9 ms·
While this feat depends on hitting a lot of intermediate milestones - Falcon Heavy Test, Crew Dragon Unmanned to ISS, Crew Dragon manned to ISS, etc, there is n
by suprgeek 10y ago
While this feat depends on hitting a lot of intermediate milestones - Falcon Heavy Test, Crew Dragon Unmanned to ISS, Crew Dragon manned to ISS, etc, there is no "show-stopper" that is apparent right now.
I like how they have avoided committing to the much harder "landing on the Moon and then return" scenario.
- dwringer 10y agoWe 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.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rhcom2 10y agoAlso the moon is pretty boring and Elon Musk likes exciting things.
- Svezik 10y agoMaking an automobile that people actually want to buy would be exciting.
- ctdonath 10y agoThere were how many $1000 deposits on Model 3s?
- bplsports92 10y agoI assume this is a joke?
- trafficlight 10y agoHow I wish I could experience the boredom of flying around the Moon.
- olex 10y ago"Relatively" being very much a keyword here. Nothing about sending two people around the moon is easy, there's a reason it hasn't been done in several decades.
- iamatworknow 10y ago>there's a reason it hasn't been done in several decades Because it lost its novelty. Clearly the technology's already been there and had the potential to get better with continued funding. Apollo 11 was a huge moment for the US and the world. We beat the Soviet Union to the moon, and that was the primary goal. By the time Apollo 17 rolled around there were other things going on that grabbed our attention (like Vietnam). We had already spent too much money on the Apollo program and the public didn't really care anymore, so it ended.
- neurotech1 10y agoI 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.
- stupidcar 10y agoHave 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.
- kristianp 10y agoIndeed, 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17
- neurotech1 10y agoYes, SpaceX resisted earlier tourism opportunities for a few reasons. One reason was they didn't have the corporate resources to do tourism flights, and do the R&D for CCDev & Commercial Crew Program (CCP), so they focused on Commercial Crew. Another reason is that NASA doesn't want tourist flights to the ISS, and no private destinations were close to ready. Lets say CCP funding was delayed, and a private team offered $400m for tourist flights, they'd have to develop two different Dragon capsule specifications. One for ISS, and one for private tourism. Similar, but with non-identical requirements. With the CCP further along, the different specifications may no longer be an issue. Another reason is SpaceX doesn't have a training program for space tourists, and they'd require a training program. The Russians require 3-6mo of training for a space tourist on the Soyuz. That said, there are reasons SpaceX went for this plan now, and not before.
- gleenn 10y agoEveryone 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
- hsod 10y agoI don't think anyone is missing that, cutesy little jokes like that just don't tend to do well here on HN.
- avmich 10y agoThey are viewed as somewhat missing the point, and so aren't enjoyed.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mark-r 10y agoI think possibly lots of people are missing it. How well known is Kennedy's speech for those who weren't alive at the time? And yes it was a joke, but contained within the joke is a pointed commentary.
- hsod 10y agoI think it's one of the most famous quotations in the country (it has it's own wikipedia page[0]), and the reference wasn't exactly subtle. I'm betting most downvoters (myself included) got the reference. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon
- strawberrycough 10y agoThe problem with stupid people is they think the obvious is clever and pithy.
- DavidSJ 10y ago
- abecedarius 10y agoThe Apollo program also started with around-the-moon missions before the landing missions.
- elastic_church 10y agolol love it JFKa-ching!
- jackmott 10y agothey went around the moon before landing on it, too.
- bennyg 10y agoEveryone's always so cynical... They're sending (presumably) two non-astronauts further than any humans have ever been. I assume there will be future milestones that probably include landing on the moon to test the Mars landing.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nickik 10y agoLanding on the moon to "test" the Mars landing makes almost no sense. The a moon is just to different, landing on mars can be trained much better on Earth or on Mars itself. The simuliertes are not enough to make it sensible if you don't have another reason to land on the moon too.
- gravypod 10y agoThere's gravity and a rock. Ignoring all the differences these still two extremely hard things to solve first before you start thinking of anything else.
- beojan 10y agoThere's gravity and a rock on Earth too. Just going up into orbit, then landing back on Earth, is a much better way of testing a Mars landing.
- gravypod 10y agoThe 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 useful metrics that would be obtainable in a "pure" vacume out in space.
- achamayou 10y agoWell, 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.
- rplnt 10y agoDragon 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)
- ceejayoz 10y agoIt can land on Earth, because it uses the atmosphere to shed most of its speed, and rockets for the very last couple hundred miles an hour. No such luck on the airless Moon.
- nickik 10y agoDepends on the rocket. With some modifications and the right rocket it should be possible to land a Dragon 2 on the moon. However, there it will be for a very long time. No chance to come back.
- cbhl 10y agoIf you want to send up more propellant, you need to send up even more propellant to get the propellant you want up to space. Which means you have no room left for your actual payload. 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 https://youtu.be/vDwzmJpI4io?t=26m30s
- Symmetry 10y agoNot on the Moon. On Earth or Mars it can aerobrake away most of its orbital velocity but you can't do that on Mars. The Dragon 2 only carries 400 m/s of delta-v and you'd need 1.7 km/s to get from low lunar orbit to the surface even ignoring the need to brake into an orbit.