SpaceX plans privately funded manned lunar flyby for next year

http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/...rewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year

I really hope they can pull this off. It's pathetic that no humans have gone beyond Low Earth Orbit since 1972.

Not sure that I agree that it's "pathetic". What purpose does it serve to go to the moon after you've already been there? The future trips to the moon will be for wealthy persons who want to pony up for a chance to go to space. I can't imagine any other reason to go to the moon outside of possible a staging area for other space missions (similar to using the ISS). It puts a lot of human life at risk when you can build automated equipment to do the same thing, which much lower human/monetary cost.
 
How's their track record to date with launches?
I don't expect them to actually pull it off next year, but hopefully it happens within the next decade. I would love to see a manned mission beyond LEO in my lifetime since Apollo was way before I was born.
 
Wanna go, wanna go! Too poor.....:(

Me too..!!!

Years ago, many years ago I was reading in Popular Mechanics about how by the year 2000 space travel would be normal and people would be able to afford space travel, like to a resort on the moon for a weekend getaway..... But they never identified what they meant by affordable.
 
Not sure that I agree that it's "pathetic". What purpose does it serve to go to the moon after you've already been there? The future trips to the moon will be for wealthy persons who want to pony up for a chance to go to space. I can't imagine any other reason to go to the moon outside of possible a staging area for other space missions (similar to using the ISS). It puts a lot of human life at risk when you can build automated equipment to do the same thing, which much lower human/monetary cost.
With that logic there is no reason for manned spaceflight at all and there was no point to have ever gone to the moon.
 
Many of us dreamed of space travel, when as kids we watched the Apollo missions. Looks like we may yet commercialize space. Who knows, by the time I'm 85, I might be able to go up. Just sayin'.
 
With that logic there is no reason for manned spaceflight at all and there was no point to have ever gone to the moon.

That comment only makes sense if you ignore the capabilities of the human race at various points in history. We didn't have the technology in 1960 that we do today, hence the need for manned-spaced missions. Today, we send the Mars Rover or any probe satellite to collect data. The use of humans in space missions also resulted in a lot of technological advances in order to provide solutions to the problems presented by having humans in space (Velcro is a perfect example).

Seriously, what is there to gain, scientifically, by sending more people to the moon?
 
That comment only makes sense if you ignore the capabilities of the human race at various points in history. We didn't have the technology in 1960 that we do today, hence the need for manned-spaced missions. Today, we send the Mars Rover or any probe satellite to collect data. The use of humans in space missions also resulted in a lot of technological advances in order to provide solutions to the problems presented by having humans in space (Velcro is a perfect example).

Seriously, what is there to gain, scientifically, by sending more people to the moon?
What is there to gain by sending people to space at all anymore? Just send the robots and don't risk any lives. Even during Apollo they probably could have gained almost as much scientific data if they spent half the money they did on unmanned probes instead. If all we care about is gathering scientific data then manned space flight is pointless.
Many of us dreamed of space travel, when as kids we watched the Apollo missions.
This is the point. My generation has never even seen a moon landing. There are many intangible benefits to going back to deep space, one of them being inspiring a new generation.

If you want a logical reason for going back to the moon, if we set up a base there it would allow us to gain experience living on another planet in preparation for a Mars mission while only being 3 days away.
 
What is there to gain by sending people to space at all anymore? Just send the robots and don't risk any lives. Even during Apollo they probably could have gained almost as much scientific data if they spent half the money they did on unmanned probes instead. If all we care about is gathering scientific data then manned space flight is pointless.

This is the point. My generation has never even seen a moon landing. There are many intangible benefits to going back to deep space, one of them being inspiring a new generation.

If you want a logical reason for going back to the moon, if we set up a base there it would allow us to gain experience living on another planet in preparation for a Mars mission while only being 3 days away.

Like I mentioned, unless we are planning to stage a manned mission to Mars or other planetary expedition, there's little reason to go to the moon. There are cheaper ways to "inspire" the next generation, especially ones that don't require government funds. I'm part of that generation that has never seen a moon landing, but that doesn't make space travel any less inspirational. I just believe there should be a good reason for doing it, that isn't as intangible as providing inspiration.
 
There are cheaper ways to "inspire" the next generation
Yeah, push a "Moon Lander" app to their DumbPhone.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

"We choose to go to the moon. 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, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
-JFK, 9/12/62
 
Like I mentioned, unless we are planning to stage a manned mission to Mars or other planetary expedition, there's little reason to go to the moon. There are cheaper ways to "inspire" the next generation, especially ones that don't require government funds. I'm part of that generation that has never seen a moon landing, but that doesn't make space travel any less inspirational. I just believe there should be a good reason for doing it, that isn't as intangible as providing inspiration.

There's no need for the government to be involved, at least in terms of funding. Let the free market decide whether lunar "joyrides" are sustainable.
 
I'd be down to go,but I'd pass on the 13th mission though
 
http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/...rewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year

I really hope they can pull this off. It's pathetic that no humans have gone beyond Low Earth Orbit since 1972.

Hopefully they'll have all the bugs worked out by then. It doesn't take much more dV to go from geosync to lunar transition. However, it also doesn't take much more or the wrong vector to put your buddy and yourself permanently orbiting the sun outside the Earth's SOI.

(Velcro is a perfect example).

Seriously, what is there to gain, scientifically, by sending more people to the moon?

First, Velcro is an alien technology gathered from the Roswell crash!! :D

Anywho.... The moon is a great place to test out potential surface technologies before any Mars missions. Also it can be used as a gas station of sorts once we figure out how to cheaply mine and use Helium 3. The energy required to launch interplanetary missions is a magnitudes lower then a direct launch from Earth. It would allow us to put more mass into space by using only Earth based fueling to get to the Moon. IT's all about cost per kg.

Ultimately we need to get away from rockets and transition into single stage to orbit vehicles. The issue is we haven't invented or found a low mass, high energy, and low fuel use power source to power such a vehicle. Ion engines are great but currently they only provide minuscule amounts of thrust. The EM engine is still in the WTF stage.
 
There's no need for the government to be involved, at least in terms of funding. Let the free market decide whether lunar "joyrides" are sustainable.
BTW, the only reason SpaceX is in a position to even think about doing this is because of their government-funded contracts with NASA.
 
Years ago, many years ago I was reading in Popular Mechanics about how by the year 2000 space travel would be normal and people would be able to afford space travel, like to a resort on the moon for a weekend getaway..... But they never identified what they meant by affordable.

Sad to say, but when the first shuttle accident happened, with a civilian on board, I knew that I was never going to get my chance to go into space.
 
The moon is a great place to test out potential surface technologies before any Mars missions. Also it can be used as a gas station of sorts once we figure out how to cheaply mine and use Helium 3. The energy required to launch interplanetary missions is a magnitudes lower then a direct launch from Earth. It would allow us to put more mass into space by using only Earth based fueling to get to the Moon. IT's all about cost per kg.

Sounds great, but the problem they'll run into if they do that is folks will start building moon houses near the launch facility, and then start complaining about the vibration (no noise on the moon, right??) caused by the launches and file lawsuits to shut it down.
 
There's no need for the government to be involved, at least in terms of funding. Let the free market decide whether lunar "joyrides" are sustainable.

Precisely.

BTW, the only reason SpaceX is in a position to even think about doing this is because of their government-funded contracts with NASA.

Technically correct, but I'm sure this is more of a "we're going up there already with gov't payload anyway, why not take some paying rick folks on a tour of the moon after we deliver the cargo?" situation.
 
Sounds great, but the problem they'll run into if they do that is folks will start building moon houses near the launch facility, and then start complaining about the vibration (no noise on the moon, right??) caused by the launches and file lawsuits to shut it down.

F'ing NIMBYs!!!
 
I hope they do it.
I hope they select me to go.
If I have to, I'll get out and push it all the way to the moon.
 
"All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct." -- Carl Sagan
 
Technically correct, but I'm sure this is more of a "we're going up there already with gov't payload anyway, why not take some paying rick folks on a tour of the moon after we deliver the cargo?" situation.
No, my point was that SpaceX would not currently be the company it is if it weren't for NASA's support in their early days. Without the money from NASA's contracts, and the market confidence that was gained by getting NASA onboard early as a customer, SpaceX would almost certainly have folded before it really got started.

NASA remains SpaceX's primary customer. There is no way they would have had the resources to grow and improve at the rate they have done without government funding in the form of NASA's contracts.

It is not likely that the lunar mission will be a combo ISS Cargo + Lunar mission. The complications associated with rendezvous with ISS while carrying along the upper stage booster required for trans-lunar injection would far outweigh any possible benefit.
 
We come from France....

960x540.jpg
 
No, my point was that SpaceX would not currently be the company it is if it weren't for NASA's support in their early days. Without the money from NASA's contracts, and the market confidence that was gained by getting NASA onboard early as a customer, SpaceX would almost certainly have folded before it really got started.

NASA remains SpaceX's primary customer. There is no way they would have had the resources to grow and improve at the rate they have done without government funding in the form of NASA's contracts.

It is not likely that the lunar mission will be a combo ISS Cargo + Lunar mission. The complications associated with rendezvous with ISS while carrying along the upper stage booster required for trans-lunar injection would far outweigh any possible benefit.

Be that as it may, the government is not a manufacturer, as far as I know, and has always depended on subcontractors to supply its hardware.
 
Be that as it may, the government is not a manufacturer, as far as I know, and has always depended on subcontractors to supply its hardware.
Correct, but in the past NASA came up with the basic design of the spacecraft and completely micromanaged the subcontractors with cost-plus contracts. The new way of doing things is to just give some essential requirements (payload, safety standards, etc.) and allow multiple companies to come up with their own design and compete with each other for launch contracts. This competition will hopefully keep costs down compared to the old way of doing things.
 
Be that as it may, the government is not a manufacturer, as far as I know, and has always depended on subcontractors to supply its hardware.
NASA has done and still does vehicle manufacturing itself, but typically only smaller items or prototypes. It's true that all the flight vehicles folks are familiar with were built by contractors.

I mostly commented because there are a lot of people who like to simplistically argue that "government is inept and private enterprise is always superior, so we should get government completely out of the way of private enterprise", when in reality there is often a deep interrelationship between the two. SpaceX's successes are a prime example of that.

SpaceX as we know it would simply not exist without the billions of dollars they got from government contracts, and by being able to start out with a groundwork of knowledge and expertise in a variety of spaceflight technologies generated by decades of work done by NACA and NASA.

If it were up to the free market alone, there's no way a company like SpX would be considering "lunar joyrides" today. The only reason they can consider it is because of the governmental support they've received that's gotten them to this point.

If they actually fly such a mission, I highly doubt that SpX will turn a profit on that mission alone. Much like Ford building a GT40 and winning races against the likes of Ferrari, or British Air operating the Concorde, the profit doesn't come from those events; instead, those events generate publicity, good will, desire, admiration, etc. that pay off in other ways down the line.

If you want a believable business case for why SpaceX made this announcement at this curious time (not far removed from two embarrassing launch failures, and well before either its new heavy lift vehicle or crewed capsule have even flown), consider that there is a new administration in office who has yet to exhibit any particular vision for the human spaceflight program.

NASA is working on a launch vehicle and crew capsule for operations outside of low earth orbit, with the initial missions expected to be in cislunar space in the early 2020s. SpX is essentially jumping up and down waving their arms saying, "Hey, look at me--I also have a launch vehicle and a crew capsule that can operate near the moon! Quit spending money on your (or "those other contractors' ") launch vehicle and crew capsule, and spend it on mine, instead!"

Did I mention that NASA is SpX's most important customer?
 
Thanks for the insights, Jim. There are many businesses that depend on the taxpayers. I don't follow the space business at all, so I will defer to those with greater knowledge, but IIRC SpaceX was selected after winning a competition, was it not? And what happened to the other guys?
 
Thanks for the insights, Jim. There are many businesses that depend on the taxpayers. I don't follow the space business at all, so I will defer to those with greater knowledge, but IIRC SpaceX was selected after winning a competition, was it not? And what happened to the other guys?
Boeing is getting launch contracts too. The idea is to have multiple companies capable of launching crew and cargo into orbit and have then compete for launch contracts to force them to keep costs down.
 
Last edited:
"All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct." -- Carl Sagan

My favorite quote is

"The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever." - KONSTANTIN TSIOLKOVSKY
 
Back
Top