Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond the Moon Next Year

spacex.com

241–250 of 513 posts

Re: SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond the Moon Next Year

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We choose to not go to the moon, but do the other things, not because they are hard, but because they are relatively easy, and we can make a quick buck.

I disagree about the "quick buck" The surprising thing about this announcement is that its a private mission. SpaceX has long resisted private tourism, to pursue CRS and Commercial Crew missions. I'm sure several billionaires would have written a large check, long ago, to go into orbit.

Have they really resisted it? SpaceX haven't had, and still don't have, a spacecraft capable of carrying people into orbit, so it's not like they've left money on the table. Delivering satellites and cargo was a good way to fund and prove the rocket themselves, without which any tourism is obviously a non-starter. And working with NASA on the Commercial Crew programme provides access to NASA expertise and facilities that SpaceX would otherwise have to develop from scratch. I suspect tourism was always part of the long-term plan.

If I had to guess why they decided to start with this mission in particular, I think it is probably because it provides a better PR opportunity than simple orbital tourism. SpaceX are clearly very image conscious, and beginning by taxiing billionaires into orbit perhaps sends the wrong signal. It's not doing anything that Russia hasn't already done, and undercuts the idealistic image they put across.

On the other hand, sending people beyond LEO for the first time in over forty years is clearly a major accomplishment. And having them be private citizens, even very rich ones, sends a very strong message that private spaceflight has come of age.

Re: SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond the Moon Next Year

#242

Wow. This sends so many thoughts cascading through my head that I'm dizzy. Some things to consider, China has been working up to getting a space capability to send people to the Moon with the full backing of the government funding, by 2035[1]. They started in 2003. SpaceX was founded in 2002 and they are saying they will fly someone around the moon next year? Dragon has the deltaV to land on the moon (not sure if it…

I certainly hope they allow permission for any emergency landings required at Clavius...could create a bit of a diplomatic row if not.

Re: SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond the Moon Next Year

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Earth has a full atmosphere with winds, an expansive array of magnetic and electric fields, and a much much higher gravitational pull then Mars or the moon. About a factor of 10 removed from mars and about a further factor of 10 removed from the moon. You'd obviously need more fuel, and fuel that can burn in a completely different atmosphere then it's intended to run in. It's an invalid test for the kind of usefu…

I wonder if there's an altitude you could do a "landing" at that would be thin enough atmosphere and weak enough gravity to get close to Martian conditions.

NASA does indeed use high-altitudes on earth to test Mars aerobraking, atmospheric entry, and supersonic parachute deployment[0]. For the actual terminal descent and landing speeds are low enough the atmosphere is not significant, you can just test that at sea level.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-Density_Supersonic_Deceler...

Re: SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond the Moon Next Year

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure everyone will see it that way. One could look at it as taking the whole "wasteful private jet" to the extreme. Think of the sheer amount of fuel burned in the earth's atmosphere so a rich guy can fly in space. At least, I expect many will spin it that way.

Interestingly, the Falcon Heavy has similar fuel capacity to a 747. (plus or minus)

Well, 215,000 L for the 747, 175,000 L for a Falcon 9, and 470,000 for the Falcon Heavy so in the same rough range. The Falcon Heavy is also carrying another 780,000 L of oxygen but that doesn't contribute any extra carbon, of course.

Re: SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond the Moon Next Year

#245

Wow. This sends so many thoughts cascading through my head that I'm dizzy. Some things to consider, China has been working up to getting a space capability to send people to the Moon with the full backing of the government funding, by 2035[1]. They started in 2003. SpaceX was founded in 2002 and they are saying they will fly someone around the moon next year? Dragon has the deltaV to land on the moon (not sure if it…

>> For so long it was only countries that could do something like that, now it is nearly within reach of individuals.

And that is something we all need to think long and hard about. Sure, spaceflight is cheaper these days, but we also live in an age of extraordinarily concentrated wealth. The necessary implication of individuals with power enough to rival governments is that, well, they can rival governments.

Anyone else see that giant superyacht in london? The one that used HMS Belfast as a dock. Some really do have toys to rival governments.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/nintchdb...

Re: SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond the Moon Next Year

#246
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the exhaust just water?!?

Not for the Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy that will be used in this launch; it uses RP-1 (basically very pure jet fuel, AKA kerosene) and liquid oxygen as fuel. The Shuttle and the new Space Launch System will use hydrogen/LOX, which exhausts basically water vapor.

RP-1/LOX also exhausts basically water vapor, plus CO2. There should be little NOx emission since it's not burning air, but there's probably some organic emissions from unburned fuel.

Re: SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond the Moon Next Year

#247
post #148
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the exhaust just water?!?

Doesn't really matter what it exhausts, it expends energy either way. If it ran on hydrogen, you'd probably have to use electrical energy to produce that. Even if you somehow got the hydrogen "for free", there are other things you could use it for. This is all quite separate from the moral issue, to which I have nothing to add.

> the moral issue

Uhh, what moral issue, exactly?

Re: SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond the Moon Next Year

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree about the "quick buck" The surprising thing about this announcement is that its a private mission. SpaceX has long resisted private tourism, to pursue CRS and Commercial Crew missions. I'm sure several billionaires would have written a large check, long ago, to go into orbit.

Have they really resisted it? SpaceX haven't had, and still don't have, a spacecraft capable of carrying people into orbit, so it's not like they've left money on the table. Delivering satellites and cargo was a good way to fund and prove the rocket themselves, without which any tourism is obviously a non-starter. And working with NASA on the Commercial Crew programme provides access to NASA expertise and facilities…

Indeed, the last time people went beyond LEO was Apollo 17 in 1972. Having the capability to do so is a big step towards re-attaining the Apollo level of humans in space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17

Re: SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond the Moon Next Year

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure everyone will see it that way. One could look at it as taking the whole "wasteful private jet" to the extreme. Think of the sheer amount of fuel burned in the earth's atmosphere so a rich guy can fly in space. At least, I expect many will spin it that way.

Interestingly, the Falcon Heavy has similar fuel capacity to a 747. (plus or minus)

That is a really surprising comparison, thanks for pointing it out! Do you have a source for that, it is something I expect to be repeating.

Re: SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond the Moon Next Year

#250
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't really matter what it exhausts, it expends energy either way. If it ran on hydrogen, you'd probably have to use electrical energy to produce that. Even if you somehow got the hydrogen "for free", there are other things you could use it for. This is all quite separate from the moral issue, to which I have nothing to add.

> Doesn't really matter what it exhausts, it expends energy either way. Energy usage is not the only consideration, and it certainly does matter what it exhausts. Exhausting an inert gas is definitely preferable to a greenhouse gas, which would be preferable to exhausting anthrax, etc. The composition of the exhaust is going to affect the positivity of the public reaction to a billionaire burning it into public air s…

Water is a greenhouse gas too.
Post reply on HN