-
#560
by
sanman
on 01 Mar, 2017 22:53
-
Maybe this ultimately gets it's own thread, maybe I've missed the discussion elsewhere, but what will these passengers do during the trip? They are unlikely to be scientists so not much heavy science going on. It's an automated spacecraft so they won't have near the workload of an Apollo flight in that regard. 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.
If it was me flying, I'd be giving live interviews in space during the trip. Goodness knows there'd be enough media queuing up to talk to you that it would fully occupy your time for the duration of the voyage.
Hopefully the communications link with Earth would be able to support live video-conferencing. It would also be interesting to see the communications lag that occurs at 250K miles out.
But I wonder what they'll be doing to simulate on advance the effects of a week-long journey, which is far different than a short trip to ISS. How do we know that a weeklong voyage won't leave the Dragon2 cabin filled with phlegm and saliva floating in the air? How do we know the 2 people won't end up with a bad case of cabin Fever 3 days in?
-
#561
by
Lee Jay
on 01 Mar, 2017 22:58
-
I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
-
#562
by
CNYMike
on 01 Mar, 2017 23:06
-
-
#563
by
MATTBLAK
on 01 Mar, 2017 23:08
-
Once the first Lunar mission is done and dusted, I could forsee a revenue opportunity for a the best kind of reality show - a science journalism venture. They would not spend the money, but the BBC could cough up the dough for a couple of seats: one for Professor Brian Cox to make a future 4 part special on him and another crew member: perhaps James May would be an excellent co-presenter - he's done a U-2 flight and some 'journalistic' Astronaut training.
However; I don't see either of those fine men agreeing to do this. I think the very best American presenter for the job would be Miles O'Brien - pre-'Columbia' there was a very real chance he could have become the first journalist in Space in late 2003 or early 2004. And since there are no actual piloting or EVA tasks required for this mission, the fact that Miles O'Brien lost most of his left arm in an accident some years back need not be a show-stopper for him. On the contrary - it could provide inspiration for amputees everywhere. Most of us know an amputee in our lives, so it's not an affliction as such and is common. Miles is an experienced pilot, too. Perhaps he could accompany a wealthy person from Qatar, or from the UAE, and do the mission as a Freelance reporter/presenter for Al-Jazeera TV. Because I cannot see an American network or entity paying to put one of their own on such a flight.
-
#564
by
Coastal Ron
on 01 Mar, 2017 23:15
-
I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
Is there a forum/thread where you have outlined what you would like to see? Because you are right, you are not alone. But because I am excited where this type of activity takes us, I'm curious why it does not excite everyone.
And I'm not looking for a debate, but an education. Maybe call it "
customer development", and you represent a part of the customer base that has not yet expressed interest in this particular "feature".
-
#565
by
Poole Amateur
on 01 Mar, 2017 23:16
-
As a Brit, I like your suggestion of James May and Brian Cox, but Miles is a brilliant communicator and space advocate. Would love to see him get his ride to space and share the experience with us all on a human level.
-
#566
by
Jimmy Murdok
on 01 Mar, 2017 23:16
-
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
NASA has had the resources to do what they did almost 50years ago, of course politics do not help the development of a dragon-soyuz equivalent, but could still could have been done after the Shuttle.
They need to look ahead further, this acusations with SpaceX are demoralizing. Put efforts and keep the politicians happy developing deep space habitats and reusable landers, but be imaginative on how to keep the pork jobs for useful stuff, make proposals that they cannot refuse.
There is real possibility of space tourists around the moon and we are unhappy? NASA should be doing it's own way without looking at the "infant terrible" that they have helped to create. We should be speaking about how to land and not about whom betrayed whom with the announcement.
Edit: some ortographics
-
#567
by
MATTBLAK
on 01 Mar, 2017 23:21
-
As a Brit, I like your suggestion of James May and Brian Cox, but Miles is a brilliant communicator and space advocate. Would love to see him get his ride to space and share the experience with us all on a human level.
Yes! O'Brien has done some Space reporting for a variety of sources in recent years - even for his former employers, CNN. And I've seen his former colleague John Zarella reporting Space issues on China's CCTV as well.
-
#568
by
Poole Amateur
on 01 Mar, 2017 23:25
-
I really enjoyed his series TWIS (This Week In Space) with Spaceflight Now. Pity they couldn't make it pay. 😢
-
#569
by
Cherokee43v6
on 01 Mar, 2017 23:32
-
Part of the explosive growth in aviation in the 1920's was the result of World War 1 surplus JN-4 Jenny's being sold at an average cost of $500.00. In today's money that would be approximately $6257.30.
Unfortunately, no one is even close to selling 'used usable spaceships' for that amount.
Thus, seeing the price of a Lunar Flight come to a range where
anyone feels that the cost of doing so has value to them as an individual is highly encouraging! It implies that the costs of flight that we spacefans have bemoaned for years are beginning to move from their prohibitive levels.
Much like Dennis Tito's ISS flight created the kind of public interest that, joined with the XPrize, resulted in the the recognition of a private spaceflight market; I expect that this flight will spark the kind of interest that will encourage new and unexpected developments in private spaceflight.
I can't wait to see what comes along as a result. It is sure to be interesting!
-
#570
by
Kansan52
on 01 Mar, 2017 23:39
-
Lee Jay, I'm like Coastal Ron and would love to have views of where things should be going.
I'm excited about this mission. Having rich people help keep a space company in business does not make me feel disenfranchised. The costs do.
What does make sad is how politics stopped Apollo and the improvements to HSF that were in the pipeline.
For me, this trip shows a breakthrough. First it was the ISS. Now the Moon.
-
#571
by
Lee Jay
on 01 Mar, 2017 23:44
-
I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
Is there a forum/thread where you have outlined what you would like to see?
Not entirely, but a bit of it is here, from 2010:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19548.msg531215#msg531215
-
#572
by
TomH
on 01 Mar, 2017 23:49
-
....I am excited where this type of activity takes us, I'm curious why it does not excite everyone.
It puzzles me as well. This is not meant to be unkind to any particular person, but I think there is a certain elitism in play, the thought that this type of
to boldly go where no one has gone before is only the realm of specialists. The primo national parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite were opened when railroad barons built lines into these remote places and catered to the very wealthy. Sure, explorers and trappers were the first, but the pathway that allowed everyone in was established by the wealthy.
Military spending enables cutting edge technology in aeronautics. New developments then enable technology to trickle down to general aviation. This, however, enables a larger base of more streamlined and efficient engineering to develop. This more streamlined and more economically efficient base is then able to be a platform for even more advanced technology to arise, which is primarily paid for in military spending.
The US government, via missile programs, then NASA, pioneered space exploration. Companies like Hughes (DirecTV) have profited from that. Their participation helped build a technology and manufacturing base. NASA has been invaluable in enabling SpaceX to get to where it is, but the ability of SpaceX to apply business principles to a now more common technology has driven efficiency and deflated costs. The fact that common people (albeit rich) are now entering the equation is a good thing. It is a part of a natural cycle of advancement and progress. It is a milestone marker that access to space is becoming more prevalent. It will help build a technological and economic base that will allow humanity to reach the Red Planet. It is time to let go of elite persons being the only ones allowed access to space.
-
#573
by
jcliving
on 01 Mar, 2017 23:49
-
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.
You should add to the first list:
- Mars EDL
- Interplanetary navigation
- Persistent science station / beacon on Mars surface
I agree those are good editions to the list for Red Dragon. There is more technical achievement value for the Red Dragon, but your additions just increase the cost differential between the two missions.
-
#574
by
mme
on 02 Mar, 2017 00:03
-
I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.
So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.
Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.
The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.
Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.
If this were SpaceX's end goal and business plan, I would be disappointed. But to me it's just a stepping stone. Someone is footing the bill for development and proving of Dragon's BEO applications.
And there may, or may not, be political reasons they are doing this as well. I don't buy into that too much. I assume it's basically paid for development and additional testing of a general purpose BEO capsule.
OK, I'm not sure if it's technically BEO, but it's B-LEO at least.
-
#575
by
Coastal Ron
on 02 Mar, 2017 00:30
-
-
#576
by
Lars-J
on 02 Mar, 2017 00:58
-
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.
I'm not sure how to make it much clearer than others have, but NO. There will be no Dragon EVAs. While not impossible to build into a Dragon-like spacecraft, it would be a significant redesign that would cost $$$ and lots of time, something not in plenty of supply. Dragon is a people/cargo carrier. That is all.
Landing on the moon would be a selling point too, but that ain't happening here either.
-
#577
by
Lars-J
on 02 Mar, 2017 01:14
-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19548.msg531215#msg531215
I read it, and I agree that building a follow-on space station to support the expansion of humanity out into space would be a good idea.
The devil is in the details of course, and the sequence of events that allow that. I look forward to chatting about this on another thread.
I don't really see that type of Battlestar Galactica research exploration is feasible, but I just think its great that we actually have multiple ideas about human spaceflight now competing in the open. SpaceX has one idea. Blue Origin another. NASA has... a complicated set of ideas.
May the best one idea win.
-
#578
by
Doesitfloat
on 02 Mar, 2017 01:17
-
Hey if you can afford to once... you can afford to go again when they have a lander.
I'm not saying it has to be a Spacex lander, but if they lower the cost enough someone will make it into an amusement park.
-
#579
by
Lee Jay
on 02 Mar, 2017 01:19
-
I don't really see that type of Battlestar Galactica research exploration is feasible,
I hate it when people call it that. Makes it sound like it has to be the size of Texas and cost 100 trillion dollars.
To make a long story short, it's about 7 SLS launches. What was there, about 30 for ISS, of which something like 25 were STS launches, not including Russian crew and resupply during the process?
