-
#600
by
Danderman
on 02 Mar, 2017 05:10
-
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.
Okay, 10:1 odds (in my favor). Will you accept? Payable in food or beverage.
How much would you have bet in 2012 that FH would fly in 2014?
-
#601
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 02 Mar, 2017 06:01
-
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.
Yes, with you so far.
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
Sorry, you've lost me. Excuse my ignorance, but isn't FH S2 basically a F9 S2? Why is it different to mount a Dragon on a FH compared to what SpaceX already does with the F9?
-
#602
by
meekGee
on 02 Mar, 2017 06:08
-
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.
Okay, 10:1 odds (in my favor). Will you accept? Payable in food or beverage.
How much would you have bet in 2012 that FH would fly in 2014?
Who the F cares?
They're a few years late to being a few decades early.
Put differently, how much was even this delayed timeline likely in 2000?
You seem to think you're the only one who notices delays.
Chill. Round the moon tourism will become a thing, and add revenue. It's a good thing. Red Dragon will fly in 2020, and will likely have larger scope now.
Not fast enough? Sadly you're out of alternatives.
-
#603
by
Robotbeat
on 02 Mar, 2017 06:18
-
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.
How much would you have bet in 2012 that FH would fly in 2014?
Hmmm... Not sure I would have! But given your response, I take it that you think they have at least a 9% chance, then!
-
#604
by
darkenfast
on 02 Mar, 2017 06:18
-
Wow. I can't remember hearing so much whining in a thread in a long time in NSF. Two people are going to PAY SpaceX for a trip around the Moon!
"Waah! It's shouldn't be rich people! It should be someone from Category X that I like better and paid for by someone else!" "Waah! They can't do it without a professional astronaut!" Waah! They're just tourists!" "Waah! It's too dangerous! Let's sneer at it and maybe it'll go away!"
I wonder if the same thing happened on, say, oceanographic forums condemning Cameron for going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench as a TOURIST? Probably did, if the same kind of people are on there. Or let's pile on anyone who pays a bunch of money to jump out of a balloon in the Stratosphere: "Waah! That should only be done by professional test pilots!".
What is the matter here? It's their money, not yours. Someone is helping push BEO flight along and some of you are acting like they are killing babies or something.
I'd go in a heartbeat. Crowdfunding, anybody?
-
#605
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 02 Mar, 2017 06:19
-
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 disagree. They have paying customers, who have already put down sizeable deposits, and as others have said a trip around the moon is a good stepping stone towards SpaceX's Mars ambitions - not least by demonstrating to NASA (and anyone else) that they are capable of human spaceflight beyond LEO.
-
#606
by
MATTBLAK
on 02 Mar, 2017 06:28
-
Wow. I can't remember hearing so much whining in a thread in a long time in NSF. Two people are going to PAY SpaceX for a trip around the Moon!
"Waah! It's shouldn't be rich people! It should be someone from Category X that I like better and paid for by someone else!" "Waah! They can't do it without a professional astronaut!" Waah! They're just tourists!" "Waah! It's too dangerous! Let's sneer at it and maybe it'll go away!"
I wonder if the same thing happened on, say, oceanographic forums condemning Cameron for going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench as a TOURIST? Probably did, if the same kind of people are on there. Or let's pile on anyone who pays a bunch of money to jump out of a balloon in the Stratosphere: "Waah! That should only be done by professional test pilots!".
What is the matter here? It's their money, not yours. Someone is helping push BEO flight along and some of you are acting like they are killing babies or something.
I'd go in a heartbeat. Crowdfunding, anybody?
Ha ha! Excellent. You tell 'em. I for one, don't have a problem with this at all. And as for James Cameron and his trench dive - yes; he
was criticized by some sniffy scientists who accused him of treating the dive as trivial adventure, etc - which is complete B.S. And worse than that, some Hoaxtards were saying Cameron faked the whole thing because he's a special effects expert! Heh - I'd love some of these comedians to try saying it to his face...
-
#607
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Mar, 2017 06:31
-
Energia - 0 tonnes, the Polyus launch failed, would have had a potential payload of 100 tonnes
That was a simple software error that caused Polyus to fire in the opposite direction it was supposed to. I have no doubt that Energia had the potential to launch 88 t to LEO, as demonstrated by it launching Buran into orbit. The press release said "most powerful". Taking that literally, power is measured in Watts, not kg. The power in Watts of a rocket is F*v/2 where F is the thrust (in Newtons) and v is the exhaust speed (in m/s). So rocket power is directly proportional to its thrust for a constant exhaust speed. The same can not be said for payload mass where a host of other factors need to be considered.
Energia + Buran - 0 comparing apples to apples the Buran was part of the launch vehicle and carried no payload on its first launch, would have had a potential payload of 30 tonnes
Buran was the payload! Energia is not like the Space Shuttle where the only payload that could be carried was in the cargo bay. Energia could carry Buran or a very large payload like Polyus.
Saturn V - 140 tonnes
That is the Initial Mass in Low Earth Orbit (IMLEO). That is not the potential payload that could be carried, which is 118 t.
Falcon 9 - 54 tonnes
Should be Falcon Heavy in expendable mode. That is the potential payload. It may never carry 54 t, just like Falcon 9 has never carried its full payload of 22.8 t or even got close to it. The same should be said for Energia. It worked and it had a potential payload of 88 t.
-
#608
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 02 Mar, 2017 06:38
-
-
#609
by
Robotbeat
on 02 Mar, 2017 06:42
-
Sounds like balooney. People don't realize that this mission is actually fairly "easy," and don't realize that Falcon Heavy is mostly two reusable boosters strapped on to an F9, so should be similar to ISS (but without the hassle of docking, ISS cargo and logistics, etc...).
Russians could do this mission, too, on a similar timescale. The Soviets basically did it (with turtles) with a orbital-module-less Soyuz on top of a Proton. And that China could easily do it. And that China already did it in subscale a few years ago.
-
#610
by
meberbs
on 02 Mar, 2017 06:55
-
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.
The only one using FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) here is you, you appear not to even understand the meaning of these words every time you accuse SpaceX of FUD, which is basically as opposite as possible to what they are doing.
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:
(trimmed for length)
That trimmed portion is really, truly not relevant. It can be summarized as: SpaceX found that launching a Falcon Heavy is a bit more complicated than just strapping boosters together, which combined with the lack of reason to prioritize it (few launches, and other priorities) has led to it being pushed back a few years, with unrelated issues (launch failures) being major drivers of the most recent delays.
None of this provides any evidence that they won't make their current schedule or at least something close to it. (I already said that this is obviously the best case schedule and there are various reasons it could slip, and probably will slip some. I don't see any high probability of major issues at this point, the relevant systems are far along in development.)
-
#611
by
jpo234
on 02 Mar, 2017 06:58
-
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.
The difference is, that the past examples you cite were for PowerPoint and paper rockets. The hardware required for the moon mission is well into and beyond the "bending metal" stage.
-
#612
by
jpo234
on 02 Mar, 2017 07:05
-
Wow. I can't remember hearing so much whining in a thread in a long time in NSF. Two people are going to PAY SpaceX for a trip around the Moon!
"Waah! It's shouldn't be rich people! It should be someone from Category X that I like better and paid for by someone else!" "Waah! They can't do it without a professional astronaut!" Waah! They're just tourists!" "Waah! It's too dangerous! Let's sneer at it and maybe it'll go away!"
I wonder if the same thing happened on, say, oceanographic forums condemning Cameron for going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench as a TOURIST? Probably did, if the same kind of people are on there. Or let's pile on anyone who pays a bunch of money to jump out of a balloon in the Stratosphere: "Waah! That should only be done by professional test pilots!".
What is the matter here? It's their money, not yours. Someone is helping push BEO flight along and some of you are acting like they are killing babies or something.
I'd go in a heartbeat. Crowdfunding, anybody?
If you look for (uninformed) whining, read this:
Money Won't Save SpaceX's Moon Tourists If Something Goes Wrong
-
#613
by
jpo234
on 02 Mar, 2017 07:27
-
Wow. I can't remember hearing so much whining in a thread in a long time in NSF. Two people are going to PAY SpaceX for a trip around the Moon!
"Waah! It's shouldn't be rich people! It should be someone from Category X that I like better and paid for by someone else!" "Waah! They can't do it without a professional astronaut!" Waah! They're just tourists!" "Waah! It's too dangerous! Let's sneer at it and maybe it'll go away!"
I wonder if the same thing happened on, say, oceanographic forums condemning Cameron for going to the bottom of the Marianas Trench as a TOURIST? Probably did, if the same kind of people are on there. Or let's pile on anyone who pays a bunch of money to jump out of a balloon in the Stratosphere: "Waah! That should only be done by professional test pilots!".
What is the matter here? It's their money, not yours. Someone is helping push BEO flight along and some of you are acting like they are killing babies or something.
I'd go in a heartbeat. Crowdfunding, anybody?
Just remember this:
Space tourist dispute deepensNASA threw a tantrum when Dennis Tito flew to the ISS.
-
#614
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Mar, 2017 07:31
-
Hi Steven. The Atlas numbers would be the lift off thrust but don't they throttle up shortly after? Might be wrong
As a basis of comparison, I'm using the lift-off thrust. Maximum thrust will be higher, but depends on the height the vehicle reaches, the throttle settings used and the thrust profile of any solid motors.
For this mission - I would propose an Expedition by all willing and able NSF members to be together at KSC or nearby it for the launch of this Mission To The Moon. What do you guys think of that? I would dearly love to meet Chuck Longton, Chris Bergin, Steve Pietrobon, Space Ghost1962 etc - just for example - and indeed anyone else who thinks they could make it there.
Thanks for the invitation, but I'll be at home, covering the launch for NSF. :-) It will be interesting to see if the TV channels will be covering the launch.
-
#615
by
jpo234
on 02 Mar, 2017 07:34
-
It will be interesting to see if the TV channels will be covering the launch.
Doubt it. Today we have webcasts.
-
#616
by
tea monster
on 02 Mar, 2017 07:35
-
There is an awful lot of uninformed whining in that article.
Having said that, it is true that if something does go wrong out beyond Luna, then nobody is going to be able to zoom out and save them - but space is dangerous, something that we all know here and that the people who put their money down probably know as well.
As to the argument that "NASA should be doing this", I'm sure that they want to. They wanted to go to Mars in the 80's and I'm sure that if Congress had given them the money, they would have made it. NASA never got the funding, so they didn't go, and Congress still displays little intention of changing their minds.
Will the Falcon Heavy get to the moon on time? Maybe. It might be delayed. Everyone, including NASA, suffers from delays. I'd rather they delay the flight a year or so than fly before they are ready. We all know what what can happen when that occurs.
Musk, for whatever faults you want to find with him, is the only person who has both the will and the ability to push us out past Earth orbit.
-
#617
by
jpo234
on 02 Mar, 2017 07:40
-
Musk, for whatever faults you want to find with him, is the only person who has both the will and the ability to push us out past Earth orbit.
If this was true, I would be truly terrified. He is the one most visible right now, but I'm sure there are others.
-
#618
by
Surfdaddy
on 02 Mar, 2017 08:01
-
All the talk of FUD and tourism and negativity is depressing to me.
I grew up in the 1960's. I didn't miss a launch of a manned mission. I watched breathlessly as Apollo 11 descended to the Moon.
I've waited DECADES to see something happen beyond Earth orbit.
At the rate NASA has been going, full of bureaucracy and micromanaged by Congress, I won't live long enough to see anything happen at Mars other than a few rovers.
SpaceX is a breath of fresh air. If they can reignite interest in space, great. And if it takes them to send the first humans out of low Earth orbit, then good for them as well.
-
#619
by
Pipcard
on 02 Mar, 2017 08:27
-
It will be interesting to see if the TV channels will be covering the launch.
Doubt it. Today we have webcasts.
But this is the first time humans are going to go beyond LEO since 1972.
