
#523 by Eric Hedman on 01 Mar, 2017 16:59
-
If I remember correctly they just vented the cabin air before the EVAs and then refilled the cabin from on board supplies when done. A pump would probably have more mass than the lost cabin air for one EVA.
Capture the cabin air with a pump, then just open the hatch? After the EVA is completed, close the hatch and return the air to the cabin.
a. What pumps? Never been done in space before.
b. Not everything in the cabin is compatible with a vacuum.
c. Again, the suits are not EVA suits.
How did Gemini do it? -
#524 by Negan on 01 Mar, 2017 17:03
-
Everything in the cabin must have been compatible with a vacuum.
Would be interesting to know what exactly SpaceX means by the when is says the Dragon 2 can operate in full vacuum.
When did SpaceX say that? What did I miss?
The exact words were from the source was "The suits and the vehicle itself will be rated for operation at
vacuum." so maybe the statement was misinterpreted by Wikipedia.
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-GReisman-20150227.pdf
Edit: IMO there's no way this would happen without a experienced astronaut doing it first so no way on this flight. -
#525 by philw1776 on 01 Mar, 2017 17:04
-
I think you are being too harsh on Eric Berger here. He is not reporting on his opinions on this, but the opinion of NASA, and the attitudes and reasoning he described in the article certainly represent the feelings of at least some at NASA. His "argument" as you put it, is not that NASA shouldn't support SpaceX in this, it is that there are those in leadership at NASA that don't like this even though this kind of private use was part of the justification for how they structured commercial crew. He posted a response in the comments that helps clarify this:Quote from: Eric BergerThere are things said publicly by NASA, and there are things said privately. I am fortunate to have some pretty good contacts high in NASA's administration who speak to me privately. They are not amused or enthused by this.
I will agree with you that a lot of younger engineers at NASA are very rah-rah when it comes to SpaceX. They see what the company is doing, and they love it. But, for the most part, they don't make the decisions.
On one hand we're repeatedly told that NASA has little decision making control and that the administration & Congress "force" NASA admins to do stuff, e.g. SLS.
Now this.
Time for some senior NASA admins to take their pensions.
(FWIW I'm not a member of the Bash NASA standing army)
-
#526 by Lars-J on 01 Mar, 2017 17:04
-
[massive trim]
So, my conclusions are:
1. Musk got played. Now it's no more Mr. Nice Guy, and that's why he was willing (and probably a little eager) to embarrass NASA by announcing SpaceX's circum-lunar mission. I hope Musk's approach works, but, as Eric Berger says, it's risky.
[trim]
No, I don't agree with that. If anything, indications are that SpaceX gave the administration a heads up notice about this, which is what caused the request for the study of a manned EM-1 mission. So if correct, "crewed EM-1" is actually a response to SpaceX. Not the other way around. -
#527 by DOCinCT on 01 Mar, 2017 17:26
-
Statement of Garrett Riesman
When did SpaceX say that? What did I miss?Everything in the cabin must have been compatible with a vacuum.
Would be interesting to know what exactly SpaceX means by the when is says the Dragon 2 can operate in full vacuum.
Director of Crew Operations Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceXZ
Before the Subcommittee on Space,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
February 27, 2015
-
#528 by Survtech on 01 Mar, 2017 18:18
-
Can we do a back of the envelope calculation of the price? My gu is about $500 million...
I'm going to estimate the total cost at around half of your calculation. My reasoning is that while Musk wouldn’t specify an exact price, he did say that the around-the-Moon mission could cost roughly the same or a bit more than a crewed trip to the International Space Station. NASA pays on the order of $81 million per seat and Soyuz has 3 seats so 3x $81 = $243 million.
Gesendet von meinem SM-T800 mit Tapatalk -
#529 by dodo on 01 Mar, 2017 18:23
-
Quote
compatible with a vacuum
Question: in the context of this discussion, the above presumably means also "capable of working at 3 degrees Kelvin", right?
I had a similar doubt when someone mentioned a telescope in the trunk... -
#530 by dglow on 01 Mar, 2017 18:25
-
There's no landing, orbiting, or EVA's to contend with. That leaves 8-10 days for CNN and selfies. How many times can you watch Apollo 13 and 2001?
Just wondering what they might actually do.
Guess it depends whether they're actually watching the movie or just 'putting it on'.
I'm going there since others have broached the subject. Let's consider this seriously for a moment: what if the the two passengers are a couple so inclined?
Perhaps not for this first mission, but eventually, inevitably, it will happen. And humanity will be presented with its first child conceived outside the gravity well of Terra. Cue the Star Child references and social media explosion; this person will be an instant celebrity for life.
But clamor aside, such an event will be incredibly profound. Just contemplate it. -
#531 by edkyle99 on 01 Mar, 2017 18:31
-
Livestream never worked...anyway this is the post-announcement thread.
I haven't had time to think about this announcement until now. My initial reaction is to ask how SpaceX plans to prove its spacecraft before this flight. I would expect that certification to include a one-week crewed duration test in LEO, a high velocity reentry test, and a mission to test the necessary long-distance communications and tracking.
Ah ha, a link:
http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year
Our article:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/spacex-two-citizens-dragon-2-lunar-mission/
The flight could be an adventure. I hope it won't be a reckless adventure. (I have the same thoughts about the SLS/Orion inaugural crew proposal.)
- Ed Kyle
-
#532 by wolfpack on 01 Mar, 2017 18:41
-
How did Gemini do it?
Vent cabin to space, open doors, close doors, repressurize from LO2 stores. Oxygen has something like > 800:1 expansion ratio when going from liquid to gas. -
#533 by meekGee on 01 Mar, 2017 18:56
-
What they meant is that the capsule and crew can continue to operate if the Dragon is unpressurized.Quotecompatible with a vacuum
Question: in the context of this discussion, the above presumably means also "capable of working at 3 degrees Kelvin", right?
I had a similar doubt when someone mentioned a telescope in the trunk...
Where did 3 K come from?
-
#534 by Lobo on 01 Mar, 2017 18:56
-
I'm somehow glum about this announcement. I mean, it's great that this move is happening - that the technology and processes will be developed to further humanity into space. But at the same time - to have that first great leap in 50 year go to ... tourists!?. This hurts and makes me a bit angry. People with extreme amounts of money are yet again able to buy their way though life. I would have been happier if the announcement read: "Wealthy private individuals donate significant money to SpaceX to train and launch two engineering citizen scientists on a free return orbit of the moon. The two future private astronauts will be chosen based on merit, education, and their ability to stimulate and captivate the future generation of space explorer..." (you get the idea).
Am I alone in this?
This is very much in line of where companies like Space X are going to make their money. This is what commercial space should be outside of government.
According to the NSF article on this, Musk did offer those seats to NASA astronauts., and the tourists bumped to a later flight. So NASA could still be first.
Which is a smart move by Musk. Very subtly he gives them a conundrum. Do they stick with their hardware and let SpaceX and tourists beat them back to the Moon? Or do they put two of their astronauts on it, and then deal with the awkward political questions that creates?
It's a win for SpaceX either way. And either way it starts to turn up the heat on SLS and Orion. Which I've been saying is Musk's plan for a long time. He'll never -say- it, lest he creates enemies in NASA and in Congress, but he just puts the 800lb gorilla in the room that's impossible to ignore.
IMO, I think he's hoping to take over HSF for NASA, partly because I think he believes that government and Oldspace has just become too slow and beuracratic to effectively produce rockets and spacecraft anymore. And he thinks he can help move things along himself. And he also wants access to 39B and other KSC facilities for his long term Mars plans with ITS, along with 39A. But he'll need to gently "help" SLS and Orion out the door to facilitate that.
A big white rocket launching before SLS from NASA's own Kennedy Space Center will start creating those optics. Launching humans from KSC to Space before NASA does will further that. As will launching humans on their big white rocket from there around the Moon before SLS/Orion are able to. The nostalgia of doing it on the 50th anniversary of Apollo 8 won't hurt either.
I think he'll offer NASA the same conundrum later with ITS. Do they want to stick with their systems and have SpaceX and civilians go to Mars first? Or do they put their own astronauts on those first missions, and then deal with the political issue of the hardware that they've been working on for decades. But ITS will need to get further along before that happens. But I think this is the opening bid by Musk to start getting his own plans moving along.
Of course, this assumes no major setbacks with FH or Dragon 2.
Just my opinion.
-
#535 by IainMcClatchie on 01 Mar, 2017 19:07
-
How close does the capsule get to the Moon surface on a free-return trajectory?
Wouldn't it be awesome to have a ball of cameras follow the capsule about 50 feet farther back and away from the Moon, such that the capsule appeared a few degrees below the Moon horizon at perigee? Relay the entire spherical stream back to Earth, and folks can watch it with a VR headset. It'd feel like you were doing an EVA, during a close approach to the Moon, with something of human scale in the scene for perspective. Ideally there would be a window on the capsule through which we could see some portion of a person, moving around in there. The immersive feel of VR is a very good application for this.
That moment when the Earth rises over the horizon of the Moon will be perfect. If the Earth's face is well lit, then the spacecraft will be as well. -
#536 by jcliving on 01 Mar, 2017 19:10
-
This seems to be a very easy decision for Spacex. A Red Dragon mission in 2018 checks the following boxes with the entire cost being paid by Spacex.
- Increases the number of flights by Falcon Heavy
- A beyond earth orbit mission
- proof of an additional use for dragon 2
A Private Tourist Moon Mission paid by the customer checks the following boxes
- Increases the number of flights by Falcon Heavy
- A beyond earth orbit mission
- proof of an additional use of dragon 2
- another proof point for crewed dragon
I stipulate that the checkbox lists above are not comprehensive, but there are enough items in the list to illustrate my point.
-
#537 by Lobo on 01 Mar, 2017 19:16
-
2. The results of the first round of the match between oldspace and newspace under Trump are in: newspace got shellacked (and there may not be many more rounds). You know all that stuff you heard about Trump's business-like approach, about promoting American industry, and so forth? Well, with respect to space policy, as they say in the President's native Queens, FUGGEDABOUDIT!!!
I've been wondering about this myself. I think on this issue, the President is conflicted.
On one hand he's a businessman, and so unlike some long time politicians, he sees when things can be done cheaper and more efficiently.
other the other hand, he is a Nationalist. And NASA is a very historic and famous standard bearer for American pride and world leadership in areas of science and space exploration. They have a lot of "Brand Recognition", so to speak. And when they are doing noteworthy things, it's "America" doing those things in people's minds.
Not sure it's so much so with SpaceX, although they are an American Company so there is -some- of that. It's just not the same in people's minds as "NASA".
So this could be an instance where the President diverges from his business instincts, and goes with his Nationalistic ones? I've been wondering which way he might go, because of that.
-
#538 by meekGee on 01 Mar, 2017 19:20
-
This seems to be a very easy decision for Spacex. A Red Dragon mission in 2018 checks the following boxes with the entire cost being paid by Spacex.
You should add to the first list:
- Increases the number of flights by Falcon Heavy
- A beyond earth orbit mission
- proof of an additional use for dragon 2
A Private Tourist Moon Mission paid by the customer checks the following boxes
- Increases the number of flights by Falcon Heavy
- A beyond earth orbit mission
- proof of an additional use of dragon 2
- another proof point for crewed dragon
I stipulate that the checkbox lists above are not comprehensive, but there are enough items in the list to illustrate my point.
- Mars EDL
- Interplanetary navigation
- Persistent science station / beacon on Mars surface
-
#539 by Lobo on 01 Mar, 2017 19:23
-
I've said this before but I'll say it again. I'd personally want at least one pilot/engineer along for the ride.
A lot can happen in seven days and I'd prefer to have someone who is able to manually execute course-correction burns and steer the thing through re-entry if the computers become balky or an error in the FHUS sends them on an unexpected and marginal trajectory (steeper re-entry corridor, for example). Then there is the issue of correct training to fix any fixable problems.
The NSF article by Chris said,QuoteIn a hastily arranged announcement, Elon Musk has revealed a plan to launch a Dragon 2 spacecraft on a circumlunar mission, with two paying customers.
Does that mean there will only be those two customers on the Dragon? Or that there will be two paying customers going along [with 1 or 2 SpaceX personnel]?
Did I miss some place it said the two customers would be the only two people on the capsule? If not, I'd think there'd be at least one SpaceX person on it. Should be adequate room for 3 people in a trip around the moon, or even 4 if a little more cramped.
