-
#540 by Rocket Science on 01 Mar, 2017 19:24
-
They could easily spin it by saying "We leave SpaceX to do a commercial Moon trip for tourists which NASA astronauts did 50 years ago, while the agency works on the more difficult mission to Mars"...
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. -
#541 by Jim on 01 Mar, 2017 19:30
-
Did I miss some place it said the two customers would be the only two people on the capsule?
yes -
#542 by oldAtlas_Eguy on 01 Mar, 2017 19:32
-
Besides the Mars colonization goal of Musk his secondary goals to achieve his primary goal is to lower launch costs, increase tonnage to space, increase number of people to space, increasing technical capabilities, and generally just significantly more flights. This Lunar flight fits with those goals.
The commercial market price for a Lunar free return was set several years ago at $150M per person for a 2 passenger flight (actually included a Pilot that rode along as well so total number of people on flight was 3 on a very cramped Soyuz). So that makes the revenue for this flight at that market price ~$300M. A FH price runs at $90-125M with a Crew Dragon at $70-90M. That puts the price of the components at $160-215M. Now add some amount for the minor modifications to Dragon for the Deep Space flight of ~$100M. This then gets you to a price of $260-315M.
So SpaceX could be offering to NASA to do such a flight at $300M. If this is the price point for 2 or 3 persons to a free return then SLS could be very dead politically at the level of the president. SLS/Orion program would need to show that it can accomplish much more and more quickly than the commercial industry such as a deep space habitat ride along mission for a multi-month stay in deep space. A BTW this is already in planning and is receiving some funding but its schedule is out mid to late 2020's.
But on the commercial side we only know that FH/Dragon can do a free return. What we do not know is can it achieve a Lunar orbit and then return. With all of the increased performance capabilities that Falcon has acheived in the last year and a half the values we are assuming for FH capabilities are definitely out of date. Meaning the FH/Dragon stack is possibly able to achieve Lunar orbit using the US for the Lunar orbit insertion and the on-board Dragon propellant for the return. Which then presupposes that for $300M for the manned mission and another $200M for the transport of a habitat or a cargo Dragon flight to the habitat to Lunar orbit (~12mt in size: 6mt of cargo for cargo Dragon) at a total per mission cost of $500M for 2 or 3 person stay of 6 months with continuous occupancy of the "station" at a total cost of about $1B/yr. That is 1/3 of cost of the SLS/Orion.
The political gears are turning in all different directions and we do not have a clue as to which way they will eventually mesh up. -
#543 by Proponent on 01 Mar, 2017 19:51
-
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?
3 K is the radiation temperature of the microwave background, the glow left over from the big bang. It's a temperature that might be approached in deepest, darkest intergalactic space. Things won't get that cold in cis-lunar space; I think you'd have to try pretty hard to get cooler than about ten times that.
Nitpick: Technically, it's 3 K or 3 kelvins (lower case), but no longer 3 degrees Kelvin. -
#544 by gospacex on 01 Mar, 2017 19:53
-
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?
Exactly. Some people think that "space is cold". Not so. If anything, space (vacuum) is a good thermal insulator. Only radiative heat transfer is possible.
When it comes to heat balance from the Sun, for a black body equilibrium temperature on earth orbit is -18 Celsius, IIRC. -
#545 by mme on 01 Mar, 2017 19:57
-
I don't understand why people think there is the need for a pilot/flight engineer.
These are adults and I assume they understand the risks they are taking and are self-aware enough to have thought this through. Yes, some people are not constitutionally fit for potentially dangerous situations. But lots of average Janes and Joes manage to SCUBA dive, fly experimental aircraft, rock climb, etc.
I think people are underestimating the capabilities of the "tourist" and over estimating need/value of bringing along Assistant Chief Engineer Jim Shimoda to rearrange the main computer's isoliner chips.
I assume the flight participants will be trained where the Ctl-Alt-Del keys are on the iPad, how to cycle through various comm options and how to wait for further instructions. I also assume there will be a three-ring binder that reminds them how to do these things. -
#546 by acsawdey on 01 Mar, 2017 19:58
-
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...
I had not thought of that issue, but perhaps Planet Labs could whack together something workable that's a little bigger than the one used on their Dove sats. -
#547 by georgegassaway on 01 Mar, 2017 20:06
-
Totally agreeing that depressurizing and opening the hatch for an EVA would be quite risky, especially for a "passenger" flight of untrained individuals (Yes, I know they will get some training. But this is not their profession, they will not know the systems and vehicle as thoroughly as spacecraft commanders/pilots would.)
Anyway, the mention of SpaceX spacesuits only being rated for IVA, not EVA, made me wonder about opening the hatch for a much better view, even putting their head outside, but not doing an external EVA. Sort of like David Scott's "stand up EVA" on Apollo-9, but not that far. Would need to minimize issues with overheating from direct sunlight, the flight approach to the moon and phase of the moon as they went by would dictate how well rolling away from the sun and still seeing the moon, would work out. If the IVA suits can't be warm enough in a vacuum, that would seem to be a problem for any crew on any mission, since loss of pressure is one of the main reasons for wearing an IVA suit anyway. I admit I may be missing some other major issues with looking out side of the hatch in a vacuum, wearing an IVA suit.
Not suggesting it would be a good idea. Particularly for passengers with limited training, doing it just for a lark.
Even with paying passengers , SpaceX does need to be responsible for their safety. Not "let them" do any risky thing they want.
As for modifying Dragon-2 for this, like replacing the hatch with a huge window. Nice theory. Hard to justify that for what may be a one-time-thing. The R&D and development time, hard to see that, or any other significant mods, in that timeframe. And by timeframe I do not mean 2018 (most who know SpaceX schedule history knowns that ain't happening). I mean their place in line, after the first couple of crewed missions for NASA, and meeting the NASA CC flight schedule beyond that.
Given what NASA has done for SpaceX (saving them from bankruptcy), they need to give priority to those flights, and give this private moon flight a lower priority so as not to interfere or delay CC any more than it otherwise would be.
This should not be allowed to "bump" or delay ANY NASA mission they are contracturally obligated to do. In theory, it would not. In reality...... not so sure. Can they produce an additional man-rated ready-for-space Dragon-2 without delaying any NASA Dragon-2's that may be needed according to schedule? So, they need to fit this in, somewhere, with whatever extra capacity they might have, if they have it. History does not show proof they have extra capacity, or schedule to have everything ready when everything needs to be ready (Landing Pad 2 not started yet as a current example, 39A taking so long as another example), so that is a concern.
-
#548 by oldAtlas_Eguy on 01 Mar, 2017 20:09
-
Totally agreeing that depressurizing and opening the hatch for an EVA would be quite risky, especially for a "passenger" flight of untrained individuals (Yes, I know they will get some training. But this is not their profession, they will not know the systems and spacecraft as spacecraft commanders/pilots do.)
They already scheduled the production of an extra D2 for Red Dragon which has now moved out to 2020 so there is an extra D2 in the schedule pipeline for this mission.
Anyway, the mention of SpaceX spacesuits only being rated for IVA, not EVA, made me wonder about opening the hatch for a much better view, even putting their head outside, but not doing an external EVA. Sort of like David Scott's "stand up EVA" on Apollo-9, but not that far. Would need to minimize issues with overheating from direct sunlight, the flight approach to the moon and phase of the moon as they went by would dictate how well rolling away from the sun and still seeing the moon, would work out. If the IVA suits can't be warm enough in a vacuum, that would seem to be a problem for any crew on any mission, since loss of pressure is one of the main reasons for wearing an IVA suit anyway. I admit I may be missing some other major issues with looking out side of the hatch in a vacuum, wearing an IVA suit.
Not suggesting it would be a good idea. Particularly for passengers with limited training, doing it just for a lark.
Even with paying passengers , SpaceX does need to be responsible for their safety. Not "let them" do any risky thing they want.
As for modifying Dragon-2 for this, like replacing the hatch with a huge window. Nice theory. Hard to justify that for what may be a one-time-thing. The R&D and development time, hard to see that, or any other significant mods, in that timeframe. And by timeframe I do not mean 2018 (most who know SpaceX schedule history knowns that ain't happening). I mean their place in line, after the first couple of crewed missions for NASA, and meeting the NASA CC flight schedule beyond that.
Given what NASA has done for SpaceX (saving them from bankruptcy), they need to give priority to those flights, and give this private moon flight a lower priority so as not to interfere or delay CC any more than it otherwise would be.
This should not be allowed to "bump" or delay ANY NASA mission they are contracturally obligated to do. In theory, it would not. In reality...... not so sure. Can they produce an additional man-rated ready-for-space Dragon-2 without delaying any NASA Dragon-2's that may be needed according to schedule? So, they need to fit this in, somewhere, with whatever extra capacity they might have, if they have it. History does not show proof they have extra capacity, or schedule to have everything ready when everything needs to be ready (Landing Pad 2 not started yet as a current example, 39A taking so long as another example), so that is a concern. -
#549 by 2552 on 01 Mar, 2017 20:17
-
Aren't the Dragon 2s for both Red Dragon and this mission going to be reused from NASA ISS crew missions? Still need a new trunk for both though.
-
#550 by Phillip Clark on 01 Mar, 2017 20:35
-
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.
Remember that Gemini was designed for EVA work as part of the programme's objective. Is Dragon similarly designed? I am not sure that we know this for certain.
As for the spacesuits, they are like the ones that the Russiansand Chinese wear inside their spacecraft: intended to protect against depressurisation but NOT designed for EVA work. -
#551 by TrueBlueWitt on 01 Mar, 2017 20:54
-
Totally agreeing that depressurizing and opening the hatch for an EVA would be quite risky, especially for a "passenger" flight of untrained individuals (Yes, I know they will get some training. But this is not their profession, they will not know the systems and spacecraft as spacecraft commanders/pilots do.)
They already scheduled the production of an extra D2 for Red Dragon which has now moved out to 2020 so there is an extra D2 in the schedule pipeline for this mission.
Anyway, the mention of SpaceX spacesuits only being rated for IVA, not EVA, made me wonder about opening the hatch for a much better view, even putting their head outside, but not doing an external EVA. Sort of like David Scott's "stand up EVA" on Apollo-9, but not that far. Would need to minimize issues with overheating from direct sunlight, the flight approach to the moon and phase of the moon as they went by would dictate how well rolling away from the sun and still seeing the moon, would work out. If the IVA suits can't be warm enough in a vacuum, that would seem to be a problem for any crew on any mission, since loss of pressure is one of the main reasons for wearing an IVA suit anyway. I admit I may be missing some other major issues with looking out side of the hatch in a vacuum, wearing an IVA suit.
Not suggesting it would be a good idea. Particularly for passengers with limited training, doing it just for a lark.
Even with paying passengers , SpaceX does need to be responsible for their safety. Not "let them" do any risky thing they want.
As for modifying Dragon-2 for this, like replacing the hatch with a huge window. Nice theory. Hard to justify that for what may be a one-time-thing. The R&D and development time, hard to see that, or any other significant mods, in that timeframe. And by timeframe I do not mean 2018 (most who know SpaceX schedule history knowns that ain't happening). I mean their place in line, after the first couple of crewed missions for NASA, and meeting the NASA CC flight schedule beyond that.
Given what NASA has done for SpaceX (saving them from bankruptcy), they need to give priority to those flights, and give this private moon flight a lower priority so as not to interfere or delay CC any more than it otherwise would be.
This should not be allowed to "bump" or delay ANY NASA mission they are contracturally obligated to do. In theory, it would not. In reality...... not so sure. Can they produce an additional man-rated ready-for-space Dragon-2 without delaying any NASA Dragon-2's that may be needed according to schedule? So, they need to fit this in, somewhere, with whatever extra capacity they might have, if they have it. History does not show proof they have extra capacity, or schedule to have everything ready when everything needs to be ready (Landing Pad 2 not started yet as a current example, 39A taking so long as another example), so that is a concern.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the plan to refit an already flown Dragon 2 for the Red Dragon mission?
I think it was posted here somewhere. -
#552 by meekGee on 01 Mar, 2017 21:00
-
IMO the risk of any EVA-like activity is not in the act itself, but in ensuring that the latch closes properly when it's done.
-
#553 by RoboGoofers on 01 Mar, 2017 21:14
-
I don't understand why people think there is the need for a pilot/flight engineer.
These are adults and I assume they understand the risks they are taking and are self-aware enough to have thought this through. Yes, some people are not constitutionally fit for potentially dangerous situations. But lots of average Janes and Joes manage to SCUBA dive, fly experimental aircraft, rock climb, etc.
I think people are underestimating the capabilities of the "tourist" and over estimating need/value of bringing along Assistant Chief Engineer Jim Shimoda to rearrange the main computer's isoliner chips.
I assume the flight participants will be trained where the Ctl-Alt-Del keys are on the iPad, how to cycle through various comm options and how to wait for further instructions. I also assume there will be a three-ring binder that reminds them how to do these things.
Furthermore, any crew sent along would be just as novice (with Dragon 2 and with cis Lunar) as the passengers, and any issues would be handled by the engineers at mission control (like with Apollo 13). The passengers will be able to follow mission control commands as well as crew would.
It's also more people to keep alive if something goes wrong.
The crew would be, basically, flight attendants. -
#554 by Brovane on 01 Mar, 2017 21:56
-
The big risk with aa EVA, besides depressurization of the entire spacecraft and depressurize.
Is, you have the issue of only two crew members. If you do anything more than just stick your head out you are doing a solo EVA essentially. You don't want both crew members leaving the Dragon while in orbit so you have one person at a time. With Gemini when NASA did solo EVA's the other crew member was not in a real good position to help if something went wrong. During Gemini-9, Stafford couldn't really help Cernan as he struggled through the EVA. During the EVA's for Apollo-15-17 at least they had 3 crew members so one of them was positioned at the open hatch to help the CMP as they retrieved the film. Not a good idea for a "spaceflight participant" to be conducting a solo EVA. -
#555 by Khadgars on 01 Mar, 2017 22:15
-
Totally agreeing that depressurizing and opening the hatch for an EVA would be quite risky, especially for a "passenger" flight of untrained individuals (Yes, I know they will get some training. But this is not their profession, they will not know the systems and spacecraft as spacecraft commanders/pilots do.)
They already scheduled the production of an extra D2 for Red Dragon which has now moved out to 2020 so there is an extra D2 in the schedule pipeline for this mission.
Anyway, the mention of SpaceX spacesuits only being rated for IVA, not EVA, made me wonder about opening the hatch for a much better view, even putting their head outside, but not doing an external EVA. Sort of like David Scott's "stand up EVA" on Apollo-9, but not that far. Would need to minimize issues with overheating from direct sunlight, the flight approach to the moon and phase of the moon as they went by would dictate how well rolling away from the sun and still seeing the moon, would work out. If the IVA suits can't be warm enough in a vacuum, that would seem to be a problem for any crew on any mission, since loss of pressure is one of the main reasons for wearing an IVA suit anyway. I admit I may be missing some other major issues with looking out side of the hatch in a vacuum, wearing an IVA suit.
Not suggesting it would be a good idea. Particularly for passengers with limited training, doing it just for a lark.
Even with paying passengers , SpaceX does need to be responsible for their safety. Not "let them" do any risky thing they want.
As for modifying Dragon-2 for this, like replacing the hatch with a huge window. Nice theory. Hard to justify that for what may be a one-time-thing. The R&D and development time, hard to see that, or any other significant mods, in that timeframe. And by timeframe I do not mean 2018 (most who know SpaceX schedule history knowns that ain't happening). I mean their place in line, after the first couple of crewed missions for NASA, and meeting the NASA CC flight schedule beyond that.
Given what NASA has done for SpaceX (saving them from bankruptcy), they need to give priority to those flights, and give this private moon flight a lower priority so as not to interfere or delay CC any more than it otherwise would be.
This should not be allowed to "bump" or delay ANY NASA mission they are contracturally obligated to do. In theory, it would not. In reality...... not so sure. Can they produce an additional man-rated ready-for-space Dragon-2 without delaying any NASA Dragon-2's that may be needed according to schedule? So, they need to fit this in, somewhere, with whatever extra capacity they might have, if they have it. History does not show proof they have extra capacity, or schedule to have everything ready when everything needs to be ready (Landing Pad 2 not started yet as a current example, 39A taking so long as another example), so that is a concern.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the plan to refit an already flown Dragon 2 for the Red Dragon mission?
I think it was posted here somewhere.
Correct, they were not manufacturing a new Dragon specifically for the Mars mission. It was to reuse one of the Dragons used for crew testing. -
#556 by MATTBLAK on 01 Mar, 2017 22:19
-
Yes - an EVA of any kind on a mission such as this is a complete non-starter, a non-issue. And just reiterating for the nth time, for those who didn't see earlier posts - James Cameron absolutely is not involved in any space missions for the forseeable future - he's making 'Avatar' sequels for the next few years.
-
#557 by alang on 01 Mar, 2017 22:33
-
I'm often wrong but if you are paying that kind of change for this kind of flight then the only way not to be seen as spam in a can is to conduct an EVA.
In fact that could be a selling point: we take you there and back, we make that easy for you so that you have time to develop your skills to do other things. Going into space should be easy so we won't be hiring astronauts. Not only that we provide a new generation spacesuit to make an EVA easier. -
#558 by oldAtlas_Eguy on 01 Mar, 2017 22:33
-
Which answers in part why RD got delayed because the crew Dragon testing slipped out. The Dragon would not be available in time for the March-April-May 2018 Synod. It is still possible that the Lunar Dragon could still be that test Crew Dragon refurbished with updates for deep space. The timeline of 4Q 2018 fits with the CC program schedule slips.Totally agreeing that depressurizing and opening the hatch for an EVA would be quite risky, especially for a "passenger" flight of untrained individuals (Yes, I know they will get some training. But this is not their profession, they will not know the systems and spacecraft as spacecraft commanders/pilots do.)
They already scheduled the production of an extra D2 for Red Dragon which has now moved out to 2020 so there is an extra D2 in the schedule pipeline for this mission.
Anyway, the mention of SpaceX spacesuits only being rated for IVA, not EVA, made me wonder about opening the hatch for a much better view, even putting their head outside, but not doing an external EVA. Sort of like David Scott's "stand up EVA" on Apollo-9, but not that far. Would need to minimize issues with overheating from direct sunlight, the flight approach to the moon and phase of the moon as they went by would dictate how well rolling away from the sun and still seeing the moon, would work out. If the IVA suits can't be warm enough in a vacuum, that would seem to be a problem for any crew on any mission, since loss of pressure is one of the main reasons for wearing an IVA suit anyway. I admit I may be missing some other major issues with looking out side of the hatch in a vacuum, wearing an IVA suit.
Not suggesting it would be a good idea. Particularly for passengers with limited training, doing it just for a lark.
Even with paying passengers , SpaceX does need to be responsible for their safety. Not "let them" do any risky thing they want.
As for modifying Dragon-2 for this, like replacing the hatch with a huge window. Nice theory. Hard to justify that for what may be a one-time-thing. The R&D and development time, hard to see that, or any other significant mods, in that timeframe. And by timeframe I do not mean 2018 (most who know SpaceX schedule history knowns that ain't happening). I mean their place in line, after the first couple of crewed missions for NASA, and meeting the NASA CC flight schedule beyond that.
Given what NASA has done for SpaceX (saving them from bankruptcy), they need to give priority to those flights, and give this private moon flight a lower priority so as not to interfere or delay CC any more than it otherwise would be.
This should not be allowed to "bump" or delay ANY NASA mission they are contracturally obligated to do. In theory, it would not. In reality...... not so sure. Can they produce an additional man-rated ready-for-space Dragon-2 without delaying any NASA Dragon-2's that may be needed according to schedule? So, they need to fit this in, somewhere, with whatever extra capacity they might have, if they have it. History does not show proof they have extra capacity, or schedule to have everything ready when everything needs to be ready (Landing Pad 2 not started yet as a current example, 39A taking so long as another example), so that is a concern.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the plan to refit an already flown Dragon 2 for the Red Dragon mission?
I think it was posted here somewhere.
Correct, they were not manufacturing a new Dragon specifically for the Mars mission. It was to reuse one of the Dragons used for crew testing. -
#559 by meekGee on 01 Mar, 2017 22:43
-
Yeah, I know where it came from, I was protesting it...
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?
3 K is the radiation temperature of the microwave background, the glow left over from the big bang. It's a temperature that might be approached in deepest, darkest intergalactic space. Things won't get that cold in cis-lunar space; I think you'd have to try pretty hard to get cooler than about ten times that.
Nitpick: Technically, it's 3 K or 3 kelvins (lower case), but no longer 3 degrees Kelvin.
For a vehicle that's producing heat internally, and will only be out of direct solar insolation for minutes, "too cold" will not be a problem.
Temperature difference between light and dark side will be, as well as overall heat rejection - both part of the basic design of Dragon.