-
#660
by
bad_astra
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:16
-
I'm honestly very surprised at the level of risk-aversion and negativity to this idea.
-
#661
by
Kansan52
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:24
-
Sorry, can't support your crowd funding for your trip around the Moon. Still working on getting mine started!
-
#662
by
Danderman
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:25
-
I'm honestly very surprised at the level of risk-aversion and negativity to this idea.
The idea of sending tourists beyond LEO on a very early FH mission is not wise.
First off, sending anyone with no prior spaceflight experience on a prolonged mission where there is no possibility of early return is perilous. If the crew were all experienced, that would be "safer".
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
Third, FH with its 27 engines needs to be fully tested before putting crew on it, and ultimately tourists.
One mitigation approach that I happen to really like (for obvious reasons) is to fly a tourist mission to ISS, and then have the Dragon rendezvous and dock with an upper stage orbited by a FH. The additional performance from this approach may allow the Dragon to contain enough prop to enter and leave lunar orbit.
-
#663
by
Negan
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:41
-
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
-
#664
by
GalacticIntruder
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:45
-
The biggest risk IMO is the ECLSS failing or being inefficient for the task. and could always get a power failure. Not sure about backups. I don't worry about FH or Dragon on take off or landing. Or GNC or Comms or EDL.
If someone wants to do it, I don't see why NASA or FAA or even SpaceX would prevent them. If I had the money I would go the the Moon, or better yet a Red Dragon or Mars 500. You can be bored and uncomfortable or dead on Earth or in Space.
-
#665
by
matthewkantar
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:46
-
I'm honestly very surprised at the level of risk-aversion and negativity to this idea.
I have no problem with the risk, worst case scenario we lose a couple of nonessential billionaires. SpaceX would most likely weather the storm. Negativity is relative, more like dismay at turning a tool in to a toy.
Matthew
-
#666
by
wannamoonbase
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:46
-
I'm honestly very surprised at the level of risk-aversion and negativity to this idea.
The idea of sending tourists beyond LEO on a very early FH mission is not wise.
First off, sending anyone with no prior spaceflight experience on a prolonged mission where there is no possibility of early return is perilous. If the crew were all experienced, that would be "safer".
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
Third, FH with its 27 engines needs to be fully tested before putting crew on it, and ultimately tourists.
One mitigation approach that I happen to really like (for obvious reasons) is to fly a tourist mission to ISS, and then have the Dragon rendezvous and dock with an upper stage orbited by a FH. The additional performance from this approach may allow the Dragon to contain enough prop to enter and leave lunar orbit.
I agree with your 3 points, however, I don't believe the late 2018 schedule.
I think the 3 points will be addressed to a reasonable level before the flight actually happens.
-
#667
by
Negan
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:48
-
The biggest risk IMO is the ECLSS failing or being inefficient for the task.
How many days did commercial crew spec for the ECLSS? Hard to believe that it would be the absolute minimum.
-
#668
by
wannamoonbase
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:49
-
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
Short answer would be experience, more exhausting engineering, design and testing.
There is a reason why most things from NASA work the first time and cost a ton.
-
#669
by
manoweb
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:52
-
It will probably look like this:
wonderful. Could you explain the graphic? Does each step of the animation represent a constant time? If so, how much? The lunar fly by will be extremely quick compared to the whole trip, I knew that, but I did not know it would be *that* small, just 3-4 hours maybe?
What program did you use for that, do you have the source code? Thank you
-
#670
by
Lee Jay
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:52
-
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
Abort modes.
Can't do that after TLI.
-
#671
by
GalacticIntruder
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:54
-
The biggest risk IMO is the ECLSS failing or being inefficient for the task.
How many days did commercial crew spec for the ECLSS? Hard to believe that it would be the absolute minimum.
I heard it was originally 7 humans for 2 weeks, and be on station unmanned for two years (lifeboat). But that is the safety of LEO. We all know Gremlins live in space.
Now we do know for sure that 4 humans and cargo is the Norm for Crew Dragon. Not sure about toilet though, or any ECLSS backups.
-
#672
by
Lee Jay
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:57
-
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.
I don't like their Mars plans either. They're focued on colinization which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program. We're on about step three.
So you don't like the Mars plan since it is too far-reaching, and you don't like this plan since it is too near sighted.
Hard man to please.
What is it that you want them to aim at?
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
-
#673
by
Danderman
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:59
-
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
What NASA is planning to do is a topic for another thread. Remember, it is the same NASA that put live crew on the first shuttle.
-
#674
by
DaveJ576
on 02 Mar, 2017 17:00
-
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?
Unfortunately, NSF will only allow me to "Like" this once!
For pity's sake, have we all become so inured to the concept that NASA is the end-all and be-all of human spaceflight that we have forgotten that this is a PRIVATE venture? Repeat this as often as necessary: "SpaceX isn't NASA!" SpaceX can do whatever they want with whoever they want as long as they are using PRIVATE money and they don't endanger the public. My hat is off to them for having the vision, resources, and most importantly the WILL to make us a multi-planet species, three qualities that politics and a fickle public will prevent NASA from having anytime in the near future. Go for it SpaceX! I hope it goes well, but I will still support you if it doesn't.
-
#675
by
RonM
on 02 Mar, 2017 17:04
-
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.
I don't like their Mars plans either. They're focued on colinization which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program. We're on about step three.
So you don't like the Mars plan since it is too far-reaching, and you don't like this plan since it is too near sighted.
Hard man to please.
What is it that you want them to aim at?
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
Reasonable, but you're stuck with government funded missions and we've seen over the decades that it's not a priority. Commercial space activity has to make a profit somewhere or be a nonprofit funded by billionaires. So, to get anywhere in space these days will require tourists and billionaire pet projects. Maybe mining one day to support colonies.
-
#676
by
Negan
on 02 Mar, 2017 17:05
-
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
What NASA is planning to do is a topic for another thread. Remember, it is the same NASA that put live crew on the first shuttle.
Who do you think the FAA is going to look to for guidance on this?
-
#677
by
philw1776
on 02 Mar, 2017 17:06
-
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.
I like the idea. My thoughts were send a drone in the trunk and let the crew operate it.
Probably not gonna happen as SpaceX would have concerns that accidentally crashing the drone into a draco thruster or worst of all a communications antenna could lead to loss of crew.
-
#678
by
Negan
on 02 Mar, 2017 17:09
-
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
Short answer would be experience, more exhausting engineering, design and testing.
There is a reason why most things from NASA work the first time and cost a ton.
So in this case SpaceX and the people who are going are just capitalizing on the great oversight job NASA has done on commercial crew.
-
#679
by
meekGee
on 02 Mar, 2017 17:15
-
Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.
So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?
Short answer would be experience, more exhausting engineering, design and testing.
There is a reason why most things from NASA work the first time and cost a ton.
The problem is that most things worked the first time for SpaceX too.
They broke later. Much like has happened with NASA hardware (and pretty much everyone else)