SpaceX announces plan to fly two space tourists around moon

SpaceX announces plan to fly two space tourists around moon. It's all
over the Internet, evening news, morning news...

The space themed pages on Facebook have a lot of people whining over
calling the space tourists private astronauts. Like the long list of
NASA payload specialists were any different.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On 2/28/2017 6:09 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
SpaceX announces plan to fly two space tourists around moon. It's all
over the Internet, evening news, morning news...

The space themed pages on Facebook have a lot of people whining over
calling the space tourists private astronauts. Like the long list of
NASA payload specialists were any different.

Jeff



For the last several years, SpaceX has been spectacularly disrupting the
space industry at the same time that it is rapidly advancing the state
of the art. So I wish them luck.

Still, as always with Musk, the announced timeline is laughable. For
example: The Falcon heavy has been flying "soon" now for several years.

In article , says...

On 2/28/2017 6:09 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
SpaceX announces plan to fly two space tourists around moon. It's all
over the Internet, evening news, morning news...

The space themed pages on Facebook have a lot of people whining over
calling the space tourists private astronauts. Like the long list of
NASA payload specialists were any different.

Jeff



For the last several years, SpaceX has been spectacularly disrupting the
space industry at the same time that it is rapidly advancing the state
of the art. So I wish them luck.

Still, as always with Musk, the announced timeline is laughable. For
example: The Falcon heavy has been flying "soon" now for several years.

As with everything out of SpaceX this assumes the Falcon Heavy test goes
well. Presumably they would then start using Falcon Heavy to launch
satellites, so there should be several successful Falcon Heavy flights
before this manned lunar mission is launched.

But, stuff happens, so we shall see.

Still, If I were a betting man, I'd bet this flight will happen before a
manned flight of SLS/Orion around the moon. That is, unless NASA asks
SpaceX to wait for SLS/Orion to go first. When your biggest customer
asks you to do something, you should at least consider it.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-03-01 06:04, Jeff Findley wrote:
As with everything out of SpaceX this assumes the Falcon Heavy
test goes well.

Musk must have a fair idea of its readiness and level of confidence
in its success.

Well, sure, but haven't we been hearing "Will fly soon" for Falcon
Heavy for three or more years now?

rick jones
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

On 3/1/2017 6:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
As with everything out of SpaceX this assumes the Falcon Heavy test goes
well. Presumably they would then start using Falcon Heavy to launch
satellites, so there should be several successful Falcon Heavy flights
before this manned lunar mission is launched.

But, stuff happens, so we shall see.

Still, If I were a betting man, I'd bet this flight will happen before a
manned flight of SLS/Orion around the moon. That is, unless NASA asks
SpaceX to wait for SLS/Orion to go first. When your biggest customer
asks you to do something, you should at least consider it.

Jeff


Well even if NASA were to ask this, that's no reason not to send paying
customers into LEO and back. And there are very sound reasons for SpaceX
to be doing this, paying tourists or no, as I pointed out in Rand
Simberg's blog a few days ago.

Having multiple successful crewed flights of Dragon 2 will avoid
requirements creep & other nasty moving of the 'manned-rating' goal
posts by NASA if SpaceX already has a sound record of doing such on
their own.

SpaceX cannot afford to lose their biggest customer, but at the same
time cannot afford to be held hostage by it either. Another reason I
think SpaceX should also orbit a commercial space hab at some point.
Either by itself or in partnership with others.

Dave

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-03-01 06:04, Jeff Findley wrote:

As with everything out of SpaceX this assumes the Falcon Heavy test goes
well.


Musk must have a fair idea of its readiness and level of confidence in
its success. If there is a "good" chance it will work, then he wants
customers lined up to use it as soon as it is ready, othwerwise you'd
have a perfectly good rocket that remains unused for long period because
you had anticipated problems would take longer to solve.

The anciliary: those customers for early launch "all went well scenario"
would have clauses in contracts to deal with higher likelyhood of delays.


This has already happened and Falcon Heavy has already taken most of
its schedule slides (with several early booked payloads moving off to
other launchers because they couldn't wait any longer), so I think
we're into the more realistic part of the schedule. The first Falcon
Heavy launch is supposed to be this summer.


So I would say it is pretty normal for SpaceX to pitch F9H as being
nearly ready and lining up customers for it.


This is especially true if portraying F9H as nearly ready to goto moon
while SLS is still years away causes NASA to cancel SLS and rely on F9H,
and once that happens, a delay in F9H doesn't matter because there is no
option.


Except things that are different are not the same and Falcon Heavy
isn't a replacement for SLS.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Rick Jones wrote:

JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-03-01 06:04, Jeff Findley wrote:
As with everything out of SpaceX this assumes the Falcon Heavy
test goes well.

Musk must have a fair idea of its readiness and level of confidence
in its success.

Well, sure, but haven't we been hearing "Will fly soon" for Falcon
Heavy for three or more years now?


Yes, we have, which is why the current schedule is probably fairly
solid. They've taken their slides and if they don't have to redirect
effort because of another Falcon 9 explosion Falcon Heavy will fly
this year.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"David Spain" wrote in message news

On 3/1/2017 6:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
As with everything out of SpaceX this assumes the Falcon Heavy test goes
well. Presumably they would then start using Falcon Heavy to launch
satellites, so there should be several successful Falcon Heavy flights
before this manned lunar mission is launched.

But, stuff happens, so we shall see.

Still, If I were a betting man, I'd bet this flight will happen before a
manned flight of SLS/Orion around the moon. That is, unless NASA asks
SpaceX to wait for SLS/Orion to go first. When your biggest customer
asks you to do something, you should at least consider it.

Jeff


Well even if NASA were to ask this, that's no reason not to send paying
customers into LEO and back. And there are very sound reasons for SpaceX to
be doing this, paying tourists or no, as I pointed out in Rand Simberg's
blog a few days ago.

Having multiple successful crewed flights of Dragon 2 will avoid
requirements creep & other nasty moving of the 'manned-rating' goal posts
by NASA if SpaceX already has a sound record of doing such on their own.

SpaceX cannot afford to lose their biggest customer, but at the same time
cannot afford to be held hostage by it either. Another reason I think
SpaceX should also orbit a commercial space hab at some point. Either by
itself or in partnership with others.


I'm convinced we'll see a Bigelow 'space hotel' serviced by Dragon V2 before
too long.

Even if it's just a few short test flights. The pieces are in place for a
purely commercial venture with no NASA involvement.


Dave

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

So I would say it is pretty normal for SpaceX to pitch F9H as being
nearly ready and lining up customers for it.


This is especially true if portraying F9H as nearly ready to goto moon
while SLS is still years away causes NASA to cancel SLS and rely on F9H,
and once that happens, a delay in F9H doesn't matter because there is no
option.


Except things that are different are not the same and Falcon Heavy
isn't a replacement for SLS.

While true from a performance point of view, from an economics point of
view there really isn't a current use for SLS/Orion beyond what's been
planned so far since no other payloads have been funded (other than a
tiny bit of money for a HAB study). There are vague notions that NASA
might redirect the SLS/Orion program to the moon, but there is clearly
no firm commitment to do so coming from the current Administration.
Actually, the current Administration hasn't really said anything
concrete about NASA yet. Everything in the "space press" is speculative
at this point.

SLS/Orion still looks like a "launcher to nowhere". Given the current
plans, even assuming there is a 2nd Trump term, it doesn't look like
SLS/Orion will be doing much of anything before President Trump is out
of office. SAD!

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

So I would say it is pretty normal for SpaceX to pitch F9H as being
nearly ready and lining up customers for it.


This is especially true if portraying F9H as nearly ready to goto moon
while SLS is still years away causes NASA to cancel SLS and rely on F9H,
and once that happens, a delay in F9H doesn't matter because there is no
option.


Except things that are different are not the same and Falcon Heavy
isn't a replacement for SLS.


While true from a performance point of view, from an economics point of
view there really isn't a current use for SLS/Orion beyond what's been
planned so far since no other payloads have been funded (other than a
tiny bit of money for a HAB study). There are vague notions that NASA
might redirect the SLS/Orion program to the moon, but there is clearly
no firm commitment to do so coming from the current Administration.
Actually, the current Administration hasn't really said anything
concrete about NASA yet. Everything in the "space press" is speculative
at this point.

SLS/Orion still looks like a "launcher to nowhere". Given the current
plans, even assuming there is a 2nd Trump term, it doesn't look like
SLS/Orion will be doing much of anything before President Trump is out
of office. SAD!


And *THAT* is the issue, not some insane idea that SpaceX wants to
kill it because they see it as competition. Even fully evolved to its
130 tonne to LEO Block 2 form out in the 2030's it's too small for a
anything but small science missions to Mars. Two out of three
proposals for Block 2 punt the solids and replace them with liquid
boosters. ATK, of course, is proposing big solids.

By the time SLS Block 2 is flying the SpaceX ITS booster will also be
flying, with an LEO capability of over four times that of SLS.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw