Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX Will Send Japanese Billionaire Yusaku Maezawa Around the Moon (theverge.com)

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk revealed on Monday the identity of the passenger signed to visit the moon, set to launch on the company's Big Falcon Rocket (BFR) vehicle: Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa. Mr. Maezawa, 42, is the founder of Japan's Start Today, which operates largest online clothing retailer site in the country Zozotown and Wear. The Verge adds: Maezawa, who is 42, reportedly has a real time net worth of $2.9 billion, according to Forbes. He is also an avid art collector, and spent $110.5 million on a 1982 painting by Jean-Michel Basquiat called "Untitled" last year. "Finally, I can tell you that I choose to go to the Moon!" Maezawa said at a SpaceX event, announcing his trip. This isn't the first time that SpaceX has announced it plans to send a paying customer to the Moon on one of its vehicles. In February 2017, Musk proclaimed that two individuals had each put down a "significant deposit" to fly around the Moon on SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket, a larger version of the Falcon 9. No details about the passengers were given, though Musk said it was "nobody from Hollywood." The flight was slated to occur before the end of this year. "Ever since I was a kid, I have loved the moon," Maezawa said in a website that his team and SpaceX created for this expedition. "This is a project that I designed and made: #dearMoon," He added, noting that it will be launched in 2023. "I choose to go to the moon with artists. In 2023, as the host, I would like to invite 6 to 8 artists from around the world to join me on this mission to the Moon." He said going to the moon can contribute to "world peace."

Mr. Musk said SpaceX's first orbital flight could be in 2-3 years, and then it would test flights without a passenger around the moon. He added, however, that as far as the proposed 2023 deadline is concerned to get the first paying passenger on the moon, he is "definitely not sure about it," as there could be some delays because of the uncertainties and complexities.

97 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. Excited about the Future by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    I am happy and excited about being a multi-planet society. The earth is not big enough.

    Its good to see positive people talk about a positive future and give people hope and something to look forward to.

    I am glad that a civilian will step up and take his money and put it into something that will help people and the future!

    Hard problems can only be solved through hard work and thinking outside the box.

    1. Re: Excited about the Future by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase a comment I heard recently from Neil deGrasse Tyson, we'll have human presence on other planets at the moment some nation sees a military or political advantage from it.

      If military/political advantage is not a factor, it will just happen more slowly.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re: Excited about the Future by dehachel12 · · Score: 2

      There's no business case for it,

      let me reply with this quote:

      We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard

    3. Re: Excited about the Future by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard

      I can name a hundred things that are hard, but that we aren't choosing to do. Stop increasing atmospheric CO2 is a good one. Going to the moon is easy.

    4. Re: Excited about the Future by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no "multiplanet society" on the horizon. There's no business case for it

      How I imagine that conversations went in 10000 BCE: "Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no "agrarian society" on the horizon. There's no business case for it."

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re: Excited about the Future by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no "agrarian society" on the horizon. There's no business case for it."

      Except that there was a business case for it. People who started cultivating their lands were growing food that they could eat or trade.

    6. Re: Excited about the Future by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Don't insert reality, people don't like it.

    7. Re: Excited about the Future by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I can name a hundred things that are hard, but that we aren't choosing to do. Stop increasing atmospheric CO2 is a good one. Going to the moon is easy.

      Okay bro. If you go to the moon in your own rocket, I'll stop global warming. Deal?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re: Excited about the Future by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The business case for the settlement of the Americas turned out to be much larger than (and quite different from the one) originally anticipated, too. Our shortsightedness better not discourage us from our efforts.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re: Excited about the Future by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The business case for settlement of the Gobi desert could also turn out to be much larger than originally anticipated, and yet I don't see people getting too excited about that.

      We aren't living in ancient times. We know what's out there, and how hard it is to get anything done. We can calculate business cases for space applications without going there first.

    10. Re: Excited about the Future by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      We know what's out there

      We actually don't. That's why we're sending all those probes, but they have barely scratched the surface yet.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re: Excited about the Future by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      We also have barely scratched the surface of the Gobi desert. How come we ain't digging there ?

    12. Re: Excited about the Future by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      How come we ain't digging there ?

      I don't know...because we are?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re: Excited about the Future by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      That's cute, but copper and gold aren't good enough to make a business case for space travel. We'd need something like a buried alien craft or a monolith to make it worth our effort.

    14. Re: Excited about the Future by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Or heaps of platinum in M-type asteroids for fuel cell and general chemistry applications? There are people anticipating such finds, you know.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  2. Best of luck. by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope this flight goes off without a hitch. My hat's off to Maezawa, Musk, and everyone involved in the project.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Best of luck. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      His heirs welcome the audacity.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  3. I choose to go to the Moon... by hey! · · Score: 1, Funny

    and do the other things, because they are easy, but because they are expensive.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  4. Re: Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No Musk did not launch a Saturn V.

  5. Mine's not by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Bernie Sanders pointed this out, but while Bezo's employees make so little my tax dollars go to buy them enough food to live he's spending money on space tourism. I'm not saying space exploration isn't important, but these guys aren't adding much if any new tech. They're just using what was already there (and paid for by my tax dollars, yet again).

    If we could afford to send these guys to space _and_ pay their employees a living wage I wouldn't be complaining, but it seems like they're riding to space on the backs of the working poor...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Mine's not by virtig01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're just using what was already there (and paid for by my tax dollars, yet again).

      Bezos' Blue Origin has only taken small amounts (in government terms) of tax payer funding. They're basically self-funded by Bezos himself.

      And SpaceX is saving the government a lot of money. NASA estimated that SpaceX development of the Falcon 9 at a cost of $390M would have cost $3-4B by traditional means (source). All of the launch providers (ULA, Arianespace, the Russians) are scrambling to get their costs down, lest they lose their place in the market.

    2. Re: Mine's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you think the BFR+BFS doesn't require a lot of new/novel development, you haven't been paying attention (or are extremely lacking in imagination to fill in the gaps of what occurs in development between now and routine flight). SpaceX has a lot of highly paid people.. and as a bonus, many are people working on something they actually want to work on.

    3. Re:Mine's not by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I'm impressed that MZ (as he likes to be called) chose to fly artists into space with him. That's a sharp departure from previous efforts.

      Yes, Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield was a capable musician and brought space to the commoner in a unique way, as have others. But a moon-flyby crew chosen for artistic merit above all else? I for one can't wait to see what becomes of this.

      I agree that people who work for Bezos deserve to be paid fairly, and not subsidize space tourism. But that has little connection with Musk. Tesla is not exactly a cash cow for SpaceX.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Mine's not by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      he's spending money on space tourism.

      A correction: He's investing money into a potentially highly profitable company that would coincidentally allow others to spend money on space tourism.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Mine's not by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      They only got it this cheap by two means. 1. Cutting corners and generally half asking things.

      Right. A rocket that can put a payload in orbit, land its first stage, be refurbished in a month, put another payload in orbit, reland its first stage, and put another payload in orbit "cuts corners". Sure.

      2. Hiding the massive amount of money they lose per launch from the public.

      SpaceX has been in business, selling launches, for more than a decade. This month is the 10th anniversary of the first orbital Falcon 1 flight. Losing money. Suuure.

      Have the trolls around here always been this stupid? I don't usually read at 0.

  6. Re:An artist?? by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I find his idea vacuous. But, so long as he helps fund the development of BFR / BFS, I don't care if his mission for buying the first flight was for the opportunity to juggle goslings in microgravity by bouncing them off the walls. A paying customer is a paying customer.

    --
    "Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
  7. Re:Yeah right by Rei · · Score: 1

    Huh, 20 cases and 689 docket entries? Let's see what happens when we substitute another random billionaire - say, Zuckerberg? Oh hey, what do you know, 54 cases and 6072 docket entries. I guess he's is going Megabankwupt...

    --
    "Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
  8. The $110 million painting by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    On care anyone is curious what a $110 million painting looks like:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

    That's one of the most expensive paintings ever auctioned. The artist died of a drug overdose at the age of 27.

    1. Re:The $110 million painting by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Art is anything you can get away with. -- Marshall McLuhan

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:The $110 million painting by spitzak · · Score: 2

      What? It clearly says right on the painting "500K" so he like paid 200x the marked price!

    3. Re:The $110 million painting by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      Still, killing yourself seems to be a good way to increase the value of your 'art'.

      I'll always remember an "art piece" where some guy had a camera set up on a tripod and had someone shoot him in the arm with a gun. This was to get his doctorate in art I think.

    4. Re:The $110 million painting by Xenna · · Score: 4, Funny

      "The artist died of a drug overdose at the age of 27."

      Obviously that painting would be worth a lot less if he'd still be alive. I suppose Yusaku figured that out too. He then figured: what if I put 8 artists in a rocket and shoot them to the moon. If they die, prices for their work will go to the moon too.

      I bet he'll cancel his ticket at the last moment.

    5. Re:The $110 million painting by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      No, the thing you have to understand is that contemporary art is basically just the ultimate speculator's market in arbitrary status-signalling symbols for the mega-wealthy, dressed in a thin veneer of faux-intellectualism and pretend-philosophy; it didn't sell for this much because there's something special going on with colors here, it sold for that much because Basquiat got famous because of the movie made about him, and therefore dealers pushed his work into the artificially-created market for in-demand rare pieces by famous artists, a market serviced by either people like billionaire oil tycoons who want something to show off to the women they bring home, or by collectors who invest speculatively on the (historically largely correct assumption) that there will continue to be people buying into the upward cycle of speculation on rare pieces in future (and that they can therefore potentially sell them later for more). If they can convince a few gullible people there's something magical going on re the 'colors in the piece', all the better, but the market would exist regardless, because that's neither why rich people buy such pieces, nor why speculative collectors buy them.

    6. Re:The $110 million painting by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      One thing I've noticed.
      Classical art usually, by way of being judged for some time, strikes me as good. I can see the skill, and occasionally I'm wowed etc. So pretty much all of it gets a 80%
      Modern art, most of it I look at and think "eh, don't care" and it scores maybe a 5%. But every so often one pops up, and it's fantastic, possibly a 95%. And I don't know why.
      I think this is what they're going for.

    7. Re:The $110 million painting by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      BTW, I happen to think that Basquiat's painting is amazing.

      There's a great movie that was made about him. Worth a look.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  9. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "You'll never get a rocket to orbit"

    Musk: gets rocket to orbit.

    "Well you'll never be able to land it"

    Musk: Lands rocket. Makes it routine.

    "But you'll never be able to refly it!"

    Musk: reflies rockets routinely.

    "But it'll take a year of refurb each time!"

    Musk: gets refurb to under 4 weeks, targeting 24 hours.

    "Yeah but it'll never save money"

    Musk: reduces launch costs to lowest in industry on re-flow rockets.

    "OK but you'll never make the BFR!"

    Musk: hold my beer.

  10. Maezawa's moving to the Moon by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    His first choice was to move to the Sun - but the rent's there are just too high.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Maezawa's moving to the Moon by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Actually he does not go to the moon, he’s flying around the moon, like orbiting. Since he does this already every day around the Sun, he wanted to do something less boring.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Maezawa's moving to the Moon by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      Some hot properties up there so I've heard.

  11. First Baby in Space by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    I predict this will be the first of Many Babies make in space on the maiden voyage.

    1. Re:First Baby in Space by mentil · · Score: 1

      Unless the Van Allen belts sterilize all of a woman's eggs. We've never sent a woman to the moon so the fertility effects are as-yet unproven.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:First Baby in Space by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Unless the Van Allen belts sterilize all of a woman's eggs. We've never sent a woman to the moon so the fertility effects are as-yet unproven.

      It doesn't. We didn't have to send a woman to the Moon to know how much radiation people are exposed to when transiting the Van Allen belts. Even in the dinky little Apollo capsules, coming and going combined, astronauts picked up less than 5 rems of exposure, spread out over two instances more than 2 days apart. This is actual dosimeter exposures, not theory. Five rems doesn't sterilize anybody.

      BFS is gigantic by Apollo standards, with 1100 cubic meters of interior volume. The BFR will also have one of if not the largest lift capacity of any rocket ever created, beating even the Saturn V. That's a lot of space and a lot of mass for extra shielding in the interior of BFS, especially since they're limiting the flight to no more than a dozen people. Iron shielding actually works against cosmic rays, which have energies in the billions of electron volts, compared to the Van Allen belts which only have a few particles as high as 500 million electron volts. It's not great, but over flight durations of less than a week, the radiation dosages involved are the least of their worries. Riding a controlled explosion into orbit and beyond is far riskier.

  12. Error by Barny · · Score: 1

    Well of course he's not sure about landing someone on the Moon, this isn't about that.

    The planned flight, if you'd looked at the website or video at all, is to do a fly-by of the moon.

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
    1. Re:Error by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Thanks Captain Obvious. That would have slipped by if you hadn't pointed it out.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  13. Re: Yeah right by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The heaviest rocket system in the world, not in history. The Saturn V, for all its merit, is not a current player.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  14. Re:You heard it here first by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    404

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  15. Hollywouldn't by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    Musk said it was "nobody from Hollywood".

    That doesn't narrow the field very much. Almost every actor counts as "nobody from Hollywood."

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  16. The key word here is around by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

    Sending someone around the Moon is relatively difficult, mainly when that person has no special training. But the difficulty associated with making the next logical step (landing on its surface) is orders of magnitude higher. The 2023 deadline seems way too optimistic.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    1. Re:The key word here is around by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Actually, unlike the Apollo program, the BFR/BFS program intentionally makes a fly-by and a landing differ only in terms of the number of refueling flights. That seems to be the whole point of it. Since Apollo couldn't do the same, they had to invent mission-specific hardware for every part of the flight, at an immense cost.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:The key word here is around by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      fly-by and a landing differ only in terms of the number of refueling flights

      Even by ignoring the aspect of dealing with untrained people, that statement doesn't seem realistic at all. Just the landing (and the very important taking-off!) part is perhaps the most delicate and complex one, even without having to account for the well-being of a person inside. To that you have to add all the problems associated with flying inside an (pseudo-)atmosphere and other aspects which make the conditions in the Moon or any planet different to the ones in outer space (where these ships have mostly been tested). Just look at what happened in the recent Lunar XPrize to understand how difficult all this can be.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    3. Re:The key word here is around by mentil · · Score: 1

      So they could put a refueling tank (perhaps with attached lander) in lunar orbit, and for a low, low additional in-flight purchase, you can choose (once there) to add a landing to your itinerary. I'm sure lots of people who intended for a flyby would decide to splurge on the landing once the Moon is... right... there...

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    4. Re:The key word here is around by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Of course landing is difficult, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that powered vertical lunar landing is less difficult than powered vertical Earth landing. We've only achieved the latter decades after the former. Adding the easier step if you already absolutely have to do the more difficult one is not a terribly large change. (Especially if the vehicle is already designed to do just that.)

      How the training of the people affects the mission design is beyond me. They won't be involved in the operation of the vehicle.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:The key word here is around by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There's still a ~1 km/s difference between your orbital fuel plant and your flying-by spacecraft so "a low additional in-flight purchase" is rather infeasible.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:The key word here is around by mentil · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it'd need enough additional fuel onboard to do that maneuver. However, if it was holding onto 1km/s delta-V anyways for a powered descent to Earth, then it'd already be there, and thus no additional fuel launch costs.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    7. Re:The key word here is around by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      powered vertical Earth landing

      Complexity is relative and, in this specific case, is mostly conditioned by the amount of experience, the number of tests. There will always be much more control on an Earth-based whatever than under conditions which have been rarely tested, no matter how much simpler those conditions might look like. Extrapolations rarely work with engineering, much less when dealing with something as demanding as space traveling. Thoroughly testing everything is a very important step within the process of creating reliable technology. And here reliability is paramount. Another very important difference is the default safety and access constraints. If something goes wrong on Earth, going there and perhaps fixing it can be done more or less easily. What about the Moon? What would you do if something goes wrong? You have to account for that too.

      How the training of the people affects the mission design is beyond me

      What do you think that going in a space ship implies? That it is like using a plane? Where most of people don't experience any kind of problem? We are talking about a very relevant propulsion against gravity (provoking a high pressure which the bodies will bear) and tolerating the space conditions (provoking lots of negative effects). Healthy individuals with a bit of training should be ready to go more or less quickly. But what about problematic situations? Difficult landing or problems during the travel making the conditions even tougher. Let me put it even easier: how comfortable, problem-free, suitable-for-everyone do you think that the first plane flights were? What do you think that has been the main reason for having reached the current stage of safety and comfortableness in air travel? Fixing many problems during many years, lots of trial and error. Where do you get all that in a trip to the Moon? Is it impossible to somehow emulate the whole process, to make sure that almost anyone can get there more or less comfortably? Certainly not. I don't see this even as the biggest problem. But all that requires time, effort, investment, exactly the same than many other aspects. This is precisely the reason why I considered your assumption unrealistic.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    8. Re:The key word here is around by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There will always be much more control on an Earth-based whatever

      That's exactly the opposite of how it worked with LM vs. Falcon 9. LM had the superior control. That's why landing it was so much easier. That's why landing the F9 is so difficult.

      Thoroughly testing everything is a very important step within the process of creating reliable technology.

      Well, that must be why SpaceX tests the shit out of stuff. By the time people will fly on the BFS, it will have been thoroughly tested.

      What do you think that going in a space ship implies? That it is like using a plane?

      What I meant was, is there meaningful difference between training for 0 g and training for 0 g/0.16 g? Or in other words, assuming a flyby as a baseline, what additional "orders of magnitude more difficult" training do you require for 0.16 g compared to already being trained for 0 g? (Assuming no spacesuit EVAs for the time being).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:The key word here is around by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      You think that the around-to-on transition is easy or that most of the required work has already been done. I think that we will not be seeing Moon tourists (even just manned landings) in the next quite a few years. Our positions are clear and this discussion doesn't seem to go anywhere. Let's wait and see who is right.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    10. Re:The key word here is around by Immerman · · Score: 2

      > flying inside an (pseudo-)atmosphere
      What atmosphere? Mars has some atmosphere, for most practical purposes the Moon is hard vacuum all the way down (80 molecules per cubic centimeter, versus 3x10^16 on Earth. To get the force of a 1mph wind on Earth, you'd have to be going 400,000,000,000,000mph, or 24x light speed), which makes control *much* simpler than on Earth because you're not fighting atmospheric turbulence. If you were trying to land a Falcon, the grid fins would be useless, but the guidance thrusters would still work just fine. And the BFR has no grid fins or similar, it's designed for purely thruster-based maneuvering

      That's not to say you could get me to ride on the first landing attempt - but I'd put even money that even the first test lands successfully. And takeoff is trivial - as soon as the rocket clears its own exhaust backsplash it isn't going to care in the slightest that it's fighting the Moon's gravity - flight behavior will be almost identical to flying in free space.

      And what does the Lunar X prize have to do with anything? That was about designing autonomous lunar rovers and booking flights to the moon - the first part is nothing that hasn't been done before, though the implied , and the second part is hard because there's nobody selling out-of-the-box trips to the moon, and the $20million first prize wouldn't even cover 10% of the cost of a launch to orbit anyway.

      Basically, the entire competition was doomed to failure - there's just no business incentive to win, much less play. Unlike the Ansari X Prize, where the prize was a nice little carrot along the way, but the real prize was having developed reusable rocket technology applicable to larger orbital launch vehicles that could dramatically undercut the current market. What would a lunar X-prize winner have won? A tiny bit of their launch costs refunded, and they've developed some autonomous rover technology that could be developed just as easily here.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:The key word here is around by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The point is - most of the problems of flying a rocket in vacuum are solved, and the rocket doesn't really care much what gravity is doing unless it's in contact with the surface. In the absence of atmosphere the moment you leave the surface you're in free-fall and the only effect of gravity is to change how fast your position is changing in response to the acceleration being provided. Well, at least not until you lean over enough for uneven weight distribution to start applying some torque - but that's far less of an issue on the Moon than Earth.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:The key word here is around by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      I think that I have clearly explained my position about the kind of extrapolation, everything-is-done-based assumptions which underlie your whole comment. I have also provided a reference to a recent, relevant event which I think that somehow supports my position in this specific scenario. Also as said to the other poster and by trying to not be rude, I don't think that continuing a conversation when our positions are so far away makes much sense. I am not a big fan of infinite loops :)

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    13. Re:The key word here is around by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      flying inside an (pseudo-)atmosphere What atmosphere?

      The word "pseudo" can be roughly understood as "kind of" meaning that it isn't exactly an atmosphere as the one you have in many planets, but it isn't outer space either. Honestly, I don't see what is the confusing part in my statement.

      And regarding all what you say about the prizes, I just know that the final result is nothing on the Moon surface, what means no testing, no experience, precisely the reasons why I think that all this is likely to take quite long time. You need lots of testing in order to reach an acceptably reliable stage for something of that magnitude, much more when sending people paying for a leisure trip rather than highly-trained workers doing a very dangerous job.

      Perhaps I am wrong, let's see, but still not getting the point of having a lots-of-assumptions-based discussion when our positions are so different.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    14. Re:The key word here is around by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      I personally prefer to focus on the relevant parts of the current discussion, arguments, attitude, etc. and to avoid having prejudices about the given person/nick as much as possible. And as said, our positions are way too different and that's why I don't think that we should continue. Your approach is definitively different, perhaps a bit too aggressive, but completely up to you.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    15. Re:The key word here is around by Immerman · · Score: 1

      First off, as you say, nobody is talking about landing tourists on the moon any time soon. I would fully expect no tourist landings until they at least have a landing pad and possibly even a second ship standing by on the moon in case of problems.

      No, it's not hard vacuum on the moon, but it's not remotely an atmosphere either for navigation purposes - it's not relevant to anything but geology and maybe some gas analysis projects. It's orders of magnitude thinner than the atmosphere in low earth orbit, which is already only really relevant in terms of long-term orbital decay.

      Final result of an incredibly expensive competition with no prize, is that nobody seriously tries to win. What other outcome would you expect? It is a shame that we didn't get any added experience, but I doubt we would have gotten anything valuable from the sort of unrealistic amateurs that would bother to try anyway.

      Meanwhile the U.S. has managed six manned moon landings, all successful, and numerous unmanned landers, almost all successful if they managed to reach lunar orbit in one piece. Even the ones that failed the descent were due to equipment failure before reaching the surface - problems that would be equally applicable to landing on Earth.

      Basically we've already established that actually landing on the moon is relatively easy - it's keeping your hardware from failing before you get there that's the hard part. And any BFR moon landings will be attempted after the rocket has already been well tested on Earth and in space.

      The only real challenge will be dealing with the lack of a proper landing pad. Finding a place to land that's flat and solid enough to support the rocket will be its own challenge - if the ground shifts a bit under one foot and the rocket tips over, there's really not any way to recover from that. There are however ways to practice dealing with it - e.g. repeatedly landing the rocket someplace remote and unstable, like White Sands. It remains to be seen if the BFR will be able to hover - but if so then there's hope that they could attempt a landing, throttle down slowly, and take off again if the ship starts to tip to try again a short distance away. If fuel use starts eating into the safety margins before you find a solid landing spot, then you'd simply return without ever fully landing. If it can't hover on the moon, and has to hover-slam like the Falcon 9, then it's all down to locating a sufficiently solid-looking landing spot and praying very quickly as the engine shuts off.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    16. Re:The key word here is around by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      And the BFR has no grid fins or similar, it's designed for purely thruster-based maneuvering

      Not precisely. Or at least not entirely. Here we need to be a little more precise with language.

      Both components of BFR are intended to be landed and reused. The first stage and the ship, which we'll call BFS, as SpaceX has, land differently. The BFS, which is the only component that would land on the Moon, has motors in two of the rear fins/wings. They're variable geometry with respect to the body of the vehicle. So in atmosphere, BFS does not land purely with thrust-based maneuvering. Obviously it must on the Moon, with an atmosphere.

      What would a lunar X-prize winner have won? A tiny bit of their launch costs refunded, and they've developed some autonomous rover technology that could be developed just as easily here.

      SpaceX pledged free launch services to any Google Lunar X-Prize qualified team who actually reached that stage. A nice little bit of publicity they never had to actually spend money on, since that X-Prize vanished into failure. The insurance company made out like a bandit on that one.

    17. Re:The key word here is around by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Yes, the BFR first stage looks to be similar to the Falcon in function. The BFS however doesn't have any normal aerodynamic surfaces - those fins aren't aerodynamic surfaces like you'd see on a plane, they're for stabilization during hyper-sonic aerobraking, when they're hitting the air broadside. It doesn't fly through the atmosphere, it belly-flops, and the fins have more in common with a parachute than wings. Once it slows down to subsonic speeds and approaches the landing site it finally rotates ass-forward and begins a power-controlled fall - at which point the fins orientation and location makes them largely useless as control surfaces.

      That said, yes, they'll no doubt have some aerodynamic impact - but I'd bet that their impact is intentionally minimized since it's not particularly stable. The trailing nose fins might still be in play, but their effect is going to be minor - they're just too small to generate any substantial torque (There's a reason the F9 uses grid fins instead - those things are crazy powerful for their size.), and they aren't actuated in the directions you'd want them to be for that purpose anyway. Look at the control surfaces on a plane, they're all actuated perpendicularly to the line of travel so that lift and drag can be modulated. Whereas once the BFS stops aerobraking for the final approach it's fins are all actuated parallel to the line of motion. They're useless for drag, and any lift they could generate would only serve to spin the rocket around its long axis.

      Landing on the moon, aerobraking isn't an option, so they jump straight to a much longer high-power controlled fall.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    18. Re:The key word here is around by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >.as opposed to the flights where the equipment function perfectly and yet still failed to land
      Exactly. When you blow up in the air, it says nothing about the difficulty of landing, just that your rocket was flawed - and this rocket will have been very well tested on Earth and in orbit before it ever gets near the moon. The rockets that did work, had no problems nlanding.

      And why would they train Maezawa? SpaceX rockets don't need a pilot.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    19. Re:The key word here is around by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I assumed that was sarcasm - my point was that when the equipment didn't fail catastrophically, lunar landings haven't been a problem. Essentially - we've landed on the moon many times, and all the evidence suggests that there's nothing particularly difficult about it. The failures have all been because the hardware itself was flawed, not because a moon landing is more difficult than one on Earth.

      And I said nothing about perfectly. SpaceX's failure rate is about the same as any other rocket line with the same number of launches. A little better than some, a little worse than others, but pretty much within the realm of statistical noise. Still not enough of a track record for my personal comfort - but I wouldn't be any more worried about landing on the Moon than on Earth. At least not after they established a solid, reliable landing pad there.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    20. Re:The key word here is around by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Falcon 9 can lift much more than 10 tonnes to LEO and you're an imbecile.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    21. Re:The key word here is around by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      This last post of yours does certainly make pretty solid points, but also gives a new pretty good sample supporting my position ("lack of a proper landing pad..."). We have again the problem of two non-validatable confronted positions and only time can tell which one is right. Before having some actual attempts on the surface, with the current technology and ideally performed by SpaceX, there is no empirical evidence to support any of our assumptions or perhaps just only mine.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    22. Re:The key word here is around by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Time will tell. However, the moons surface consists of solid rock and vacuum-welded dust, which hasn't given any other landers any problems. At worst the BFS will need a more conventional lander to precede it to create a stable landing pad.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    23. Re:The key word here is around by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It suggests that you suffer from innumeracy.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    24. Re:The key word here is around by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That would hardly be suffering compared to your inability to calculate your way out of a paper bag.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    25. Re:The key word here is around by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You have to if you actually don't have one or two of the two numbers you want to compare.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    26. Re:The key word here is around by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Considering that attempted Falcon 9 booster recovery was successful 23 times in a row, with a stage control-wise inferior to the one that would be landing on the Moon, and two thirds of the time it happened with a wobbly landing platform, I'd say that the chances of reliably landing with an improved vehicle on a stationary surface in vacuum several years from now look pretty damn high.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    27. Re:The key word here is around by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Just to be sure we're communicating with the same language...

      "Can"

      "Did"

      The next thing you'll claim will be that the Atlas V can't actually lift 18 tonnes to LEO as per ULA's claims because it never did. You really seem to have some cognitive issues.

      If you had any ability at all to work with a few numbers, you'd be able to tell the lower bound on the level of Falcon's LEO capacity from the realized GTO flights. But that would involve the knowledge of high school math with you obviously can't be bothered with.

      As to your obsession with my comment posting times, I strongly suggest you find a better hobby. I mean, I am flattered to have a groupie, but still...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    28. Re:The key word here is around by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      But thanks for your admission that Falcon 9 never lifted 10 tonnes to LEO...bbbut it "can"...

      Falcon 9 lifted 10 tonnes to LEO.

      Atlas V is can strap up to 5 booster side packs, different animal.

      Nope, never lifted 18 tonnes so it can't. Atlas V never even lifted more than 10 tonnes, actually. It therefore can't - hey, your logic, not mine!

      If you had any ability at all to work with a few numbers, you'd be able to tell Falcon 9 send Telstar 19V into sub-GTO, not a legitimate GTO orbit.

      Interesting that you mention Telstar 19V. As per Tsiolkovsky, its 7-tonne mass to sub-GTO together with known stage 2 parameters of 4 tonnes dry mass, 112 tonnes gross mass, 348s Isp translates to around 15 tonnes to LEO using the same ASDS flight profile. That's not even considering expendable flight profiles.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  17. Dateline December 24, 1968 by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    Man successfully enters orbit of the Moon!

  18. Re: Yeah right by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

    Yeah because if I ran a company I sure as hell wouldn’t make over prices poorly built piece of shit golf carts.

    It wouldn't be a US company if it wasn't making over priced, poorly built pieces of shit.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  19. Re: Yeah right by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Saturn V is the heaviest rocket system in the world in the same way that Rome is the largest city. I mean, it USED to be, right?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  20. Re: Yeah right by Kjella · · Score: 1

    The heaviest rocket system in the world, not in history. The Saturn V, for all its merit, is not a current player.

    That's not how English works... if you say he's the world's tallest man without further qualifications it's generally assumed to mean the tallest man in history. True, the SpaceX page says "The world's most powerful rocket" as a headline but immediately follows up with "Falcon Heavy is the most powerful operational rocket in the world by a factor of two." and that's fair. It's like using "The world's tallest man" as a headline and "At 251 cm, Sultan Kosen is the world's tallest currently living man." as the introduction. But if you're not going to say anything more then it's a bit dishonest...

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  21. Re: Yeah right by Kjella · · Score: 2

    Saturn V is the heaviest rocket system in the world in the same way that Rome is the largest city. I mean, it USED to be, right?

    If all current cities were smaller than ancient Rome then that analogy would make sense. You're comparing apples and oranges...

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  22. Those 2 individuals... by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

    "In February 2017, Musk proclaimed that two individuals had each put down a "significant deposit" to fly around the Moon on SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket,"

    Elon confirmed in the Q&A that the 2 individuals were Yusaku Maezawa and someone else he was going to bring, and then spoke about how the Crew Dragon would really only hold 2 people comfortably for this trip (as it's about the same size inside as an SUV), and that by using BFS, more people are able to go. Musk mentioned maybe a dozen, whereas Yusaku had earlier mentioned about 6-8. So likely the other person was to be an artist, but with BFR and BFS he can take several artists.

    1. Re:Those 2 individuals... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Musk mentioned maybe a dozen, whereas Yusaku had earlier mentioned about 6-8.

      Musk's dozen is considerably more likely to be the total count, while Maezawa's 6-8 artists is also accurate. The other 4-6 people will be trained astronauts. Musk may be behaving a little erratically lately, but he's not so far gone as to think sending a mob of poets, composers, sculptors, and photographers into space unsupervised is a good idea.

  23. Re: Yeah right by murdocj · · Score: 1

    So if I launch a model rocket from my backyard, it's the heaviest current launch, right? I can claim that title?

  24. Re:Yeah right by murdocj · · Score: 1

    He (or his company) has done amazing things, but he has always been overly optimistic about when it would happen. If he says 2023, you can be certain it won't happen till the late 2020's (at best).

  25. Murder by Numbers by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    hey, killing billionaires in space is the kind of art project I can wholeheartedly support!
    Although that may limit repeat rocket sales.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  26. Re:An artist?? by werepants · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Really? I find it pretty inspiring, at least to the extent that space tourism can be. The guy is bringing others with him, for one, which is a first among billionaire space tourists. He's also not just bringing buddies - he's essentially commissioning artists to create (presumably public) works based on their experience of seeing the moon, which is a tangible and accessible way of giving something back to a broader community.

    Finally, there is a bit of a historical homage to this flight - it mirrors Apollo 8 in the overall mission profile, which was the first time any humans had seen the far side of the moon. If I remember correctly, upon seeing the moon close up, Jim Lovell commented that he wished they had a poet aboard who could properly articulate the sense of awe and wonder of the experience - as it was, it was left to some no-nonsense test pilots to try to inspire a global audience via grainy TV broadcast.

    Anyhow, this is a PR stunt, certainly, but it seems to be a thoughtful one.

  27. Re:An artist?? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    A paying customer is a paying customer.

    As long as Musk follows the first Rule of Acquisition.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  28. Good luck Elon & Yusaku Maezawa by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...I genuinely hope they're successful and everyone comes back alive.

    --
    -Styopa
  29. More CEOs in space! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The early astronauts, pretty much to a man, experienced a profound shift in their world views when they were able to behold the view of Earth from afar. They truly realized how fragile and isolated our world is. These were not guys predisposed to such touchy-feeliness, and yet they were still deeply affected.

    If more CEOs and billionaires experienced the same view firsthand, perhaps they might give pause, reexamine their ways, and give more thought to long term consequences rather than short term profits.

  30. Re: Yeah right by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    If the world's tallest building were demolished, it would no longer be the world's tallest building. Some other building would be.

    If the tallest building in history were demolished, it would still be the tallest building in history, until someone built a taller one.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  31. Re:An artist?? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    "Poetry is nobody's business except the poet's," wrote Philip Larkin, "and everybody else can fuck off."

    "Poetry is nobody's business except the poet's," wrote Philip Larkin, "and everybody else can fuck off."

    Instead of trying to appeal to general audiences, even educated ones, modern poets and artists try to appeal a small circle of people consisting of themselves, professional critics, and a small number of big-pocket patrons who, unlike the patrons of past classical art and literature, seek to distance themselves from the masses rather than win their approval. This has created a spiral where creatives try to constantly outdo each other in going against established norms and tastes by being controversial, offensive, or outright incomprehensible just for the sake of it.

    And they were largely successful at it: they created a "high culture" that reliably signal a certain upper-class/elite subculture, but is repulsive to all us peons, who instead consume what is disparagingly designated as "pop culture".

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  32. Hope by JBFrobozz · · Score: 1

    I've heard Musk say this before, but he also repeated it in last night's announcement. One of the biggest benefits of this mission, and of SpaceX in general, is it gives everyone something to be hopeful about. There is plenty in this world to be down about as evidenced by all of the complaints filed around here. At the end of the day, who doesn't want to see people visiting the Moon!

    I want to see it. I want to follow the updates and be excited about them. I want my son to be excited about it - maybe it will even be one of those events where he will forever remember where he was when the dearMoon BFR lifted off. Maybe he will tell his children about it.

    There is still plenty to complain about, but I for one, am happy to sit back and say this is awesome!

    --
    -It writes, rates, creates, even telecommunicates. Costs less, does more the Commodore 64. Compute's Gazette
  33. Re:An artist?? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    Finally, there is a bit of a historical homage to this flight - it mirrors Apollo 8 in the overall mission profile, which was the first time any humans had seen the far side of the moon. If I remember correctly, upon seeing the moon close up, Jim Lovell commented that he wished they had a poet aboard who could properly articulate the sense of awe and wonder of the experience - as it was, it was left to some no-nonsense test pilots to try to inspire a global audience via grainy TV broadcast.

    More than mirrors. Its aspiration is to duplicate the enormously far-reaching effect of the photograph called Earthrise by astronaut William Anders during the Apollo 8 mission. Earthrise has been praised as "the most influential environmental photograph ever taken." Today, a kid with Blender can create more spectacular imagery in an afternoon, but in 1968, that photo, and the reality of that photo, was earthshaking. It's debatable what photograph is the most reproduced in history, but Earthrise has to be in the top ten.

    Maezawa hopes he can enable something similar. It's just possible that he might.

  34. Re:Yeah right by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    He (or his company) has done amazing things, but he has always been overly optimistic about when it would happen. If he says 2023, you can be certain it won't happen till the late 2020's (at best).

    That's no longer as certain as it once was, and it ignores the fact that they already have the Raptor engine.

    Falcon Heavy took much longer than expected because it ended up being a complete reengineering of Falcon 9. Falcon 9 Block 5 is entirely different from Falcon 9 Block 1, from the configuration of the engine pack to the size and shape of the reentry grid fins. Tip to tail, Falcon 9 had to be redone before Falcon Heavy was possible.

    SpaceX has effectively designed three rockets now: Falcon 1, Falcon 9 Block 1, and Falcon 9 Block 5 in Heavy configuration. BFR is their fourth rocket, and it's a clean sheet design by an experienced team. That clean sheet was too little constraint, resulting in resizings and reworkings of the engine packs several times. Now that a size has been settled on, a lot of things will be decided very quickly.

    With an operating engine, the only full-flow staged-combustion methane engine ever to reach testing, with BFR structure and skin already being fabricated (there were photos included in the video presentation during the press conference), SpaceX is more likely to hit their target dates this time than they ever were before. This time they know what they're doing, since they've done a lot of it before, and since the hardest part (the engines) started development in 2013. They're already half a decade into the process. That helps a lot with the time lines.

  35. Re:An artist?? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    I'd pay to watch gosling juggling in microgravity.

  36. Maybe... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Perhaps by the time SpaceX gets there, they can take Mr Maezawa's ashes!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.