Support NeoGAF

[DBT85]

NASA landed 18 humans on the moon using 1960's technology between 1969 and 1972, including at least one instance of playing golf on the surface of the moon. NASA "could" have done that (landing on platform) decades ago. NASA's only obstacle is political will and finance, being an arm of the government of the United States. NASA's early plans were far more awesome than anything SpaceX has dreamed up, involving massive space refueling stations and flying to mars riding a trail of shaped nuclear explosions for propulsion.

Unfortunately that obstacle has left them developing the SLS which IIRC is going to be hella expensive and late?

 

[besada]

Like I said when he claimed they'd put a ship on Mars in 2018, I'm sure it will happen, just as sure as I am that it won't happen on time. If Musk manages to land on Mars and send rich people around the moon in the same year, I'll gladly eat crow, but I suspect that won't be a problem. NASA is insanely rigorous about rating craft human safe. The idea that Musk is going to get his human safe rating, launch a couple of successful trips to the ISS, and then send civilians around the moon inside a year and a half is beyond ambiious, particularly since it relies on an entity he can't control.

 

[Easy_D]

Was about to make a thread. This is insane/awesome. Going to the moon and back, even without landing on it would be an incredible experience. The fact that it is private citizens paying to do it is even more wild. Can't wait to see who the two people are? My money is on Lance Bass.

One is obviously James Cameron. He conquered the ocean depths. Now he's headed for space.

 

[Nocebo]

Both components are well down their respective development paths - and it's a good argument to say that SpaceX has advanced space achievement more in their 10 years than NASA has done since Apollo.

Woah! Seriously? I know SpaceX is exciting and all. I know I get excited about SpaceX but let's not get crazy and do a Trump here. Let's not dive into alternative facts land...

Aside from the fact that SpaceX relied and continues to rely on help/expertise from NASA to progress as fast as they have. When it comes to actual space achievements, though, NASA is still head and shoulders above the rest. For example: as far as I know NASA is the only one that has successfully landed rovers on Mars safely. There's also the Pluto fly by, Juno Jupiter mission, all the research done on the international space station, to name but a few. Has SpaceX even gone beyond low earth orbit yet?
Here's a list of missions. Speaking of the ISS, the only reason SpaceX exists today is because NASA and the Russian space agency created the ISS. Thereby creating a new market for commercial companies to make more money from space.

 

[CyclopsRock]

A lot of what's been advanced in the space age is material sciences that we didn't even know we wanted (either because their invention itself *created* uses that didn't exist before, it because their use at a consumer level relied on other advances elsewhere before they could be used) - without Gemini, Apollo etc galvanising researchers with an end goal, it's hard to see how or why we would have ended up with them.

 

[firehawk12]

I thought they'd only actually sold one of the 2 tickets for it and obviously cant go til they sell the other
Surprises me 2 people would be willing to pay spaceX who have never put anyone into space instead of going with space adventures/the ruskies who have a track record

I feel like their plan is as out there though - to somehow bring old Russian rockets, that never worked, out of mothballs and try to basically finish the Russian program to launch a Soyuz to the Moon.

Although I do wonder if it would be possible for someone to basically just replicate the Saturn V and launch Apollos again.

 

[Crispy75]

Private companies are beholden to shareholders.

Public companies are beholden to shareholders. SpaceX is privately owned and controlled, so is beholden to nobody but Elon Musk.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

NASA landed 18 humans on the moon using 1960's technology between 1969 and 1972, including at least one instance of playing golf on the surface of the moon. NASA "could" have done that (landing on platform) decades ago. NASA's only obstacle is political will and finance, being an arm of the government of the United States. NASA's early plans were far more awesome than anything SpaceX has dreamed up, involving massive space refueling stations and flying to mars riding a trail of shaped nuclear explosions for propulsion.

We also didn't give a shit or knew about EMP effects with high altitude nuclear testing. And even killed many of our own satilites for it. Even the Mercury program was concerned about it.

I'm all for the sense of optimism in those days, but come on, this was as seat of your pants as any Lost season.


The gap of private vs public is palpable. Just let SpaceX do its ad. Because we are hell not getting the right science funded by our current fuckhead of a president.


Also, not to diminish the great success in reentry and landing of the boosters.

 

[Michael Armbrust]

Like I said when he claimed they'd put a ship on Mars in 2018, I'm sure it will happen, just as sure as I am that it won't happen on time. If Musk manages to land on Mars and send rich people around the moon in the same year, I'll gladly eat crow, but I suspect that won't be a problem. NASA is insanely rigorous about rating craft human safe. The idea that Musk is going to get his human safe rating, launch a couple of successful trips to the ISS, and then send civilians around the moon inside a year and a half is beyond ambiious, particularly since it relies on an entity he can't control.

The Mars mission was already delayed to 2020 since they'd miss the launch window. I doubt the moon mission will stick 2018 either but at least this mission can launch any time of the year. Certainly should happen in 2019.