magnemoe Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, IncongruousGoat said: Nope. Not the ITS, anyways. You can get water, and therefore hydrogen and oxygen, but there's no source of carbon. In fact, as far as I can tell, there isn't an ounce of usable carbon, elemental or otherwise, on the entire Moon. Yes, weird if its no carbon sources who is easy to use. Thinking about it all the carbon we use is organic, either biomass, this includes fossil one. You might find water some places off the poles, was some talk of lava tunnels, but this would not be huge amounts. That is nice for an Moon base but not for heavier use For moon landings I guess an specialized craft running on hydrogen and oxygen would work better. Dock with the ITS, move over cargo and passengers, land and return later to dock again. Edited June 18, 2017 by magnemoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Lunar surface tourism requires a destination. All destinations for people in space need to be constructed. For tourists, such places need to require no real technical skills, honestly. I think that surface travel would be highly limited to "adventurers" until there was some sort of infrastructure. A place to visit, a dedicated lander that can move passengers to the living quarters without EVA required (rover that docs, then takes them to facility and docks). Many who would be tourists would want EVA, but that would require some training for emergency procedures, etc., and would be constrained/curated by the staff, I'd think. Do some training, then go out in a pressurized rover to a spot worthy of pictures, do a short EVA, then back into the rover. I don't see ITS as fit for purpose, really. If you want to land 100 people, and the entire trip is just a couple weeks, then you'd optimize for that. The 100+ tons of cargo would not need to be taken, nor perhaps all the engines---you'd need the minimum required for safe propulsive landing back on Earth, no more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 There seems to be a "simple" solution here, to me. Someone just needs the vision to bring together a NewSpace trifecta. SpaceX will provide transport to/from LMO, Blue Origin will provide a reusable LH/O lunar lander, and Bigelow will provide the destination. All this hawrdare are already on the respective companies' to-do list. A single ITS flight (expendable) could easily plunk multiple BA-330's on the surface, with an ISRU setup. Once all this hardware actually exists in a commercial state, I honk it'll just need the right person to bring it all together. Maybe Bezos, maybe someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 ISRU on the moon is non-trivial. It is in effect a mining operation. Assuming polar, ice mining, perhaps it is not quite so bad, but it's far more complex than sucking in Martian atmosphere, and dripping out fuel and oxidizer. I'm not sure what I think of a BA330 as a tourist destination. It's more like an adventurer destination. Honestly, a lunar surface facility for visitors needs more windows. Given shielding requirements, it might be like this: Note that the hill on the right could be very far away, as long as the eaves overhang is right. The idea is to minimize the LOS to space. Yes, you could have windows that are just screens... no, that's not the same thing as a real window, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 SoonTM (About ITS plan update) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Well, poop. Although this could be interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowfish Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 A Lunar landing would probably be useful as a validation of many of the ITS's critical systems without the waiting involved in a Mars mission. Probably possible with refueling in low lunar orbit and a somewhat reduced cargo load. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Oh man... two launches in two days - practically back-to-back. That would be something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 15 minutes ago, Scotius said: Oh man... two launches in two days - practically back-to-back. That would be something That could actually happen for once though, since they're launching from different pads and therefore wouldn't be affected by pad refurbishments from the first flight. In all honestly, I expect the Iridium mission to be delayed a day or two ('cause that's what always happens with SpaceX), but 2 launches in 2-4 days is still quite remarkable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 34 minutes ago, blowfish said: A Lunar landing would probably be useful as a validation of many of the ITS's critical systems without the waiting involved in a Mars mission. Probably possible with refueling in low lunar orbit and a somewhat reduced cargo load. Yeah, minus most of the crew mass, and with virtually none of the cargo, it could do a lunar return. It's just a matter of total tonnage beyond dry mass than it could land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylon Posted June 18, 2017 Author Share Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Well, poop. Although this could be interesting... was going to launch on my birthday. Oh well, it is close enough Two launches in two days sounds very interesting. On the same pad? Edited June 18, 2017 by Skylon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewas Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 On opposite coasts, Iridium is going up from Vandenberg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedKraken Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Proposed ITS lunar payloads : 38t direct with return to earth. Much more with a lunar tanker paired with the ITS. You can leave your return fuel (~110t) in low lunar orbit rather than take it to the surface.. Another take on ITS lunar refueling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 That's a bit out of date, tho... (first launch Q1 of 2017, pfft ). Might it even predate the revelation that a separate, unique core stage is required, with various structural modifications that might include what's nescessary for the full 50 tons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Yes, we've had various new bits of information since that video's release that addressed several of the points made. On the topic of a possible double launch the coming weekend... my main takeaway from that is the fact that SpaceX has now apparently expanded to a second independent launch and recovery team. I've actually been wondering for quite a long while when they would go that step, considering their launch cadence goals, and the fact that they will soon have three active pads and building a fourth. Looking good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: That's a bit out of date, tho... (first launch Q1 of 2017, pfft ). Might it even predate the revelation that a separate, unique core stage is required, with various structural modifications that might include what's nescessary for the full 50 tons? Falcon 9 Full Strenght? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 12 minutes ago, Scotius said: Falcon 9 Full Strenght? The Heavy Core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 18 minutes ago, Scotius said: Falcon 9 Full Strenght? Extra Prescrption Strength, now without a prescription.* *for external use only Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 20 minutes ago, Rakaydos said: The Heavy Core. The Space Core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChainiaC Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: That's a bit out of date, tho... (first launch Q1 of 2017, pfft ). Might it even predate the revelation that a separate, unique core stage is required, with various structural modifications that might include what's nescessary for the full 50 tons? As I understand the FH core stage has modifications to handle the boosters and probably the heavier cargo. One issue other pointed out was shear load during horizontal assembly, another is how much load the upper stage can handle, this is more important than the first stage capacity who anyway has to handle the 90 ton upper stage. For the upper stage an heavier payload would increase the load on the payload adapter 5 times but only 1.5 times for first stage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidAndy Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) is there a time of the launch? specific time? EDIT: never mind, I just looked at Wikipedia, its 2:10 EDT or 1:10 CST Edited June 19, 2017 by StupidAndy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 I'm on mobile and can't post these proper but !!!!!! Dem photobombz doe! (from SpaceX twitter) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 19 hours ago, magnemoe said: As I understand the FH core stage has modifications to handle the boosters and probably the heavier cargo. One issue other pointed out was shear load during horizontal assembly, another is how much load the upper stage can handle, this is more important than the first stage capacity who anyway has to handle the 90 ton upper stage. For the upper stage an heavier payload would increase the load on the payload adapter 5 times but only 1.5 times for first stage I'm sure it's premature, but is there any indication of Raptor/Mars Colonial Ship being integrated vertically or horizontally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.