-
#580
by
meekGee
on 02 Mar, 2017 01:21
-
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.
In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....
If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!
But there is context. This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi. And they're using this as a very obvious way to fund one of the steps of the program. Not even a necessary distraction (like, for example, the commsats are), but a bone-fide step they'd have to do anyway on the way to Mars. (fly humans in cis-lunar space for various periods)
So unless you think SpaceX will go gold-blind, forget about Mars, and spend the rest of their corporate lives flying rich people around the moon, I don't have a problem with this little project.
-
#581
by
AncientU
on 02 Mar, 2017 01:52
-
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?
Seven SLS launches... plus the cost of building the station, which hasn't even been designed. We're still talking about a few tens of $Billions and a couple decades. NASA has made zero progress in that direction in the seven years since you proposed it, and not because it isn't a good idea.
Next natural (and parallel) steps as I see them:
Bigelow putting up a BA-330, hopefully not attached to the ISS -- two scheduled by 2020.
New Glenn and ITS getting their methane engines -- next 1-2 years.
ULA flying IVF demo and first ACES -- early 2020s.
Masten making headway on Xeus...
There is a natural and healthy role for NASA in all of this.
-
#582
by
Danderman
on 02 Mar, 2017 02:08
-
My initial response: this is FUD.
I would bet my last dollar that there will not be a SpaceX tourist mission around the Moon launched in 2018. Could there be one later? Sure, much later. My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
-
#583
by
Brovane
on 02 Mar, 2017 02:09
-
-
#584
by
AS-503
on 02 Mar, 2017 02:11
-
Though I am skeptical that SpaceX will manage to send two people around the moon in the time frame announced, I wonder whether this announcement might finally get Congress's attention (of course, I thought that would happen after Musk's Mars announcement at the IAC).
Here's a guess: NASA starts talking more about a cis-lunar hab, proudly announcing that, thanks to the ISS model it pioneered, the hab will be launched by NASA (on SLS, of course), while the commercial sector will handle logistics. Orion isn't canceled outright -- it's still meant to be some kind of back-up or to figure in some nebulous Mars architecture, but it's de-emphasized and begins to fade away*. Maybe EUS gets put on hold indefinitely.
Some plan is put in place to build up the cis-lunar hab over the years, justifying continued SLS launches at a glacial pace. The necessary cadence of launches to maintain safety can be de-emphasized, because the lanuches carry hardware only, no people.
* Orion is built by Lockheed Martin in Colorado. It's been noted before that the first concession the Obama administration to Congress in the fight over the FY 2011 NASA budget was to rescind its proposed cancellation of Orion; it was suggested then that this was related to the fact that of the states receiving major funding through Orion/SLS, Colorado was among the most Democratic. From the Trump administration's point of view now, Colorado committed the sin of not voting for Trump in 2016.
EDIT: Added footnote about politics of Orion. Footnote added after cro-magnon gramps liked the post, so the like may not apply to the footnote.
Lockheed Martin/Orion is not exclusively Colorado and given LM is a major defense contractor and the current president wants to increase military spending...I don't think your "political" hunch is correct.
-
#585
by
AS-503
on 02 Mar, 2017 02:20
-
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.
There is no way a human pilot can "steer" a manned space craft manually through re-entry (limiting g loads, structural loads, thermal loads). If the systems are not able to do it automatically how can these "offline" systems give the pilot the critical data he/she would need for this already impossible task? There is no stick-and-rudder approach to re-entry.
-
#586
by
Norm38
on 02 Mar, 2017 02:25
-
I would love to see this happen, it would be a lot of fun. But after two failures in two years, Spacex is behind in their mailnifest. They have customers who need rides.
What is the ROI on this adventure versus 3 cores lifting three satellites?
I don't doubt their will. I doubt their resources and the will of their customers.
-
#587
by
rockets4life97
on 02 Mar, 2017 02:29
-
What is the ROI on this adventure versus 3 cores lifting three satellites?
Re-use of FH cores and Dragon 2 should make the ROI high. I expect the adventurers are paying a premium as well such that the profit from this launch is higher than your average GTO satellite launch.
-
#588
by
AncientU
on 02 Mar, 2017 02:41
-
My initial response: this is FUD.
I would bet my last dollar that there will not be a SpaceX tourist mission around the Moon launched in 2018. Could there be one later? Sure, much later. My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
They are just using the same definition of
late 2018 as Gerst a few days ago*.
I'd take the bet if it was who flies crew around the Moon first... (including the Trampoline man)
*At 4:00:
Here is a recording of the teleconference:
-
#589
by
Lars-J
on 02 Mar, 2017 03:10
-
My initial response: this is FUD.
I would bet my last dollar that there will not be a SpaceX tourist mission around the Moon launched in 2018. Could there be one later? Sure, much later. My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
I look forward to see you yelling FUD at any NASA schedule and announcement. Slipping schedules and changing priorities is not unique to SpaceX. (Asteroid redirect, looking in your direction)
-
#590
by
meberbs
on 02 Mar, 2017 03:14
-
My initial response: this is FUD.
I would bet my last dollar that there will not be a SpaceX tourist mission around the Moon launched in 2018. Could there be one later? Sure, much later. My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
I interpret your first sentence as your response being
you spreading fear uncertainty and doubt. Because I certainly don't see how SpaceX announcing that they have paying passengers around the moon does that. You also failed to use any actual facts in your response.
Why could they not meet the schedule in 2018? If nothing major goes wrong, Dragon will have flown crew to the station twice by the end of 2018. I count 3 other Falcon Heavy flights by the end of 2018 scheduled, which is reasonable for crew rating given the very high commonality with Falcon 9.
The 2018 schedule is the "everything goes right" schedule that SpaceX always uses. If there are any failures, or new issues in testing for commercial crew, this date will move. Even regular launch scheduling delays could push it to early 2019, but I am not seeing any reason that it could not be done in that general time frame barring major failures.
-
#591
by
kch
on 02 Mar, 2017 03:18
-
There is no way a human pilot can "steer" a manned space craft manually through re-entry (limiting g loads, structural loads, thermal loads). If the systems are not able to do it automatically how can these "offline" systems give the pilot the critical data he/she would need for this already impossible task? There is no stick-and-rudder approach to re-entry.
Somewhere, Gordon Cooper is laughing his [posterior] off at that ...
-
#592
by
Mongo62
on 02 Mar, 2017 03:23
-
I think that most people would agree that a test flight of Falcon Heavy putting an unmanned Cargo Dragon in a trajectory around the Moon would be a very good thing to do before a manned Crew Dragon is sent to the Moon and back.
There is a test flight of Falcon Heavy coming up, which is required before the Air Force STP-2 launch can happen. But the Falcon Heavy fairing-interior mounting hardware does not match the Cargo Dragon mounting hardware, and a fairing is required by the Air Force.
The fairing itself is not a problem, there is apparently plenty of room for the Cargo Dragon (and trunk?) inside it.
But the existing mounting hardware is a show-stopper. Designing and fabricating a one-off set of mounting hardware to hold the Cargo Dragon for just this flight would be too expensive. Unless... can an additional adapter to fit the Cargo Dragon trunk to the existing Falcon Heavy mounting hardware be fabricated and tested, in time to be ready for the test flight, preferably by the fourth quarter of this year? Basically a truncated cone, with the proper connections on both sides. It's possible that the design work for this might already be underway, we do not know how long it's been since the lunar mission was given the go-ahead, and this issue is the obvious long pole at this point.
-
#593
by
Jim
on 02 Mar, 2017 03:26
-
Dragon in a fairing is not a good idea. Too much one off work would have to be done
-
#594
by
Robotbeat
on 02 Mar, 2017 03:28
-
This is not FUD. This is literally the opposite of FUD, which is an acronym Meaning "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt."
If anything, it's fearless, confident, and (over-?)optimistic.
-
#595
by
AncientU
on 02 Mar, 2017 03:34
-
I think that most people would agree that a test flight of Falcon Heavy putting an unmanned Cargo Dragon in a trajectory around the Moon would be a very good thing to do before a manned Crew Dragon is sent to the Moon and back.
There is a test flight of Falcon Heavy coming up, which is required before the Air Force STP-2 launch can happen. But the Falcon Heavy fairing-interior mounting hardware does not match the Cargo Dragon mounting hardware, and a fairing is required by the Air Force.
The fairing itself is not a problem, there is apparently plenty of room for the Cargo Dragon (and trunk?) inside it.
But the existing mounting hardware is a show-stopper. Designing and fabricating a one-off set of mounting hardware to hold the Cargo Dragon for just this flight would be too expensive. Unless... can an additional adapter to fit the Cargo Dragon trunk to the existing Falcon Heavy mounting hardware be fabricated and tested, in time to be ready for the test flight, preferably by the fourth quarter of this year? Basically a truncated cone, with the proper connections on both sides. It's possible that the design work for this might already be underway, we do not know how long it's been since the lunar mission was given the go-ahead, and this issue is the obvious long pole at this point.
A FH test flight around the Moon was my suggestion, too, a couple weeks before the latest announcement (after Red Dragon postponement to 2020). I still think it a good idea for the FH Demo flight. Question is whether the standard upper stage with fairing, demonstrated numerous times on F9, would be sufficient for STP-2. Loading and vibration differences might be significant enough that the FH demo needs to fly with a fairing.
-
#596
by
Danderman
on 02 Mar, 2017 04:13
-
I look forward to see you yelling FUD at any NASA schedule and announcement. Slipping schedules and changing priorities is not unique to SpaceX. (Asteroid redirect, looking in your direction)
NASA normally does not have to use FUD to limit competition as IBM did. However, they may have done so in the past, especially during the 1990s when private companies were considering SSTO designs; the failed X-33 program may have been an expensive but successful FUD tactic.
-
#597
by
Danderman
on 02 Mar, 2017 04:20
-
I interpret your first sentence as your response being you spreading fear uncertainty and doubt. Because I certainly don't see how SpaceX announcing that they have paying passengers around the moon does that. You also failed to use any actual facts in your response.
Why could they not meet the schedule in 2018?
Let me quote Wikipedia to provide some actual facts:
By August 2008, SpaceX were aiming for the first launch of Falcon 9 in Q2 2009, and "Falcon 9 Heavy would be in a couple of years." Speaking at the 2008 Mars Society Conference, Elon Musk also said that a hydrogen-fuelled upper stage would follow 2–3 years later (notionally 2013).
SpaceX were targeting late 2012 for pad integration of the Falcon Heavy demonstration rocket at its west-coast launch location, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, followed by first launch in 2013.
The first launch from the Cape Canaveral east-coast launch complex was planned for late 2013 or 2014
By September 2015, impacted by the failure of Falcon 9 Flight 19 that June, SpaceX rescheduled the maiden Falcon Heavy flight for April/May 2016, but by February 2016 had moved that back to late 2016. The flight was now to be launched from the refurbished Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A. In August 2016, the demonstration flight was moved to early 2017 and further missions are rescheduled accordingly.
-
#598
by
Robotbeat
on 02 Mar, 2017 04:37
-
My initial response: this is FUD.
I would bet my last dollar that there will not be a SpaceX tourist mission around the Moon launched in 2018. Could there be one later? Sure, much later. My guess is by the time that FH is sufficiently mature to fly a tourist to any destination, SpaceX will be on to something else.
Okay, 10:1 odds (in my favor). Will you accept? Payable in food or beverage.
-
#599
by
mikelepage
on 02 Mar, 2017 04:56
-
....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.
Well said.
I'd only make a slightly different analogy, imagine that you've invested in a company to build a bridge across some deep impassable gorge, and then you find out that one of your fellow co-investors in the bridge has this
burning desire to get to the other side of the bridge, eat some broccoli, and do cartwheels while whistling yankee doodle, your response is probably "well, that seems kind of pointless to me, but I thank you for co-investing in this bridge."
Point being that the explosion of use-cases occurs every time someone builds a bridge (in this case, from one side of Earth's gravity well to the other), and you don't have to think every use-case is worthwhile to be supportive of what they represent.
