8 ms·

Maybe in the very longterm. SpaceX is at the moment in orbit where NASA was in the 60s. Going to the moon is a much greater distance than most people imagine. N

Maybe in the very longterm. SpaceX is at the moment in orbit where NASA was in the 60s. Going to the moon is a much greater distance than most people imagine. Not even speaking of Mars.

DavidSJ 12y ago
> SpaceX is at the moment in orbit Not for long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory
sriram_sun 12y ago
True. NASA is now where NASA would have been in the 70s or 80s if the initial momentum of going to the moon was maintained.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
TkTech 12y ago
All of the planets in our solar system, including the gas giants, fit between the earth and the moon with a little bit of room to spare. http://i.imgur.com/CLqdeKf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/CLqdeKf.jpg People severely underestimate the distance to the moon!
- Lambdanaut 12y ago
  For some more perspective. The layman should know that actually getting into Low Earth Orbit is BY FAR the most fuel-consuming burn of any rocket mission. Even on a mission to Mars, the most predominantly fuel-consuming burn will be to LEO. Getting to the moon from LEO takes less than half the delta-v that it takes to get to LEO, and WAY less fuel (because by this time you've dropped so much weight getting to LEO) So the real problem will always be the stupidly inefficient method by which we conduct space flight. We send all of our supplies out of an enormous gravity well with a thick atmosphere. Imagine what we could build if we already had everything in space for us already. The only way we'll be able to become truly space-fairing is if we either become an astroid-mining civilization, or if we build something that lets us virtually ignore Earth's gravity well, like a space elevator.
  - CodeGenie 12y ago
    I ask you this question because you seem to know what you're talking about, whereas I simply don't. Watching the launch today, I couldn't help wonder why they don't use standard jets to get the vehicle to a height where a rocket could take over. The highest a jet has flown is about 37km and LEO is considered to start at about 160km. That 37km though in my mind would be the toughest and most fuel costly to ascend. Would it not save both weight and money to use jets and fixed wings up through the low altitudes before turning to rockets for the higher altitude ascent?
    - drgath 12y ago
      That's pretty much the approach of Virgin Galactic. Reasons why it works for them, but not for NASA would have to be explained by someone more qualified. I do know that VG barely gets into LEO, whereas NASA's requirements are much higher. In any case, I presume the scientists at NASA (and SpaceX & co) have considered just about every alternative, and the current approach still remains the most efficient for their needs.
      - teraflop 12y ago
        Not even LEO; so far, all of Virgin's flights have been strictly suborbital.
      - danielweber 12y ago
        Orbital Sciences is doing something similar, IIRC. They are the two big approaches to cheap space being done now. 1) Be cost-effective at making rockets, 2) launch from jets. My money is on #1, which SpaceX is doing, but #2 has some things going for it that could prove me wrong. #2 is also strictly limited in just how big you can make a payload, while for #1 you can get up to around 200 ton payloads before things start working against you.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        I think there are strength/scaling issues with winged aircraft that, given the fuel requirements for any sizable payload to orbit even from the speed/altitude a jet can achieve, makes this extremely challenging, but its something people keep working on.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  384,000 KM doesn't sound that much in space scale. Don't our rockets travel at something like 30,000+ KM/h in space?
  - dandelany 12y ago
    Orbital velocity at LEO is ~28,000 km/hr, but as you get further away from the Earth, your velocity decreases. Orbital velocity at the distance of the moon is only ~3,700 km/hr. (Obviously this all depends on your reference frame...)
  - zalzane 12y ago
    when talking about space travel, speeds and distances aren't relevant the same way they are planetside. in space travel, it's all about who's gravity well you're stuck in, and how much delta V itll take to transfer to a different gravity well. if we're talking about probes, the delta V aspect becomes a lot more fun when you consider the web of gravity slingshots that can be pulled off to up your dV
iamcreasy 12y ago
Not really. Planetary Robotics Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University is building a lunar rover named Andy and they have already purchased a launch slot from SpaceX to send their rover to the moon. The projected launch date is October 2015. This team are also competiting for Google Lunar X Prize.
melling 12y ago
How much of NASA's $20 billion budget is spent on spent flight? It's budget is quite small. Apple made $100 billion in fiscal 2014. Now can you imagine what a SpaceX with that kind of revenue could do? A self-sustaining business model is the better way to develop space technologies.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  > A self-sustaining business model is the better way to develop space technologies. It's a good way to improve space technologies. SpaceX builds on a lot of the research and development NASA did with taxpayer dollars, just as Apple benefited from government subsidy and investment in things like early computers and the Internet.
- valarauca1 12y ago
  I strongly disagree. While for profit sounds great, and does work amazingly well at a large number of US, EU, and multi-national corporations. It also doesn't. Complex scientific programs can have developmental studies measured in decades. Which even very healthy multi-nations can't stomach. Selling a 50+ year ROI R&D program is really hard, and will likely get you laughed out of the boardroom. But this is ultimately something that happens in academia. Due to largely public funding. Because as an charitable entity profit doesn't necessarily interfere with development and/or research of new ideas. Your goal is literally to piss away money experimenting on things. While business and innovation to go hand in hand very happily. Business by definition don't transcend profitability. It is their goal. So while they do join hands for the short term, this is a short fling, not a life long love affair. :.:.: Also SpaceX does seem impressive. But everything they've currently done was done in the 1960's, without modern computing, or even integrated circuits. I like SpaceX but they are literally riding NASA's coat tails. A structural analysis of a rocket engine can be done in a CAD simulation. Instead of by 5 guys with slide rules, and an IBM batch processing computer barely performing 100 KFLOPS.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >But everything they've currently done was done in the 1960's, without modern computing, or even integrated circuits. I like SpaceX but they are literally riding NASA's coat tails. has been for now. Significant differences though start to appear - 1. their rockets are modular from the start (even Russia has trouble to get similar system - Angara - off the ground) 2. GrassHoper - self-explanatory 3. "Raptor" full flow staged combustion engine - once they get that one, they will become way ahead of any previous development.

Maybe in the very longterm. SpaceX is at the moment in orbit where NASA was in the 60s. Going to the moon is a much greater distance than most people imagine. Not even speaking of Mars.

DavidSJ 12y ago

> SpaceX is at the moment in orbit Not for long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory

sriram_sun 12y ago

True. NASA is now where NASA would have been in the 70s or 80s if the initial momentum of going to the moon was maintained.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

TkTech 12y ago

All of the planets in our solar system, including the gas giants, fit between the earth and the moon with a little bit of room to spare. http://i.imgur.com/CLqdeKf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/CLqdeKf.jpg People severely underestimate the distance to the moon!

Lambdanaut 12y ago
For some more perspective. The layman should know that actually getting into Low Earth Orbit is BY FAR the most fuel-consuming burn of any rocket mission. Even on a mission to Mars, the most predominantly fuel-consuming burn will be to LEO. Getting to the moon from LEO takes less than half the delta-v that it takes to get to LEO, and WAY less fuel (because by this time you've dropped so much weight getting to LEO) So the real problem will always be the stupidly inefficient method by which we conduct space flight. We send all of our supplies out of an enormous gravity well with a thick atmosphere. Imagine what we could build if we already had everything in space for us already. The only way we'll be able to become truly space-fairing is if we either become an astroid-mining civilization, or if we build something that lets us virtually ignore Earth's gravity well, like a space elevator.
- CodeGenie 12y ago
  I ask you this question because you seem to know what you're talking about, whereas I simply don't. Watching the launch today, I couldn't help wonder why they don't use standard jets to get the vehicle to a height where a rocket could take over. The highest a jet has flown is about 37km and LEO is considered to start at about 160km. That 37km though in my mind would be the toughest and most fuel costly to ascend. Would it not save both weight and money to use jets and fixed wings up through the low altitudes before turning to rockets for the higher altitude ascent?
  - drgath 12y ago
    That's pretty much the approach of Virgin Galactic. Reasons why it works for them, but not for NASA would have to be explained by someone more qualified. I do know that VG barely gets into LEO, whereas NASA's requirements are much higher. In any case, I presume the scientists at NASA (and SpaceX & co) have considered just about every alternative, and the current approach still remains the most efficient for their needs.
    - teraflop 12y ago
      Not even LEO; so far, all of Virgin's flights have been strictly suborbital.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      Orbital Sciences is doing something similar, IIRC. They are the two big approaches to cheap space being done now. 1) Be cost-effective at making rockets, 2) launch from jets. My money is on #1, which SpaceX is doing, but #2 has some things going for it that could prove me wrong. #2 is also strictly limited in just how big you can make a payload, while for #1 you can get up to around 200 ton payloads before things start working against you.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      I think there are strength/scaling issues with winged aircraft that, given the fuel requirements for any sizable payload to orbit even from the speed/altitude a jet can achieve, makes this extremely challenging, but its something people keep working on.
higherpurpose 12y ago
384,000 KM doesn't sound that much in space scale. Don't our rockets travel at something like 30,000+ KM/h in space?
- dandelany 12y ago
  Orbital velocity at LEO is ~28,000 km/hr, but as you get further away from the Earth, your velocity decreases. Orbital velocity at the distance of the moon is only ~3,700 km/hr. (Obviously this all depends on your reference frame...)
- zalzane 12y ago
  when talking about space travel, speeds and distances aren't relevant the same way they are planetside. in space travel, it's all about who's gravity well you're stuck in, and how much delta V itll take to transfer to a different gravity well. if we're talking about probes, the delta V aspect becomes a lot more fun when you consider the web of gravity slingshots that can be pulled off to up your dV

iamcreasy 12y ago

Not really. Planetary Robotics Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University is building a lunar rover named Andy and they have already purchased a launch slot from SpaceX to send their rover to the moon. The projected launch date is October 2015. This team are also competiting for Google Lunar X Prize.

melling 12y ago

How much of NASA's $20 billion budget is spent on spent flight? It's budget is quite small. Apple made $100 billion in fiscal 2014. Now can you imagine what a SpaceX with that kind of revenue could do? A self-sustaining business model is the better way to develop space technologies.

ceejayoz 12y ago
> A self-sustaining business model is the better way to develop space technologies. It's a good way to improve space technologies. SpaceX builds on a lot of the research and development NASA did with taxpayer dollars, just as Apple benefited from government subsidy and investment in things like early computers and the Internet.
valarauca1 12y ago
I strongly disagree. While for profit sounds great, and does work amazingly well at a large number of US, EU, and multi-national corporations. It also doesn't. Complex scientific programs can have developmental studies measured in decades. Which even very healthy multi-nations can't stomach. Selling a 50+ year ROI R&D program is really hard, and will likely get you laughed out of the boardroom. But this is ultimately something that happens in academia. Due to largely public funding. Because as an charitable entity profit doesn't necessarily interfere with development and/or research of new ideas. Your goal is literally to piss away money experimenting on things. While business and innovation to go hand in hand very happily. Business by definition don't transcend profitability. It is their goal. So while they do join hands for the short term, this is a short fling, not a life long love affair. :.:.: Also SpaceX does seem impressive. But everything they've currently done was done in the 1960's, without modern computing, or even integrated circuits. I like SpaceX but they are literally riding NASA's coat tails. A structural analysis of a rocket engine can be done in a CAD simulation. Instead of by 5 guys with slide rules, and an IBM batch processing computer barely performing 100 KFLOPS.
- trhway 12y ago
  >But everything they've currently done was done in the 1960's, without modern computing, or even integrated circuits. I like SpaceX but they are literally riding NASA's coat tails. has been for now. Significant differences though start to appear - 1. their rockets are modular from the start (even Russia has trouble to get similar system - Angara - off the ground) 2. GrassHoper - self-explanatory 3. "Raptor" full flow staged combustion engine - once they get that one, they will become way ahead of any previous development.