SpaceX Dragon set for manned flight in May

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: RAY1990

Where did I say NASA should be a profit driven organization? NASA has provided more than ISS resupply, especially in the last few years with the commercial contracts.

a reply to: face23785

Oh, you mean like the recently proposed House bill to push NASA's Lunar landing to 2028 instead of 2024? Who controls the House right now?

Almost like they're worried that President Trump would win reelection and they don't want the end of his second term capped off as the man who took us back to the Moon.

Honestly I like the idea of kicking NASA in the ass. When Kennedy announced our intention to land on the moon, we barely had any space program and we did it in 8 years. There's no reason it should take another 8 years to go from where we're at today to another moon landing, except the inefficiency of government bureaucracy.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

So what has private investment into spaceflight have to do with Bernie?

What accomplishments in space (some due before your elections) wouldn't be possible if Bernie became president?

Who mentioned hating billionaires?

You basically said if Bernie becomes president kiss space exploration goodbye. That if he succeeds Musk would move his businesses. Kinda cheap and lazy fear mongering if you ask me.

a reply to: face23785

It's one thing to talk about politics and it's influence and another to talk about things absolutely no real basis.

It was point scoring nothing else. He could have said "in my opinion" but he didn't he was speaking as it's a matter of fact.

Politics affects every aspect of civilized life, nothing just happens and everything is just about regulated or monitored. I'm not the one being an idiot.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

I didn't say you did I actually asked if NASA can legally be a profit driven company.

I know that NASA has assisted heavily with the private sector and aided them when possible. They've done this with other nations too.

I was merely indicating that NASA was late to the game when it comes to capitalising space, the private sector aimed to fill a vacuum just as India are now and Russia before them. We can blame politics all we want, point fingers... Whatever.

It's the private sector that's getting us there. It's profit driven innovation that has us sending more hardware than ever into space.

Not Trump and not NASA. And Bernie can't stop it either. Oh and you didn't address my point about how governments are wasteful and their departments even more so... You know? A popular opinion round these parts?

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: face23785

It's one thing to talk about politics and it's influence and another to talk about things absolutely no real basis.

It was point scoring nothing else. He could have said "in my opinion" but he didn't he was speaking as it's a matter of fact.

Politics affects every aspect of civilized life, nothing just happens and everything is just about regulated or monitored. I'm not the one being an idiot.

If anything he said was factually inaccurate, please feel free to point it out. That's kind of the nature of debate. Just whining that he brought up politics doesn't do much if you can't point out where he was wrong.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

So what has private investment into spaceflight have to do with Bernie?

What accomplishments in space (some due before your elections) wouldn't be possible if Bernie became president?

Who mentioned hating billionaires?

You basically said if Bernie becomes president kiss space exploration goodbye. That if he succeeds Musk would move his businesses. Kinda cheap and lazy fear mongering if you ask me.

From his own comments people come before space. He said that he will not support Space Force and NASA's budget will not come before then needs of people until they are all housed, fed, have a good job and have no worries in the world and can sleep 8 hours a night without bad dreams...meh.

Can't have it both ways is my point. Can't take massive leaps in technology without massive risks. If one just want to take care of people first here is the reality; not everyone can be taken care of because about 20% of the population do not care about anything at all. They are going to fail even if you hand them the basketball and lift them to the rim. They just do not care.

Don't believe me then then what socialist or communist country is on par with the US advancing technology and exploration. There is none. Almost every major breakthrough is the US. No way around it.

a reply to: face23785

When it comes to purely scientific and robotic missions no one in the private sector can compete with NASA though.

a reply to: RAY1990

I guess I misunderstood the intention of what you were saying. I apologize for that.

NASA isn't there for space to be capitalized upon. However, they did lay most of the groundwork and without the government subsidies (not even directly from NASA) it would have been impossible for the private sector to be where they are now.

And I'm not sure what needed to be addressed with your last comment. Isn't it common knowledge that the government and its many departments and bureaucracy are nightmarishly wasteful?

a reply to: face23785

All of what he mentioned was subjective or theoretical. Bernie is going to stop space exploration and Elon Musk wouldn't be in the US if he was President.

I already mentioned this though and I also pointed out that the private sector is driving innovation... Good thing too because the US has fallen behind on capabilities.

Oh just to add "non of this would be possible if Bernie was President" comment? What's he going to do invent a time machine and stop the progress and accomplishments achieved before he was President? That's if he was to win...

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

I don't follow US politics that much so I don't know how factual you're being about his supposed comments though admittedly it feels like you are exaggerating a bit.

Don't believe me then then what socialist or communist country is on par with the US advancing technology and exploration. There is none. Almost every major breakthrough is the US. No way around it.

Just ignoring all the space exploration and scientific achievements by other space agencies are we? Yeah dude I remember when the US launched 104 satellites on one rocket... No wait that was India. Well atleast they intercepted and orbited that comet once and another time landed a probe on one right? 😂

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

And I'm not sure what needed to be addressed with your last comment. Isn't it common knowledge that the government and its many departments and bureaucracy are nightmarishly wasteful?

That was basically my point and the fact that people don't like money being wasted. There's nothing more I would've loved than growing through my teenage years and someone, hell anyone actively pushing our presence in space.

All I saw was projects pushed back and cancelled but I'm thankful that some awesome and exciting things still happened over the last 20 years or so... I just think it's naive to blame President's or even agencies like NASA. Again, public sentiment is a powerful thing too.

I 100% agree that NASA is unparalleled when it comes to scientific exploration, long may that continue and I hope the cooperation with allies and other agencies long continues too.

In a nutshell though my opinion is that commercialisation of space is the key, just like the train, plane or car. People called those things novelties in the past too... Just like many opinions towards NASA over the years.

Aaaand another thread celebrating upcoming exciting times is derail by politics.

If ATS is to survive it needs to remove all political crap from posts where it drags down the OP.

Me: read OP, get excited about future and want to read more.

ATS: bring up how Bernie sanders will ruin it, bring up how Obama already ruined it, bring up how it was actually bush jr..

Cya.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: face23785

All of what he mentioned was subjective or theoretical. Bernie is going to stop space exploration and Elon Musk wouldn't be in the US if he was President.

That's not all he said. Dishonestly characterizing what other posters said helps nothing. In the post below this, you acknowledge you don't know much about American politics, so you're completely out of your element to even challenge what he said about Sanders.

Maybe what derails threads is people coming in and replying to posts that they don't know anything about. That's fine if you ask questions seeking more information. Replying to the effect of "this is all BS" and then later admitting you don't know anything about what they said is pretty lame. We've spent a page arguing about politics for no reason, because you're ill-equipped to even have the discussion.

His post would've been a one-off if you hadn't replied to it with zero knowledge. YOU derailed the thread with politics, not him.

originally posted by: Forensick
Aaaand another thread celebrating upcoming exciting times is derail by politics.

If ATS is to survive it needs to remove all political crap from posts where it drags down the OP.

Me: read OP, get excited about future and want to read more.

ATS: bring up how Bernie sanders will ruin it, bring up how Obama already ruined it, bring up how it was actually bush jr..

Cya.

Or maybe you could've contributed to the thread instead of whining. If there's more to add on the substance of the OP, please do so. People taking their ball and going home in a tantrum when they don't like what's being said is what's ruining ATS.

ETA: Here's a science thread that so far hasn't gone into politics although it easily could. A few people have mentioned solar power, which is dangerous close to politics. Not our fault. We didn't force politicians to stick their noses into the energy sector.

I'm still convinced that Bridenstine will manage to delay a manned SpaceX launch until after Boeing's, while somehow also lambasting SpaceX for the delays and funneling even more money to Boeing

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

Boeing has recently F'ed up everything its done recently, 737 Max, KC 46 tankers …….

SLS was supposed to fly in 2017, then 2018, then 2020, then 2021 and Boeing said that's in question

Problwm is SLS is cost Plus contract which means that NASA will pay all development cost plus profit for Boeing

This is common in military circles '

Proble is no incentive to cut costs or to speed up timetable After all as long as in development will get paid

Artemis 2, the first manned Orion spacecraft mission, is scheduled for late 2022. It’s planned to fly a circumlunar mission — the first manned spacecraft to escape the Earth’s gravity since Apollo 17 in December 1972.

SpaceX will attempt a manned circumlunar flight with its reusable Starship vehicle no sooner than 2023.

Artemis 3, scheduled for 2024, could see the first manned lunar landing since Apollo 17.

SPACE could, in matter of months, launch a circum lunar manned mission using Crew Dragon and Falcon Heavy

The modified Crew Dragon could carry 2 people vs 7 in Earth orbit Think Apollo 13 without all the drama

Musk has decided to bypass Falcon Heavy as a manned booster and go to StarShip

A modified Falcon Heavy using a 3rd stage derived from Delta 4 could lift an Orion Crew module to the moon

Things have way of changing

If say intelligence found out Chinese were to launch a manned lunar mission then may see such a mission

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: face23785

When it comes to purely scientific and robotic missions no one in the private sector can compete with NASA though.

a reply to: RAY1990

I guess I misunderstood the intention of what you were saying. I apologize for that.

NASA isn't there for space to be capitalized upon. However, they did lay most of the groundwork and without the government subsidies (not even directly from NASA) it would have been impossible for the private sector to be where they are now.

And I'm not sure what needed to be addressed with your last comment. Isn't it common knowledge that the government and its many departments and bureaucracy are nightmarishly wasteful?

I want NASA to stop developing its own space launch vehicles and concentrate solely on payloads. Clearly, the private sector can meet any legitimate launch services for the agency, or at least it will when the Starship Super Heavy becomes operational.

I think the Falcon Heavy can already do anything the Artemis program requires. NASA could assemble lunar or deep space missions/space stations from two or three Falcon Heavy launches instead of one SLS launch. But NASA and Congress will insist on wasting tens of billions on the SLS. They don’t give a damn about taxpayers.

Now as far as satellites and probes for scientific research go, NASA has no peer. That’s what it should concentrate on, as well as basic aerospace research.

originally posted by: Forensick
Aaaand another thread celebrating upcoming exciting times is derail by politics.

If ATS is to survive it needs to remove all political crap from posts where it drags down the OP.

Me: read OP, get excited about future and want to read more.

ATS: bring up how Bernie sanders will ruin it, bring up how Obama already ruined it, bring up how it was actually bush jr..

Cya.

Naïf that I am, I didn’t foresee this thread devolving into political debate. My OP was about the remarkable vitality of current U.S. space activities, hopefully delving into private space stations, space tourism, manned lunar exploration, space industrialization, exploitation of in situ resources and Musk’s plans for Mars and outer planets expeditions.

originally posted by: firerescue

Artemis 2, the first manned Orion spacecraft mission, is scheduled for late 2022. It’s planned to fly a circumlunar mission — the first manned spacecraft to escape the Earth’s gravity since Apollo 17 in December 1972.

SpaceX will attempt a manned circumlunar flight with its reusable Starship vehicle no sooner than 2023.

Artemis 3, scheduled for 2024, could see the first manned lunar landing since Apollo 17.

SPACE could, in matter of months, launch a circum lunar manned mission using Crew Dragon and Falcon Heavy

The modified Crew Dragon could carry 2 people vs 7 in Earth orbit Think Apollo 13 without all the drama

Musk has decided to bypass Falcon Heavy as a manned booster and go to StarShip

A modified Falcon Heavy using a 3rd stage derived from Delta 4 could lift an Orion Crew module to the moon

Things have way of changing

If say intelligence found out Chinese were to launch a manned lunar mission then may see such a mission

There were serious proposals for Gemini spacecraft with beefed up heat shields to be launched separately and then rendezvous and dock with a Transtage or Centaur, also launched separately. The Transtage or Centaur would perform translunar injection then separate from the Gemini. The heavier heat shield (needed for higher re-entry velocities) would have required solid-rocket boosters added to the Titan II launch vehicle, or the use of a Saturn IB or Titan III. It would have been able to fly a circumlunar mission in 72 hours. NASA was afraid it might derail the Apollo program because it was so much cheaper. Of course, a Gemini-Transtage/Centaur combo could not have landed on the moon, and there wouldn’t have been a lunar module to serve as a lifeboat in an emergency a la Apollo 13. But I wonder if a similar circumlunar mission could be done now with a crew Dragon mated to an ACES upper stage, or perhaps a Centaur V.

a reply to: Scapegrace

Number of proposals were considered for using modified Gemini spacecraft for everything from space taxi to
Space station - Manned orbital Laboratory to circumlunar mission to adding a landing stage to land and take off from moon

www.astronautix.com/g/geminilunargemini.html

A modified Gemini was considered for a circum lunar flyby - - heavier heat shield, deleting solid fuel retro rockets from orbital model, high gain antenna and improved communications and extra inertial navigation computer

Proposed launch vehicles included Titan with solid boosters and Trans stage for lunar insertion, using 2 Agena rockets,
Titan with Centaur upper stages

A Saturn 1 with Centaur upper stage ( S-V) would be capable of launching a modified Gemini in one shot

Early module Saturn 1 used only 2 stages ( S-1C and S-IV, 6 RL10 Centaur engines) adding 3rd stage would be necessary
as 2 stage Saturn only could lift 1/2 the weight to lunar mission

a reply to: Scapegrace

But I wonder if a similar circumlunar mission could be done now with a crew Dragon mated to an ACES upper stage, or perhaps a Centaur V.

Falcon Heavy has capability, in full expendable mod - no recovery of boosters, Core stage, of over 18,000 Kg (40,000 lbs)
to lunar trajectory

A Modified Crew Dragon carrying 2 people with improved heat shield, lunar capable communications and things like a space toilet , and microwave for cooking meals are within capability of 2 Stage Falcon Heavy

Orion crew module with service module weighs over 50,000 lbs requiring a 3rd stage

Would require some engineering studies and tests in hypersonic wind tunnel as Orion is 5 meter in diameter, larger than current Falcon Heavy payload mating and fairing

A Delta 4 3rd stage could be used Nasa has proposed developing an upper stage , but Delta 4 could be used for now