SpaceX to Fly Passengers On Private Trip Around the Moon in 2018 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2017, 10:08:54 pm
content: http://www.space.com/35844-elon-musk-spacex-announcement-today.html

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2017, 11:39:03 pm
content: While it's kinda cool, it's going to be high end tourism for the super rich, not really any more accessible to the average person than going through the traditional process to become an astronaut. Unfortunately physics demands that leaving earth requires a tremendous amount of fuel and expensive equipment.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 12:36:03 am
content: The following paragraph from the press release convinces me that the schedule will not be achieved."The Falcon Heavy rocket consists of a Falcon 9 rocket with two additional first stage boosters strapped on.The integrated Falcon Heavy and Dragon crew capsule will undergo an FAA evaluation process for the moon flight, Musk said."

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 02:15:39 am
content: "This would be a long loop around the moon … It would skim the surface of the moon, go quite a bit further out into deep space and then loop back to Earth," Musk said during the teleconference.What could possibly go wrong.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 03:03:15 am
content: Lets bookmark the thread and reconvene in December 2018 to see if the guy knew what he was talking about.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 03:10:48 am
content: I'm good with that. If SpaceX controlled their own destiny on this I wouldn't bet against them. But they have at least one government agency in their path to success. Therein lies my pessimism.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 05:07:31 am
content: I didn't see the press conference.I assume there will be at least several test flights around the moon first?, maybe with Probes The Monkey?Otherwise this would be an Apollo 8 level shot with humans.Of course they'll miss the deadline.Dragon crew capsule is completely untested, as is a Falcon Heavy capable of a moon shot.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 09:00:47 am
content: Quote from: james_s on February 27, 2017, 11:39:03 pmThe fuel isn't as much as most people assume. Elon has said it's about $200,000 cost for fuel & oxidiser for Falcon 9. F9H will be several times more of course, but I'd think still under a million dollars.The expensive equipment is where almost all the cost is. Traditionally it's all been destroyed after one use. As we know, SpaceX has got a workable plan for getting most of it back in one piece and using it again after hopefully minor maintenance. They've got eight F9 first stages back successfully so far, and plan to fly a reused on for the first time in April. They haven't said how much work has had to be done on them. No doubt they'll be spending a lot of time and money on inspection and testing until there's a decent amount of history of successful reuse.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 09:11:49 am
content: The dragon carries 7 crew, but that's cozy for a multi day hike to the moon and back, so let's say 5 people.Even if it cost $10M a shot, that's $2M per person. Some people pay that for a fancy car.They's have no shortage of takers to the moon at a few million a pop.NASA and the new US administration are missing a huge opportunity. Just throw money and NASA resources at Space-X and they could go back to the moon within the 4 year political term, even landing if you really fast tracked it. For what, the cost of a couple of F35's?

author: Dago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 09:30:17 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 28, 2017, 09:11:49 amYou won't even get a single 50kg satellite to low-earth orbit for 2 million in a ride share launch with tens of satellites so I'm pretty sure launching people around the moon is orders of magnitude more expensive.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 09:33:31 am
content: The price tag has been mentioned in tonight's news - $45 million per seat.Just give me a sec while I check down the back of the lounge.....

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 11:07:42 am
content: Quote from: Dago on February 28, 2017, 09:30:17 amThe first ones, yeah. But I'm going by Elon's $200k in fuel statemet. Let's say it's $500k in fuel. Add in amortisation cost of the reusable components etc, and then divide by 5 people and a few million per person is surely a target price that wouldn't be that far into the future?In theory the only difference between a satellite launch and a moon shot is the fuel and extra (resuable) rockets, right?

author: digsys
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 11:52:59 am
content: Quote from: EEVblogBut satellites won't set your project back 10yrs if you loose a few :-) .. they're a LOT more expendable, many lost ones have only managed 30 secs news !

author: austnais
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 12:22:31 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 28, 2017, 11:07:42 amElon's $200k was for F9, not F9H. So I guess a lot more than even $500k would be needed.I also don't think they're really comparable. A satellite can easily fail, no worries. A moon shot is much more complex in terms of equipment. Food, sanity, air etc. you name it. All of these would need to be vaildated and approved prior to releasing a human inside. Imagine this thing failing. The impact would be devastating for the industry.

author: ElektroQuark
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 12:27:29 pm
content: Another source of cash for the project. There are MANY people out there with tons of money.I don't know about the deadline for the project, thought.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 02:25:34 pm
content: Quote from: austnais on February 28, 2017, 12:22:31 pmDoes it use 10 times the fuel of the F9?5 times?Even at 10 times the fuel that's only $2M in fuel, $400k per person.QuoteSure, but I'm imagining the scenario (as is Elon) when these things are fairly proven, the rockets are reusable a dozen times without too much loss etc, and all the development is amortised. And in theory that shouldn't be too many years off. The initial high paying customers will help amortise costs, all Space-X have to do is make the tech work and be reusable as promised.Insurance isn't even an issue, no $100M satellite that needs to insured, just a feshy human who is so rich they don't need insurance.Elon would not be in this business if it's going to cost $20M a person medium to long term.7 people have already ponied up greater than $20M to travel into space.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourismAn accident setting back the program is not the discussion here.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 04:52:15 pm
content: The big cost of space flight is really nothing to do with the fuel, although the fuel cost is not nothing. The big cost is the sheer complexity of the whole operation, mainly due to the fact there is very little margin for error between getting to orbit and failing catastrophically.Space tourism may seem like a trivial use of space flight but actually makes sense, given you can get millions for transporting a few kg of people. Any other use like space solar, mining asteroids etc, requires a massive infrastructure cost.Musk is maybe slightly crazy, but also has a rare combination of ideological drive, technical ability and business acumen, so if anyone can pull it off, he might actually do it. Certainly, waiting for the govt to pay for missions like established players do (Boeing et al) won't get us far. Don't believe the timescales though, not that it really matters when. Colonizing the galaxy is pretty long term plan.

author: NivagSwerdna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 05:01:46 pm
content: I remember, whilst at school, back in the 1980s, at a conference/presentation thing, that commercial fusion reactors were only a decade away.It's was a highly optimistic presentation as far as I remember... certainly stoked up my enthusiasm for science.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_TorusWot no fusion?(I bet you the moon trip will be VERY late)

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 05:54:20 pm
content: Fusion reactors have been a decade away my entire life. I'd love to see them succeed, I mean we know it can work because there's a giant one up in the sky, but containing a sustained fusion reaction here on earth is easier said than done.

author: CraigHB
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 06:14:20 pm
content: I remember reading about the Tokamak experiment some forty years ago. Things haven't moved much past that. I thought for sure sustained fusion reactions would be possible by now, let alone an actual reactor capable of powering space flight.In any case the risk of failure is high for any kind of space flight. Can a reasonable level of risk be guaranteed for passengers on a sightseeing tour around the Moon? A single failure resulting in loss of life would probably spell the end of the program.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 06:20:25 pm
content: I first read about the near future appearance of fusion reactors in the late 50s. Of course back then they were talking about using nuclear bombs to dig harbors and canals, and to activate oil fields. To a believer there are no obstacles, only an occasional speed bump.

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 06:42:53 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on February 28, 2017, 02:15:39 amPlenty. Should we just give up on space travel?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 07:26:05 pm
content: Give up? Probably not, although I personally have no interest in spending huge sums of money on a risky pleasure jaunt around the moon. The Concorde was mothballed because it was not profitable and space tourism is orders of magnitude more expensive and arguably less useful. I'm not saying it will never work, but call me skeptical.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 07:35:33 pm
content: Quote from: CraigHB on February 28, 2017, 06:14:20 pmThe late Dr Robert Bussard actually got fusion out of his devices, and with a shoestring budget as well. He had it basically solved, just needed a little more funding to build a larger version to see how much energy you could get out of it realistically.His most popular quote that the Tokamak was a Russian device guaranteed to never work at anything other than sink money into an endless pit. Bussard did it with no massive magnets, nothing other than some smaller magnets and hairy ( but not as bad as making a perfect doughnut magnet that needed to have 3K on one side and 2 million on the other side, along with a horrid brew of radiation) coils to drive the sytem. Put in Hydrogen, a bit of Tritium as a wick and you got a lot of neutrons and helium out of it, plus it was controllable as well, and no massive power needed to run magnets, just a capacitor bank to pulse them.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 08:59:27 pm
content: Can anyone verify this? It sounds an awful lot like the countless stories of perpetual motion machines and 100 mpg carburetors.

author: djos
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 10:12:38 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on February 28, 2017, 08:59:27 pmyeah that's what I was thinking...

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 10:19:40 pm
content: Quote from: james_s onTodayat 01:26:05 PMWhether everyone on the planet agrees or not, we are a profit driven society. Someone needs to be willing to take the steps necessary to fund missions, no matter how frivolous, or we'll never find a reason. If it starts as $45 million dalliances around the moon, so be it. It's a start.My point was that we shouldn't let the dangers of space exploration keep us from exploring space.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 10:39:25 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on February 28, 2017, 07:26:05 pmThe Concorde kept flying for 27 years. It might have ended up unprofitable, but it was reported to have run at a profit for a lot of the time.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 10:43:04 pm
content: Quote from: CraigHB on February 28, 2017, 06:14:20 pmNeither of those things are your concern, or anyone else's but Space-X (and a handful of fleshy humans who took the risk).There will be no shortage of people who will want to go.

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 10:51:43 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 28, 2017, 10:43:04 pmVery true. Every time we set out to explore, there were risks. Whole expeditions died. However, we learned from our failures and continued. A trip around the moon is definitely frivolous, but so what? We have to begin somewhere. Whatever kick starts the space race is a good thing in my opinion.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 11:11:35 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 28, 2017, 10:39:25 pmWhatever the case, it's not flying any longer, and although that fact gave me the opportunity to board one on the ground, I'd rather see them in the air. I view it as a technological step backwards, we have nothing comparable to the Concorde in operation or on the drawing boards. I fear the era of civilian supersonic transport is over.

author: VulcanBB18
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 11:21:01 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on February 28, 2017, 11:11:35 pmIt's not a great analogy in any case. There are many different airlines and while Concorde got you there faster, there were a lot of different ways of getting there, albeit slightly more slowly.No such parallel with space travel - you can use Space X or join a govt agency and hope for the best. While they are the only provider, there is the potential for it to make $$! As soon there are alternatives, the shine will definitely come off...cheers,

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 11:25:10 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on February 28, 2017, 11:11:35 pmErr, the Concorde was simply a faster plane doing the exact same thing as every other airline, just faster. It lost out in the bang-per-buck stakes.Spaceflight tourism has almost no competition.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2017, 11:36:00 pm
content: No, it's not a great analogy but it's the closest I could come up with.I think we are a long, long, long way from practical/useful space travel. I would say that "useful" civilian space travel probably involves some sort of colonization of another planet and to do that we first need to identify a suitable planet to colonize. Mars is the nearest but is hardly suitable other than as a proof of concept and even that may be a stretch. The least habitable areas of Earth are much more inviting than Mars. Any suitable planet that does exist is going to be a very long way away and to be practical that's going to require much faster modes of transportation than we currently have and/or much larger space ships that a group of people could reasonably spend a significant fraction of their lives on. For the foreseeable future I'm of the opinion that resources are better spent on unmanned probes and rovers, the logistics and cost of which are vastly less involved than those of a manned mission.My cynical side questions the value of trying to colonize other planets anyway. If the human race cannot keep from wrecking and pillaging our own planet, what value is there in wrecking and pillaging some distant planet? We could never transport a significant number of people off this world to save them should Earth become doomed so we would in effect really just be planting our seeds elsewhere. In that sense perhaps it would make more sense to blast more primitive biological matter to other planets and allow evolution to occur there much as it occurred here, rather than dropping humans into another world as they are and hoping for the best.Edit: That's starting to sound a little too much like the basis of Scientology. *shudder*

author: Bigfoot
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2017, 03:34:03 am
content: Quote from: james_s on February 28, 2017, 08:59:27 pmI tend to agree although it does have real aspects to it. I did believe it a hoax for a short while but for instance there's the "first neutron club" for those who build a successful fusor that actually produces neutrons, the hallmark of actual nuclear fusion. Check out fusor.net plenty of info on there. Bussard worked for the US Navy on the Polywell project with at least 5 iterations of his Polywell design before he died. Bussard improved on the Fusor design by Farnsworth.There appear to be many amateur physicists working on these things with the belief that the one to crack it will go down in history as the savior of the energy crisis maybe even humankind.Cheap clean energy on the desktop. I see no real reason to doubt the principles as several individuals have successfully joined the first neutron club and the physics seems to make sense.See this bookhttps://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Played-Fusion-Parenting/dp/0544705025I've read it and it is astonishing. At least this kid (Taylor Wilson) has created a fusor capable of generating fast neutrons which can be used to generate radioisotopes cheaply for medial use and to top it off he was only 14.Tokamacs need massive magnetic fields to confine the plasma i.e superconducting supermagnets. Fusors work on electrostatic confinement which is much cheaper and easier to manage. The basic concepts are reputed to work but more physics and engineering are needed, same old story. From what I've read no major government investment has been put into Fusor technology apart from aforementioned US Navy project.One interesting feature of Fusor and Polywell physics is that they produce free electrons which can be tapped off to generate useful electrical power. Magnetic Confinement reactors generally produce heat which would be used to generate steam in the sense of a conventional electrical power generating station.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2017, 05:11:22 am
content: Quote from: Bigfoot on March 01, 2017, 03:34:03 amYeah, there's an entire community of self taught, retired and semi-retired physicists and engineers doing home lab based fusion research. A look around the interwebs will reveal some cranks but also some very smart and serious home fusors.I always enjoy poking aroundDoug Coulter's forum. It's got a broad range of topics including some electronics as well as his fusor stuff - though I understand very little of that. He's a bit of an eccentric but he's also a very smart cookie and no free energy nutter.This is his latest setup

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2017, 05:32:53 am
content: I don't doubt that somebody somewhere has gotten a few neutrons, I just question the assertion that he was almost there and just needed to build a bigger one. I'd love to see a practical fusion reactor and I believe it is technically possible, but I'm skeptical that anyone has come so close that there are not major technical hurdles remaining.

author: Bigfoot
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2017, 06:11:19 am
content: Google Taylor Wilson , he managed more than a few neutrons. I think the detectors at the University registered millions per second. A lead brick wall wasI agree ructed to shield him and the supervising researchers/mentors. It was quite dangerous.I think Bussed claimed an investment of 250 million would see the project through to completion. Sustaining the reaction is the problem as usual. But i agree Bussed claim has never been substantiated and the project is a military secret.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2017, 01:00:42 pm
content: There are enough crazy rich people out there that will take the opportunity to do this, even knowing the odds of a complete disaster and death.1. If they make it around the moon and back, they will never stop talking about it.2. If they make it part of the way and then die, they will become famous and immortalized as heroes of the space-pioneering few who paved the way for others to succeed (like early aviators).Other than death, there is no downside to this venture. And among the many rich people on the planet, young and old, there is no shortage of those who would take a calculated risk of death for the glory of saying they have done it... or at the very worst, be honored after death for heroically risking their life.Older millionaires especially who are on their death-bed (but still healthy enough to train for the mission) would sign up for it. They either die on Earth slowly from some terminal illness or risk it all for the chance of a lifetime. Younger millionaires who are unattached, unmarried, no kids, living it up anyways and are risk-takers will probably do it.So even though it may be a suicide mission, if a few millionaires willfully sign up to die for the cause and enrich Space exploration, I say let them do it and improve our future space technology.

author: CraigHB
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2017, 05:09:01 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 28, 2017, 10:43:04 pmYou underestimate our society's capability for knee-jerk reactions when things go wrong. They may get a few flights in, but the first time it all goes pear shaped, they'll be forced to step back. It doesn't matter to me what people do and the risks they take. I'm just saying there could be a lot of social pressure to shut down the program if it does not operate flawlessly. Look at what a blow it was to Nasa when they lost the Challenger. They didn't fly a manned flight again for many years and that was a government program where a level of risk is acceptable.

author: jesuscf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2017, 06:10:27 pm
content: It would be very nice if Neil Armstrong were alive to see Elon Musk take people to the Moon and back!

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2017, 06:55:05 pm
content: Quote from: CraigHB on March 01, 2017, 05:09:01 pmA little different to the government paid for program there, think more on the line of a small regional airliner, running a flight to somewhere no other airline wants to service, using a purpose built aircraft that, while meeting almost all the airline requirements to take off and land from private airfields, is still classed as experimental. The passengers on the flights also are aware of the fact that the plane is a first generation experimental aircraft, and is not a commercial airline with millions of landings and hours of operation ( and still there there are annual incidents), and that they are aware of the non trivial risks of failure of anything that may result in them either being injured or dying while in flight.You do not see a massive campaign to ban dangerous sports like skydiving ( many fatalities a year), hot air balloons, driving motor vehicles as both sport and on a regular road, American football, Rugby, Soccer, Cricket, tennis, Croquet, golf or any other sports or occupations with a non negligible risk of death.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2017, 07:26:37 pm
content: Perhaps it should be clarified as "Never underestimate American society's capability for knee-jerk reactions." Around here an incident happens, the lawyers all come out of the woodwork and more often than not the whole thing gets shut down in the name of safety. A few years ago they closed off access to the ice caves, a popular hiking destination because yet another idiot ignored the sign and the advice everyone is told to *NEVER* enter the caves. They went in, there was a collapse, somebody was killed, park closed. I don't know if it's still closed or not but it annoyed me because it's just common knowledge that it's very dangerous to go in there *and* there's a ridiculous sign warning of such but people still go inside.