-
#900
by
Jim
on 06 Mar, 2017 11:03
-
If there's still problems with using a second stage for lunar missions because of loiter time, how much longer does LTO take than GTO?
more than 2 days vs 6 hours.
-
#901
by
DOCinCT
on 06 Mar, 2017 12:01
-
So who wants to bet the moon mission will use a second stage with a methane fed raptor engine?
....
The Raptor upper stage is going to have a large PLF in which you'll find an Atlas Centaur below Dragon. This will make TLI happen and preserve all of Dragon's fuel.
....
Now you did it. I'm going to go calculate the fuel remainder after TLI of Falcon Heavy with Centaur as a third stage. It's probably pretty good... 
Almost 17 tonnes translunar after recovering all three boosters!!! That's more than double the current reusable payload... Elon should look into this
What's the payload to TLI if you expended the center core?
Didn't Elon comment that with an expendable center core the GTO payload goes up to 31,000 lbs vs. the standard 18,000lbs? That's about 175% improvement. (Fully expendable is 49,000lbs 272% improvement)
-
#902
by
DAZ
on 06 Mar, 2017 12:32
-
About the only exception to this would be the deep space communications system on the Dragon 2 capsule.
NASA will be providing that facility for Red Dragon in exchange for Martian entry, descent, and landing data.
No, he is talking about the hardware on the Dragon. NASA is providing the ground portion and not the hardware on the Dragon
Jim is correct, I was referring only to the hardware on the Dragon.
As to the ground portion, we don't yet know with the STARGATE at Boca Chica can do but it is conceivable that it could handle at least a portion of the ground part of the system.
-
#903
by
jpo234
on 06 Mar, 2017 13:22
-
As to the ground portion, we don't yet know with the STARGATE at Boca Chica can do but it is conceivable that it could handle at least a portion of the ground part of the system.
The DSN requires ground stations around the globe (Goldstone, Madrid and Canberra). A single location is not enough.
-
#904
by
bob the martian
on 06 Mar, 2017 14:31
-
I'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?
The difference is that there is no existing commercial space flight industry offering regular round-trip flights to the Moon and back. This kind of flight isn't happening multiple times a day every day.
Put another way, what impact would Lindbergh's flight have today on an air travel industry that had made 8 trans-Atlantic flights several decades ago, and since then all flights were strictly regional, with only a handful of state-run or state-sponsored operators?
-
#905
by
Proponent
on 06 Mar, 2017 15:35
-
I heard someone mention upthread that they thought Space Adventures was very likely involved in this. Why? What do they bring to the table when there's no Soyuz to procure or ISS paperwork to manage?
I presume that Space Adventures can market the trip to the right audience and knows the legal details.
-
#906
by
Danderman
on 06 Mar, 2017 15:39
-
I heard someone mention upthread that they thought Space Adventures was very likely involved in this. Why? What do they bring to the table when there's no Soyuz to procure or ISS paperwork to manage?
They allegedly have customers.
-
#907
by
Comga
on 06 Mar, 2017 18:27
-
I heard someone mention upthread that they thought Space Adventures was very likely involved in this. Why? What do they bring to the table when there's no Soyuz to procure or ISS paperwork to manage?
Again
FutureSpaceTourist posted a tweet from Alan Boyle saying
".@SpaceAdventures has an intriguing comment on @SpaceX's circumlunar mission, saying it can't comment on its clients' plans prematurely."
It seems to be trying to leave the impression that they have brokered the deal, or at least had some part in it.
edit: But your question is valid. What value do they add, especially if it is Jurvetson, who is already involved with SpaceX?
-
#908
by
MP99
on 06 Mar, 2017 19:08
-
People have been reading fantasies about travelling to other worlds for more than a century. Apollo made it real, but was an incredible effort that took resources few can really wrap their brains around. The idea that mere mortals could do it simply by paying the price would make it real in a way that's been science fiction till now. All the panty twisted wienies in the world swooning over the notion that it's just too dangerous are irrelevant. They don't pay for, go on or decide anything about turning points like this.
Yes. Yes.
Puts this so much better than I could have.
The dream has always been that commercial exploitation would drive a massive expansion into space. This really seems to open the door to that.
Cheers, Martin
-
#909
by
AncientU
on 06 Mar, 2017 20:12
-
I heard someone mention upthread that they thought Space Adventures was very likely involved in this. Why? What do they bring to the table when there's no Soyuz to procure or ISS paperwork to manage?
Again
FutureSpaceTourist posted a tweet from Alan Boyle saying
".@SpaceAdventures has an intriguing comment on @SpaceX's circumlunar mission, saying it can't comment on its clients' plans prematurely."
It seems to be trying to leave the impression that they have brokered the deal, or at least had some part in it.
edit: But your question is valid. What value do they add, especially if it is Jurvetson, who is already involved with SpaceX?
SpaceX has better things to do than answering questions from handfuls of 'me-too' wealthy individuals. Just like for cube sats, a broker can be the clearing house and earn a tidy profit in the process. This all (or at least partly) about profit, right?
-
#910
by
Danderman
on 06 Mar, 2017 20:26
-
The concept is of a travel agent vs an airline, although SpaceX is more of a manufacturer.
You will know we are making real progress when it occurs to someone that SpaceX should not be an operator if it makes its own rockets.
-
#911
by
Rei
on 06 Mar, 2017 20:48
-
FutureSpaceTourist posted a tweet from Alan Boyle saying
".@SpaceAdventures has an intriguing comment on @SpaceX's circumlunar mission, saying it can't comment on its clients' plans prematurely."
It seems to be trying to leave the impression that they have brokered the deal, or at least had some part in it.
Hmm, missed that. Interesting. That would seem to back up the James Cameron speculation:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/06/is-james-camero.htmlOf course, that's based on limited information backed by an insinuation, so take it with a nice handful of salt...
-
#912
by
MATTBLAK
on 06 Mar, 2017 20:58
-
-
#913
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 06 Mar, 2017 21:14
-
If there's still problems with using a second stage for lunar missions because of loiter time, how much longer does LTO take than GTO?
more than 2 days vs 6 hours.
FWIW - Earth orbit (1) and LTO (2) for Apollo 11, from
Apollo 11 Flight Plan
-
#914
by
manoweb
on 06 Mar, 2017 21:19
-
SpaceX has better things to do than answering questions from handfuls of 'me-too' wealthy individuals. Just like for cube sats, a broker can be the clearing house and earn a tidy profit in the process. This all (or at least partly) about profit, right?
This would be against all the vertical integration philosophy that SpaceX has pursued until now. Why leave the extra profit to the agency when they can have it? Besides, the wealthy individuals that can afford a trip to the Moon probably already have Mr. E. Musk cell phone number already anyway.
And, it would take as much if not more coordination effort between SpaceX <-> agency than Spacex <-> individual directly.
Hmm, missed that. Interesting. That would seem to back up the James Cameron speculation:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/06/is-james-camero.html
Actually I hope it's true, he might be the best person to "document" this trip with fantastic videos
-
#915
by
MATTBLAK
on 06 Mar, 2017 23:43
-
Unless we hear differently from the man himself, James Cameron is not going anywhere near the Moon anytime soon.
-
#916
by
yg1968
on 07 Mar, 2017 00:38
-
-
#917
by
yg1968
on 07 Mar, 2017 00:40
-
FutureSpaceTourist posted a tweet from Alan Boyle saying
".@SpaceAdventures has an intriguing comment on @SpaceX's circumlunar mission, saying it can't comment on its clients' plans prematurely."
It seems to be trying to leave the impression that they have brokered the deal, or at least had some part in it.
Hmm, missed that. Interesting. That would seem to back up the James Cameron speculation:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/06/is-james-camero.html
Of course, that's based on limited information backed by an insinuation, so take it with a nice handful of salt...
No. Elon said that the passengers weren't from Hollywood.
-
#918
by
Jdeshetler
on 07 Mar, 2017 03:06
-
I didn't hear anything about the "3rd" crew as a backup?
Like any other crews missions, they have a backup crew just in case one had to drop out...
-
#919
by
dorkmo
on 07 Mar, 2017 04:56
-
the crew is the mission in this case.
