It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SpaceX to send privately crewed spacecraft beyond the moon next year

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
i think elon musk just has a big ego
2018? thats next year! how he can pull a manned mission on this short time?




posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: Naturallywired

It's more a bag than a belt. Imagine a region of space so toxic to humans that to pass through it on the way to the Moon without serious shielding materials (think Lead) would be a serious hazard to your health. And that's just the way there...


Dense metals such as lead are a very bad type of shielding for the type of cosmic radiation found in the Van Allen Belts. The radiation can knock particles out of the atoms of the metal, with those particles causing a secondary radiation called Bremsstrahlung.

Fibrous materials -- such as was used in the insulating material between the inside and outside skins of the Apollo capsule -- works better for that type of radiation.

Plastics (such as polyethylene) also make a good shielding for the type of cosmic particle radiation found in space, and are currently being studied for use in long-term manned missions, such as a mission to Mars:

Plastic Could Protect Astronauts from Deep-Space Radiation

I like this. This means it's possible to mold or 3d print a capsule. That be the way to go.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

Well, this year, there should be a Dragon V2 flight as a demo at least, which will prove (hopefully) that SpaceX can put a man rated craft into LEO. At some point early next year, they should have a crewed launch to the ISS as well, which gives the crew part of this venture.
Also this year should be a flight of the Falcon Heavy, which would give SpaceX a launcher that is capable of putting enough mass into LEO that they can also do a Translunar Injection. Assuming that SpaceX do the TLI with the upper stage of the F9H, then all that seems to be missing in terms of hardware is some kind of Apollo Service module equivalent, for supplies, power and adjustment burns.
Oh, and I feel like a Dragon V2 Lunar return entry demo/test would be good/reassuring -sort of like Orion's Exploration flight.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Seems kind of expensive and pointless.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Seems kind of expensive and pointless.

If SpaceX wants to show that it can get a manned Dragon-derived spacecraft to Mars (which is one of their longer-term goals), then they must first be able to show it has the capability to get humans beyond Earth orbit.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: the owlbear
SpaceX is awesome, don't get me wrong, but didn't two of their last three supply missions to the ISS fail?
Unless Elon is willing to hop on board with me, there is NO WAY I'd even consider going around the moon on one of his ships.

Same goes for Branson and Bezos for that matter.


How fortunate that you won't be forced to go! I'm guessing many people don't share your fears, so the fact that you have them is more like a personal issue.


Sorry, it's the simple fact that if the financial backers aren't willing to take the risk, I won't either.


Sorry, but they already have. Musk has received "substantial deposits" for the flight. So much for that argument.


So why isn't Elon himself taking the 1st flight? Hmmmm?


Is that required? My answer would be: I would rather get paid for the flight rather than pay for the flight.


originally posted by: Blue Shift
Seems kind of expensive and pointless.


So is climbing Mt. Everest.
edit on 2/28/2017 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Seems kind of expensive and pointless.

Yes. No doubt. I don't have an objective argument to counter what you say.

But just what isn't expensive and pointless in the long run?

I might say, if you measure things by how much pain is removed from this world, we might eventually get there via SpaceX. Personally, I guess I would just like to see human beings evolve. I think it is exciting.

When Henry Ford made cheap, reliable cars people said, 'Nah, what's wrong with a horse?' That was a huge bet he made -- and it worked.

Read more at: www.brainyquote.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Naturallywired

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: Naturallywired

Belt is just a namesake, think of it like a layer of gobstopper that you really don't like...

Ideally you want to pass through it extremely fast, spending a minute in the microwave would be more appealing than a minute in the Van Allen belt.

It's not a good place to be.
See! Right there, you say "Pass through it" I say " go over it; it's just a belt.


Don't be a numbty

Stupidity isn't a cool trait.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I fear that since you said it, this could end up as a massive blight upon the idea of private enterprise concerning space.

Money ain't nothing and a trip to heaven for anything but free?

Leave it to the experts...



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: PassiveInductor

Aww you should really check out the atomic energy commission, they had such deluded dreams. Many did.

To think technology could go to the betterment of mankind instead of beating someone and/or. something. To death.

I'll hop on a nuclear rocket.

Ffs me grandad could have, I'm actually fearful that private enterprise is allowed to have a decent go. Says a lot without words.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I like this post.

You are thinking and I'd like to believe the chaps under Mr Musk are too. Accuracy. Maybe launch cheap attachable fuel sources. He has already considered cheap re-usable rockets...

It ain't so easy, I'm a self considered idiot and I realise that the Saturn rocket can only be added to, it's still the same concept.

You need momentum. Time is an enemy.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: apex

but thats still to soon,i doubt it will happen next year or ever on that matter



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I have so many thoughts on this:

1. Oh my god, we're putting men around the moon again.
2. Who the hell is going and how much did they pay?
3. Are they insane?
4. SpaceX hasn't had the best track record recently.
5. Will they be using their beloved reusable rockets?
6. Will they even be viable?
7. Who the hell wants to be on top a hundred foot rocket that could potentially explode beneath you?
8. There is no progress without risk, and no risk without reward.
9. NASA fought with USSR in the Space Race, will NASA be fighting against SpaceX now?
10. Will EVERYONE be fighting against SpaceX now?
11. Now would be a really good time to get into astroengineering/astrophysics.
12. Why exactly haven't we been back to the moon?
13. Like actually landed on it.
14. If they don't play Pink Floyd once they're up there, they're doing it wrong.

These don't need answers by the rest of you, they're just my musings.

To flesh out a bit though, we kinda need this stuff to start happening. If we're not going to put men or women back on the moon, they need to be able to start making serious money to start funding Elon's plans of colonizing Mars. I imagine he'll probably be dead before his dream is (ever) finally realized, but this is probably the first sensible step into making it happen. Maybe colonizing Mars isn't even possible, but someone is willing to put up the money to find out. Maybe colonizing Mars won't be possible right now, but could be in the future once we've created new math for it.(It's always to do with math)

There will probably be a lot of errors, and the potential of this going horribly wrong is probably really high because we don't make a habit of slingshotting people around the moon very often. It's almost like stepping back into uncharted waters, the technology we have to do it today is vastly superior to the technology available during the last space race. The time frame is really unsettling, considering they're still not completely down with the reusable rockets and they also haven't put anyone into space yet themselves (e.g without NASA).

Personally, I'm not sure how long we can sustain the vast amounts of fuel that it takes to get up there to make space exploration economically viable - unless we start getting braver with nuclear energy. It's still a very mistrusted energy source, and not wrongfully so, we have had our fingers severely burned before playing with green fire.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: muSSang

NASA flew manned Apollo 8 mission to moon on just third SATURN V launch

This was after partial failure on 2nd flight (April 1968) - 2 engines (out of 5 ) on second stage shutdown prematurely

3rd stage failed to restart in orbit as was supposed to do

Yet NASA was able to fix problems and had enough confidence to fly to moon.....



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
If anyone can do it i think Space X can. For some reason i think James Cameron is going to be one of the people taking the trip. Has anyone else had any thoughts about who may go?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Naturallywired
Hmm? Somebody very rich want's to see the dark side of the moon. Wouldn't it be amazing if it was Richard Branson or Trump. But I can only hope it's only Soro's by himself on a one way ticket. Unless Soro's is only there to fire up the Nazi bases, then no, no, no...


there is the Soros name again, how many hundreds of threads have used his name as some type of "secret powerful donor" to the democratic party....and yet, the Koch Bros. spent themselves and organized a small group of wealthy right-wing donors, that spent close to 900 million in 2016.....
www.nytimes.com...

of course, THAT SPENDING is never considered when talking about how our entire government is controlled by the republican party, which logically would point to the idea that the Soros spending had little impact.....
but, the Soros name will continue to be used as some type of bellwether for political spending.
edit on 26-3-2017 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join