151–160 of 513 posts
Shouldn't they consider a staged approach, not unlike FDA trials. Start with a Laika dog, proceed with a chimp, as all other space programs have done in the past? Also, if this succeeds, what happens to Google's moonshot projects? Is rebranding in the works?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they haven't got a lander for one thing. The Apollo LM had its design finalised in '63, and only flew in '65. SpaceX would surely do it quicker now, with the benefit of experience, but from scratch to operations in a year for such a unique vehicle is quite unrealistic.
Dragon is only capable of crash-landing using its engines? I.e. there is not enough propellant, legs, etc... to do a soft landing? (not even considering take-off right now)
Back in 2013, before SpaceX had recovered any rockets at all, Elon Musk talked about how the way they were going to get reusable rockets was by making the rocket and the reusability more efficient: https://youtu.be/vDwzmJpI4io?t=26m30s
I wonder if it is going to be only two people who are going to go. Will they add more people if they come forward with significant amount of money too? Seems to me like the cost of taking in another person will be negligible in comparison to the funding they could contribute. This is literally a one-in-a-lifetime experience
Shouldn't they consider a staged approach, not unlike FDA trials. Start with a Laika dog, proceed with a chimp, as all other space programs have done in the past? Also, if this succeeds, what happens to Google's moonshot projects? Is rebranding in the works?
There's not much point in saying "Ok we've got this thing 98% safe let's send up a chimp and see if we explode" when you could just as easily not send up a chimp and get the results you need to get to the next level of safety, eventually reaching something reasonable to put humans in.
Note that NASA, I believe at Trump's urging, recently said they would try to place humans on the first flight of the Space Launch System (the new heavy lift rocket) - i.e., no unmanned testing first. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/science/nasa-looks-to-spe... Is Musk still maintaining a relationship with Trump? When Uber founder Travis Kalanick left Trump's business council, Musk was still on it AFAIK. I wonder i…
NASA agreed to do a study to see if they could place humans on the test flight. That seems to me like the NASA equivalent of saying "Sure, I'll look into that" while trying to not look horrified. I'm pretty sure that study will conclude that this is a bad idea.
The NASA article brought to mind a story of a well-known Cosmonaut knowingly launching in an unreliable vehicle because the politicians insisted. He died. He flew because he didn't want his understudy to be killed in his place. (I'm sure someone on HN knows the story better than I do ...).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone replying is missing this oppositized JFK quote: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." -JFK
I don't think anyone is missing that, cutesy little jokes like that just don't tend to do well here on HN.
> We 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. Can't wait to hear who booked this trip! Definitely one of the coolest ways to spend a lot of superfluous money :)
Same! I also think that spending money on a roundtrip to the moon is way better for humanity than spending it on champagne, caviar and cars.
How? I'm not saying you're wrong, but gut instinct is that automobiles are more useful to humans. I'd like to hear your thought process.