-
#700
by
envy887
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:04
-
Put Dragon under a fairing on FH and get two tests for the price of one...
Dragon in a fairing is not a good idea. Too much one off work would have to be done
Thanks, I was playing "catch-up" and must have missed Jim's comment...
Also, Dragon on FH goes through a different acceleration profile and atmospheric environment than it does on F9. They wouldn't be testing a real launch if it's in a fairing.
-
#701
by
manoweb
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:07
-
-
#702
by
Lee Jay
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:10
-
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
The problem is that only governments and very affluent companies can fund true science without a commercial return.
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Tourism can be funded by the public. Currently, it is limited to very affluent members of the public. This mission will fund progress toward Red Dragon and other scientific mission accelerating projects.
I don't see this getting applied to any scientific missions.
Since it is not government funded, it is not an either or proposition.
Unfortunately, I think you're wrong. Look at the first couple of pages of discussion on this thread for evidence that you're wrong.
You should be cheering them on with a silly grin on your face.
I'll watch the mission, but this sort of thing benefits a very small number of people, and only for a short time.
-
#703
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:11
-
There's another issue here you all are missing. And that is about CC budget. Or should I say "under budget".
Having another customer for Dragon 2 besides CC is very important as a business.
It can fund you over a "hump" in your finances. It makes you less dependent on your sole customer that you had before. It inspires new customers to join the ranks, because the second one is there, and its NOT a government customer. You're then not as much "under their thumb".
Also, funding for CRS/CC has always been under constant attack from those who say that there will never be a true HSF or commercial market, that its all a shell to "steal" funding away from govt HSF primes.
This move potentially reverses the argument. And even if it succeeds, certain ones like Shelby will still maintain that its insufficient as an alternative for a host of reasons, so it will take a while for this "alternative fact" to go away.
add:
I think we'll see a handful of American tourists. Then perhaps a few govt "missions". Then about two dozen foriegn nationals wanting to be the first of their nationality beyond the moon - about 1/3rd of them from China.
-
#704
by
as58
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:18
-
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
The problem is that only governments and very affluent companies can fund true science without a commercial return.
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Can you clarify what "this" is?
-
#705
by
Lee Jay
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:20
-
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
The problem is that only governments and very affluent companies can fund true science without a commercial return.
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Can you clarify what "this" is?
The next steps - all the steps that are between what we are doing now, and colonization of another planet. There's probably a century or more of that - if we try. And we aren't. And neither is SpaceX.
-
#706
by
Danderman
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:20
-
"Having another customer for Dragon 2 besides CC is very important as a business."
I agree. There is a place where tourists could go in the near future, called "LEO". There is probably enough LEO tourism market to support SpaceX for a long time to come.
-
#707
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:31
-
"Having another customer for Dragon 2 besides CC is very important as a business."
I agree. There is a place where tourists could go in the near future, called "LEO". There is probably enough LEO tourism market to support SpaceX for a long time to come.
Agree.
However, and trust me on this, they are quite different categories of "customers", and the impact of this difference cannot be understated.
It puts certain countries into a bind. Like again take China - there are 4 I *personally know* that will easily do it, but the Chinese govt would want to have Chinese taikonauts on Chinese vehicles do it first.
Do you understand the strange situation this puts them into? And there are five other cases from other nationalities ... like this.
-
#708
by
Surfdaddy
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:35
-
We as technology enthusiasts are focusing all over the science and technology of this.
But SpaceX is quite vulnerable to
a) NASA funding and congressional and administration whims; and
b) FUD and politicking from other entrenched interests.
Perhaps the tougher part of the Mars colonization is not even technological, it is funding.
You don't want to count on NASA for all of that.
Elon is wise to find various ways to diversify the funding model for SpaceX so that if the governmental support evaporates significantly, he can continue his mission at some reasonable pace.
The launching of satellites isn't really "directly" relevant to Mars colonization any more than lunar tourism missions. Yet I'm not seeing complaints that launching satellites is a deviation from their mission.
Bot the satellite launches and the lunar tourism
a) Give additional experience and knowledge to SpaceX; and
b) Offer diversity of funding to their eventual goals.
That's why those who want science and interplanetary travel to be done, instead, should not be unhappy. In this context, this "tourist" exercise is *completely consistent* with SpaceX's goal of Mars colonization.
-
#709
by
Negan
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:35
-
Does anyone see any value in this tweet by @nasawatch:
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/836781408823742464
Informed speculation as to who one of @ElonMusk's passengers *might* be on @SpaceX moon trip: investor Steve Jurvetson @dfjsteve
Pretty good resume for some joy seeking tourist without a clue.
-
#710
by
Lars-J
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:37
-
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Can you clarify what "this" is?
The next steps - all the steps that are between what we are doing now, and colonization of another planet. There's probably a century or more of that - if we try. And we aren't. And neither is SpaceX.
Uh-huh.
I'm glad you can speak so authoritatively on their steps. So it all boils down to dismissing other ideas just because they don't follow your master plan?
Of course their colonization plan is wildly optimistic and ambitious. But... even if it fails, we will learn a lot. Lots of "steps" will be explored. And without any tax dollars being spent on it (so far), that's a good return on investment for humanity no matter the outcome. If it is a failure, the pieces of that failure will be a leap forward that would otherwise not have happened.
Try seeing the glass as half full instead. ITS and New Glenn would allow someone to build that slightly movable research space station of yours in years/months instead of decades.
-
#711
by
envy887
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:40
-
Does anyone see any value in this tweet by @nasawatch:
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/836781408823742464
Informed speculation as to who one of @ElonMusk's passengers *might* be on @SpaceX moon trip: investor Steve Jurvetson @dfjsteve
Pretty good resume for some joy seeking tourist without a clue.
That's fairly safe speculation. From 2012:
Jurvetson, a board member of both SpaceX and Tesla, talked about why he invested in Musk's companies when the entrepreneur was out of money and the rest of the world thought Musk was crazy.
The answer: Jurvetson wants to fly to the moon.
http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jurvetson-spacex-elon-musk-2012-9
-
#712
by
Lee Jay
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:49
-
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Can you clarify what "this" is?
The next steps - all the steps that are between what we are doing now, and colonization of another planet. There's probably a century or more of that - if we try. And we aren't. And neither is SpaceX.
Uh-huh. I'm glad you can speak so authoritatively on their steps. So it all boils down to dismissing other ideas just because they don't follow your master plan?
Of course their colonization plan is wildly optimistic and ambitious. But... even if it fails, we will learn a lot.
And waste a lot of time, and possibly kill a lot of people, and possibly put a black eye on space exploration for decades.
Lots of "steps" will be explored. And without any tax dollars being spent on it (so far), that's a good return on investment for humanity no matter the outcome. If it is a failure, the pieces of that failure will be a leap forward that would otherwise not have happened.
Try seeing the glass as half full instead. ITS and New Glenn would allow someone to build that slightly movable research space station of yours in years/months instead of decades.
That slightly moveable station was supposed to go to Mars. And seven SLS launches need not take any longer than 7 STS launches.
-
#713
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 02 Mar, 2017 19:54
-
Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.
Not tourism and colonization.
The problem is that only governments and very affluent companies can fund true science without a commercial return.
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Can you clarify what "this" is?
The next steps - all the steps that are between what we are doing now, and colonization of another planet. There's probably a century or more of that - if we try. And we aren't. And neither is SpaceX.
Agree that it's unfortunate that government isn't acting as government should.
However, there are many who vote who appear to
not want to pay for HSF at any price.
Suggest that this will force a reconsideration. Because they'll have to decide soon, who does exploration and why?
Which countries and indivduals and credits get awards for doing so.
I've watched Emirates Mars/"HOPE" Mission come into existence as a US university lab got approached by a foreign govt to design, instrument and manage a mission - as a means to "jump start" a country into space.
Uh-huh. I'm glad you can speak so authoritatively on their steps. So it all boils down to dismissing other ideas just because they don't follow your master plan?
Of course their colonization plan is wildly optimistic and ambitious. But... even if it fails, we will learn a lot. Lots of "steps" will be explored. And without any tax dollars being spent on it (so far), that's a good return on investment for humanity no matter the outcome. If it is a failure, the pieces of that failure will be a leap forward that would otherwise not have happened.
Try seeing the glass as half full instead. ITS and New Glenn would allow someone to build that slightly movable research space station of yours in years/months instead of decades.
And the role for govt in doing it will shift. What many fear is a complete and utter "back out" that will cause a massive RIF. A not unreasonable conclusion with some of what I've heard.
But that's because we have spent too long not reconciling govt role, that it may face such a sudden change.
We can't blithely build intentionally overexpensive vehicles as "jobs programs" to force markets like space from happening forever. There's got to be a middle ground, we just might take the long way round the barn ... to get there.
Right. I'm disappointed that the government is not funding this.
Can you clarify what "this" is?
The next steps - all the steps that are between what we are doing now, and colonization of another planet. There's probably a century or more of that - if we try. And we aren't. And neither is SpaceX.
Uh-huh. I'm glad you can speak so authoritatively on their steps. So it all boils down to dismissing other ideas just because they don't follow your master plan?
Of course their colonization plan is wildly optimistic and ambitious. But... even if it fails, we will learn a lot.
And waste a lot of time, and possibly kill a lot of people, and possibly put a black eye on space exploration for decades.
The road we were on with an infrequently flown Orion/SLS did not lead to a safe situation either.
Lots of "steps" will be explored. And without any tax dollars being spent on it (so far), that's a good return on investment for humanity no matter the outcome. If it is a failure, the pieces of that failure will be a leap forward that would otherwise not have happened.
Try seeing the glass as half full instead. ITS and New Glenn would allow someone to build that slightly movable research space station of yours in years/months instead of decades.
That slightly moveable station was supposed to go to Mars. And seven SLS launches need not take any longer than 7 STS launches.
After you spend the 2-5 years changing the logistics to allow it...
-
#714
by
Robotbeat
on 02 Mar, 2017 20:01
-
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.
Let me prequote you from a few years from now:
"SpaceX found that flying beyond Earth orbit" was a bit more complicated than just pushing an object deeper into space".
Note that I am not saying that SpaceX won't do all sorts of great things in the future (fingers crossed), I am saying that this particular announcement is not likely to result in a flown mission anywhere close to 2018, or that the mission as announced is likely to morph into something else as time passes.
Ill take this bet! SpaceX will send people at least to lunar distance by the end of 2020. Deal?
-
#715
by
LouScheffer
on 02 Mar, 2017 20:02
-
You should be cheering them on with a silly grin on your face.
I'll watch the mission, but this sort of thing benefits a very small number of people, and only for a short time.
It's very much in the natural order of things: For example,
Amundsen reached the South Pole as a one-off stunt, just for a day or so, in 1911 (think Apollo).
Byrd flew over (but did not stop) at the South Pole in 1929. This is like the SpaceX mission - no stopping, unlike the mission before, but using newer technology. He took a photographer along, basically the same as a tourist with no responsibility for operating the plane. None of them spent years training for arctic traverses by sled, as had been needed before.
By 1956, existing commercial technology and understanding had improved enough to allow more-or-less stock planes to stop at the South Pole. Now people could (and did) start a crewed base, which remains a crewed research station to this day.
So basically (a) first you do it as an (expensive) stunt, then (b) you can at least get there by commercial means, then (c) commercial means get good enough to establish a base. We are now at step (b), which we were not a week ago.
-
#716
by
Danderman
on 02 Mar, 2017 20:04
-
Ill take this bet! SpaceX will send people at least to lunar distance by the end of 2020. Deal?
2020 is much more likely than 2018.
Also "people" <> "tourists".
-
#717
by
feynmanrules
on 02 Mar, 2017 20:07
-
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.
Cash Flow + Growth = More investment.
Exploration is great and we're doing that... we could do more certainly but when an investment returns immediate cash it will automatically get more. The speed and size of cash return mass is what improves tech and drives down costs. This is 100% the reason spacex is a for-profit company, to maximize this investment today.
Tourism starts with the wealthiest, tell their friends who are slightly-less wealthy... drives up demand which you convert to deposits, which de-risks more investment. Rinse repeat.
Parallel example... I'm not a huge fan of snapchat, facebook or even broadcast.com... but their existence sped up a lot of other good things. There's plenty of evidence showing which works faster and it's not close... not always better, but much better on average and ain't close either.
Maybe you're saying that larry page or steve jurvetson is not your Zefram Cochrane? Or you're just seeing one side of capitalism while you check your email and use your indoor plumbing. In either case not understanding the sadness.
to get back on topic, even if you're gung-ho for pure science and exploration missions... NASA and spacex are collaborating and sharing data on many of these missions (again to accelerate each others progress). How is it possibly bad if NASA gets even a small fraction of data from spacex cislunar or mars missions? that's expensive knowledge which can be 100% used for science obtained at tiny cost to NASA.
my .02 but I don't see a lot of reasons to be anything but optimistic here.
-
#718
by
mme
on 02 Mar, 2017 20:08
-
From
http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-yearWe are excited to announce that SpaceX has been approached to fly two private citizens on a trip around the moon late next year. They have already paid a significant deposit to do a moon mission.
Once operational Crew Dragon missions are underway for NASA, SpaceX will launch the private mission on a journey to circumnavigate the moon and return to Earth.
My understanding from reporting on the call is that they paid a lot of money for this mission, not bargain basement prices. I'm really struggling with all the hand wringing over SpaceX securing another funding source to finish the Dragon 2 capsule. We want less expensive HSF, right? So tell me again how people throwing money at SpaceX for HSF is a bad thing and not the next logical step? Especially since we have no idea what NASA's priorities will be moving forward.
As for IST being a silly pipe dream, I've been hearing that about SpaceX every single step along the way. They'll never get to orbit. They'll never get a 9 engine rocket to work. They'll never deliver cargo. They'll never make a dent in the GTO market. They'll never recover a booster. We're a month away from resolving the "they'll never re-fly a booster..."
IST may be unlikely, but I'd bet on it flying before relying on any President and Congress [1] funding a realistic plan to get to Mars at even the boots and flags level. And good luck with
any next administration embracing
any previous administration's grand vision. Welcome to the new Victorian era where gentlemen-engineer billionaires are our best hope at a sustainable presence in space...
[1] This is NOT a commentary on Trump, Obama, Shelby or any specific politician. It is the nature of 4 year election cycles, budgets and a highly contentious 2 party system.
-
#719
by
Robotbeat
on 02 Mar, 2017 20:21
-
This flight is a stunt. But better a stunt by adventurers who pay their own way than a stunt costing 20 times as much funded by the taxpayers!
The Soviets did this with Zond and turtles. The Chinese even did this with a subscale version of their capsule with plants and bacteria as passengers. SpaceX is doing it with billionaires (who might end up doing their own experiments, by the way!).
I think the passengers could survive a ballistic reentry from the Moon, too. 20 gees for less than a minute (i.e. Zond 5 ballistic entry) are survivable if you're sitting in the right position.
I give pretty high probability of mission success. Better than 90%.
I'm glad you can speak so authoritatively on their steps. So it all boils down to dismissing other ideas just because they don't follow your master plan?