The real beauty of this mission is that it is basically using the same things that SpaceX is planning to do in the near future so SpaceX is designing and building them right now. About the only exception to this would be the deep space communications system on the Dragon 2 capsule. Even this is along the same line, as it will need to build something like this for the Red Dragon mission.But thinking along the lines of what SpaceX still needs to do for its stated objectives has given me a head scratching moment. SpaceX has announced and shown that it is working on the new Raptor engine. There is also information available that they are working on how to build the new composite propellant tanks for the ITS. It was also announced that the ITS would use gaseous methane/oxygen engines for attitude control. These attitude control thrusters would probably need to be bigger than the present Draco engines but probably smaller (but not necessarily) than the Super Draco engines. So the part that has my head itching has anybody heard anything related to the development of these new engines?Now for the speculation part related to this thread. If just about everything that SpaceX works on is related on how to get to Mars this would lean against SpaceX using any resources toward developing a Raptor S2 for the Falcon 9. It would also lean against SpaceX developing a breakaway kit using a super Draco engine to fit in the trunk of the Dragon system to be used as a service module. All of which would be within the ability of SpaceX to produce but as they have no missions/customers that need it would be most likely a waste of resources. Now developing the above mentioned new gaseous methane/oxygen engines for attitude control is definitely on their list of things to do but is probably on their due later as opposed to do earlier list. If on the other hand, they were to move this to the do earlier list could they also possibly be willing to expend the extra resources for a breakaway service module kit?This would allow them to accomplish something else on there to do list earlier and at the same time possibly get more experience with it. For a relatively low cost this would put another tool in their toolkit that others could conceivably use (and obviously be willing to pay SpaceX) for possible BLEO missions.
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?
Quote from: punder on 03/04/2017 09:06 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 07:10 pmI'll watch the mission, but this sort of thing benefits a very small number of people, and only for a short time.Yes. Sort of like Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic. Okay, a small bunch of investors got some cash out of it. Otherwise, the flight had no discernible affect on the advancement of aviation.(Sorry, catching up, many pages behind. But this attitude just really puzzles me.)If Lindbergh's flight occurred today, decades after the first trans-Atlantic passenger service started, what effect do you think it would have on aviation?
Quote from: Lee Jay on 03/02/2017 07:10 pmI'll watch the mission, but this sort of thing benefits a very small number of people, and only for a short time.Yes. Sort of like Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic. Okay, a small bunch of investors got some cash out of it. Otherwise, the flight had no discernible affect on the advancement of aviation.(Sorry, catching up, many pages behind. But this attitude just really puzzles me.)
I'll watch the mission, but this sort of thing benefits a very small number of people, and only for a short time.
Which brings me back to the premise of this article: Based solely on publicly available facts, it seems unlikely this mission will happen in 2018.Objectively speaking, SpaceX has revolutionized the launch industry. They have made incredible leaps forward in technology while re-energizing the world about spaceflight in a way that NASA has, in some ways, failed to do. They broke the monopoly on launching classified U.S. payloads. They may one day send humans to Mars.For a space company that has only been around for 15 years, that's extraordinarily impressive. But in terms of media relations and gut-checking ambitious timelines, there's always room for improvement.
SpaceX plans to send tourists around the Moon in 2018. Here's why that may not happenQuoteWhich brings me back to the premise of this article: Based solely on publicly available facts, it seems unlikely this mission will happen in 2018.Objectively speaking, SpaceX has revolutionized the launch industry. They have made incredible leaps forward in technology while re-energizing the world about spaceflight in a way that NASA has, in some ways, failed to do. They broke the monopoly on launching classified U.S. payloads. They may one day send humans to Mars.For a space company that has only been around for 15 years, that's extraordinarily impressive. But in terms of media relations and gut-checking ambitious timelines, there's always room for improvement.http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170302-spacex-tourists-2018.htmlSee what you think of the above sceptical on timeline article.
Quote from: Star One on 03/05/2017 07:03 pmSpaceX plans to send tourists around the Moon in 2018. Here's why that may not happenQuoteWhich brings me back to the premise of this article: Based solely on publicly available facts, it seems unlikely this mission will happen in 2018.Objectively speaking, SpaceX has revolutionized the launch industry. They have made incredible leaps forward in technology while re-energizing the world about spaceflight in a way that NASA has, in some ways, failed to do. They broke the monopoly on launching classified U.S. payloads. They may one day send humans to Mars.For a space company that has only been around for 15 years, that's extraordinarily impressive. But in terms of media relations and gut-checking ambitious timelines, there's always room for improvement.http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170302-spacex-tourists-2018.htmlSee what you think of the above sceptical on timeline article.Hmm. Two things come to mind about that article - the first is sour grapes that he didn't get a reply to his questions.The second is to do with SpaceX delays. Yes, they have delays, that is entirely to be expected. But, I reckon they use a form of agile development. The thing about agile development, is that as development proceeds you become better as estimating how long things will take. So I would expect them to be getting better at predicting timescales. They have now been doing this for 15 years. They started as complete beginners, they are now leading the world. I fully expect them to get a LOT better with their predictions, simply because they are getting better at everything. Of course, they will still have delays, but their predictions will be more accurate.
They won't be able to get 39a ready for heavy until 40 can support launches again.
Quote from: yokem55 on 03/05/2017 07:38 pmThey won't be able to get 39a ready for heavy until 40 can support launches again.But why do you say this?
Hi, so are you saying there has been a SpaceX announcement about not launching Falcon Heavy before the old pad is ready?
A dozen posts to communicate the obvious ... and still no concrete belief that its ... understood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjXYSJF-7Cs?t=6m56s
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/05/2017 08:18 pm A dozen posts to communicate the obvious ... and still no concrete belief that its ... understood.Are you referring to my question for a source of such claim?
...You get 40 working again so launch operations shift back to there, freeing up all of 39A.Then you have to spend time working out assembly/integration of FH, which likely involves parallel integration of three cores seperately, sequencing fixtures and facility to accomplish. Then you'll have to practice mate/demate of the three cores with unique fixtures, then be able to handle US integration with the core and finally payload.This will compete with other uses of the pad (CC, CRS), where shifting things in/out/elsewhere will slow down operations for a while....