SpaceX will orbit the moon with private citizens in 2018

[Urethra Franklin]

I dunno, man.

Private interstellar travel is one of those things that I'll probably when it's been perfected. I'm gonna hafta pass for now.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/27/elon-musks-spacex-plans-to-fly-two-private-citizens-around-the-moon-by-late-next-year/

[GuyOfOwnage]

Geez, and I thought buying a gaming console at launch was risky...

[DASH 243✅]

i read the first part as spacesex
not that excited now that i read it right

[Deleted]

SpaceX has never flown people before, and has had two of its rockets blow up in the last two years.

Well, this sounds like a wonderful idea.

[Mackenzie Gorn]

Not at all qualified or in-shape rich people on untested and explosion prone rockets accomplishing nothing but still paying through the nose? Capitalism at it's apex but can we film it?

[Susan "Poison" Candy]

Feb 27, 2017 19:05:36 GMT -5 Lizuka #BLM said:

SpaceX has never flown people before, and has had two of its rockets blow up in the last two years.

Well, this sounds like a wonderful idea.

And the lucky winners to get blown up I mean brought up into space is Dixie Carter and Mike "I Watched Star Trek and Star Wars So I Know Space Travel" Bennett come on down

[Hit Girl]

Not gonna happen. Space tourism is a red herring. The costs and risks are way too high to make it economically feasible.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Feb 27, 2017 21:15:08 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

Not gonna happen. Space tourism is a red herring. The costs and risks are way too high to make it economically feasible.

And way, way, way less fun than just saying it makes it sound.

Read Mary Roach's book Packing for Mars.

[Deleted]

Feb 27, 2017 18:59:03 GMT -5 DASH 243✅ said:

i read the first part as spacesex
not that excited now that i read it right

Remember that attempt that porn studio tried to have zero gravity sex?

[Hit Girl]

Space exploration really only needs five elements.

1- A space station in low Earth orbit for scientific research, with capsules for transport and supply.

2- Satellite launches, with unmanned and cost effective commercially available rockets.

3- Robotic landers, for missions to planets, moons, asteroids and comets.

4- Space probes with cameras and sensor devices.

5- Automated space telescopes.


And that's basically it. All the other stuff like tourism, manned missions, shuttles etc....are unnecessary.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Feb 27, 2017 23:53:23 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

Space exploration really only needs five elements.

1- A space station in low Earth orbit for scientific research, with capsules for transport and supply.

2- Satellite launches, with unmanned and cost effective commercially available rockets.

3- Robotic landers, for missions to planets, moons, asteroids and comets.

4- Space probes with cameras and sensor devices.

5- Automated space telescopes.


And that's basically it. All the other stuff like tourism, manned missions, shuttles etc....are unnecessary.

Eh, manned missions are still better. People can do things robots can't do.....yet.

That said, people won't tolerate anyone dying to go check out Mars and that's gonna take a few dead people.

[Hit Girl]

Feb 27, 2017 23:55:48 GMT -5 Cranjis McBasketball said:

Feb 27, 2017 23:53:23 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

Space exploration really only needs five elements.

1- A space station in low Earth orbit for scientific research, with capsules for transport and supply.

2- Satellite launches, with unmanned and cost effective commercially available rockets.

3- Robotic landers, for missions to planets, moons, asteroids and comets.

4- Space probes with cameras and sensor devices.

5- Automated space telescopes.


And that's basically it. All the other stuff like tourism, manned missions, shuttles etc....are unnecessary.

Eh, manned missions are still better. People can do things robots can't do.....yet.

That said, people won't tolerate anyone dying to go check out Mars and that's gonna take a few dead people.

The usefulness of humans in space is really limited to experiments on the space station. Anything else and it's largely unfeasible, risky with little gain, or cost prohibitive. Take the two major space shuttle disasters for example, the usefulness of humans on those flights was marginal. The main missions for both were to deploy payloads that could have been launched with disposable unmanned rockets. Now compare that to the amount learned from probes such as the Pioneers, the Voyagers, Dawn and New Horizons, or robots like Spirit and Opportunity on Mars.

[Perd]

And in 2023, Mark Wahlberg will star in the movie version of this inevitable tragedy.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Feb 28, 2017 0:58:29 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

Feb 27, 2017 23:55:48 GMT -5 Cranjis McBasketball said:

Eh, manned missions are still better. People can do things robots can't do.....yet.

That said, people won't tolerate anyone dying to go check out Mars and that's gonna take a few dead people.

The usefulness of humans in space is really limited to experiments on the space station. Anything else and it's largely unfeasible, risky with little gain, or cost prohibitive. Take the two major space shuttle disasters for example, the usefulness of humans on those flights was marginal. The main missions for both were to deploy payloads that could have been launched with disposable unmanned rockets. Now compare that to the amount learned from probes such as the Pioneers, the Voyagers, Dawn and New Horizons, or robots like Spirit and Opportunity on Mars.

Those disasters were the cause of NASA policy and while blowing up probes or robots is preferable to human life, still would have happened.

Humans can make decisions robots can't and sometimes sending a person there is more valuable than just getting there for the simple sake of doing it.

[Hit Girl]

Feb 28, 2017 1:46:01 GMT -5 Cranjis McBasketball said:

Feb 28, 2017 0:58:29 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

The usefulness of humans in space is really limited to experiments on the space station. Anything else and it's largely unfeasible, risky with little gain, or cost prohibitive. Take the two major space shuttle disasters for example, the usefulness of humans on those flights was marginal. The main missions for both were to deploy payloads that could have been launched with disposable unmanned rockets. Now compare that to the amount learned from probes such as the Pioneers, the Voyagers, Dawn and New Horizons, or robots like Spirit and Opportunity on Mars.

Those disasters were the cause of NASA policy and while blowing up probes or robots is preferable to human life, still would have happened.

Humans can make decisions robots can't and sometimes sending a person there is more valuable than just getting there for the simple sake of doing it.

It's highly questionable as to whether the failures of the Challenger and Columbia missions would have occurred if they were unmanned. Challenger was destroyed due to failures in the solid rocket boosters. The whole reason they needed that design of SRB was to lift the giant fuel tank, which fed the shuttle which carried the crew and payload. Get rid of the shuttle, the fuel tank and the SRB's, and the crew, and all they would have needed is a much simpler unmanned disposable rocket system to launch the payload. If it still exploded, then it's just a payload. Can always build another. Same thing applies with the Columbia disaster which was caused by foam from the fuel tank hitting the leading edge of the shuttle wing, which damaged it and caused it to lose structural integrity during re-entry. No fuel tank + no shuttle = no disaster.

I agree, there's a public relations interest involved in manned spaceflight, but in terms of scientific gain and value for money, I don't think it's worth it.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Feb 28, 2017 2:31:58 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

Feb 28, 2017 1:46:01 GMT -5 Cranjis McBasketball said:

Those disasters were the cause of NASA policy and while blowing up probes or robots is preferable to human life, still would have happened.

Humans can make decisions robots can't and sometimes sending a person there is more valuable than just getting there for the simple sake of doing it.

It's highly questionable as to whether the failures of the Challenger and Columbia missions would have occurred if they were unmanned. Challenger was destroyed due to failures in the solid rocket boosters. The whole reason they needed that design of SRB was to lift the giant fuel tank, which fed the shuttle which carried the crew and payload. Get rid of the shuttle, the fuel tank and the SRB's, and the crew, and all they would have needed is a much simpler unmanned disposable rocket system to launch the payload. If it still exploded, then it's just a payload. Can always build another. Same thing applies with the Columbia disaster which was caused by foam from the fuel tank hitting the leading edge of the shuttle wing, which damaged it and caused it to lose structural integrity during re-entry. No fuel tank + no shuttle = no disaster.

I agree, there's a public relations interest involved in manned spaceflight, but in terms of scientific gain and value for money, I don't think it's worth it.

Challenger blew up because no one could say with 100% certainty the O-Rings would fail. They knew they could, but couldn't say they would.

[Father Dougal McGuire]

Seriously though, when the kinks are righted out and the price is a bit more affordable, I would love to orbit the moon, or just the Earth, for a bit. Sure it is risky, but its not like airplanes don't crash or cars don't get into fatal accidents.

[Deleted]

Surely someone should see the obvious problem with this.

Surely........GOD WILLING.........someone out there thinks this will end up with evil corporations / rich billionaire maniacs dropping moon rocks on the Earth and cause chaos for us all.

You must exist, prophet of prophetic doom and what not...





I.

Wish.

I.

Was.

Kidding.



But.

Then.

I.

Kinda.

Don't.

[Push R Truth]

Feb 28, 2017 3:32:58 GMT -5 Cranjis McBasketball said:

Feb 28, 2017 2:31:58 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

It's highly questionable as to whether the failures of the Challenger and Columbia missions would have occurred if they were unmanned. Challenger was destroyed due to failures in the solid rocket boosters. The whole reason they needed that design of SRB was to lift the giant fuel tank, which fed the shuttle which carried the crew and payload. Get rid of the shuttle, the fuel tank and the SRB's, and the crew, and all they would have needed is a much simpler unmanned disposable rocket system to launch the payload. If it still exploded, then it's just a payload. Can always build another. Same thing applies with the Columbia disaster which was caused by foam from the fuel tank hitting the leading edge of the shuttle wing, which damaged it and caused it to lose structural integrity during re-entry. No fuel tank + no shuttle = no disaster.

I agree, there's a public relations interest involved in manned spaceflight, but in terms of scientific gain and value for money, I don't think it's worth it.

Challenger blew up because no one could say with 100% certainty the O-Rings would fail. They knew they could, but couldn't say they would.

Hi, I've designed too many bridges/culverts in my time. I'll never say "with 100% certainty that bridge won't fail". Engineering doesn't work in 100% terms. There's always a chance for failure, and there are always multiple reasons why something could fail even if it's built and maintained correctly. Too many variables. That's why those arguments about NASA "not being 100% sure" drive me bonkers. You can't even say "I'm 100% sure the Sun will rise tomorrow". I could list a half dozen reasons it might not. Are they likely? No. But they could happen.


Then add in the million or so odd parts on a rocket and figure each one has a 99.99% chance of working properly... that's real chances of failure adding up.

And that's what is very frustrating. Every time I see a failure on my structures (or any bridge/culvert) I normally know within a couple minutes of investigating why it happened. It's always "something that could in theory have been prevented". But one of the million or so variables was unaccounted for or was applied incorrectly.

That's where my old mentor would step in and say "Your biggest error is believing you can eliminate error."

[pegasuswarrior]

Feb 28, 2017 11:30:19 GMT -5 Push R Truth said:

That's where my old mentor would step in and say "Your biggest error is believing you can eliminate error."

[/RandyOrton]