Author Topic: How long before commercial flights to space(Not LEO but HEO)/around the Moon? (Read 15921 times)

buel · « **on:** 05/16/2011 10:48 pm »

Hello,
I have previously posted this elsewhere on this wonderful forum but i feel that this particular segment is better suited to the post:

I have just listened to a fascinating radio program on the BBC iplayer from the BBC World Service. It covers what's next for NASA/America now that the shuttles are being retired.
Link here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00gdt5n/Global_Business_Watch_This_Space/

Discussed, amongst other things, are SpaceX and their plans for the Falcon 1 and for it to orbit earth and, later, Falcon 9.

This got me thinking (dreaming) of the question- How long before there will be commercial flights actually to Space and not LEO, like Virgin Galactic which, as described in the program, is barely anything more than an 'up and down' flight.
In fact, Elon Musk of SpaceX, i think, describes it as a 'The world's highest rollercoaster' (although he has bought a seat on it).

I know no one actually knows how long but id be very interested in people's opinions on the time-frame they think, be it 20, 50, 100 years or whatever.

Thank you in advance- B

mlorrey · « **Reply #1 on:** 05/16/2011 10:54 pm »

Well, that program is a bit old, Falcon 9 has already put spacecraft into orbit. Space Adventures is already advertising a translunar tourist mission that they claim already has one ticket sold for, so the answer is that we could see this mission happen within 2-6 years...

buel · « **Reply #2 on:** 05/17/2011 07:42 am »

Hi and thank you for that.
Can i verify that 'translunar' means around the moon and back?

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #3 on:** 05/18/2011 08:06 am »

Quote from: buel on 05/17/2011 07:42 am

Hi and thank you for that.
Can i verify that 'translunar' means around the moon and back?

'Trans-lunar' in general means any orbit that runs from the Earth to the Moon. However, in this specific case, it is referring to a 'free-return trajectory', where the orbit goes behind the Moon and uses its gravity to flip the spacecraft back towards Earth without having to stop or fire the engines again.

Notable Usage of Free-Return Trajectory:
* Soviet Zond program (unmanned BEO Soyuz test program)
* Apollo 13 emergency return orbit

buel · « **Reply #4 on:** 05/26/2011 03:18 pm »

Hi, thank you for that answer.

At what height would a rocket/spacecraft have to get to to orbit the earth, as in the ISS?

Also, please may i ask if anyone else on this brilliant forum has any other thoughts on pricing/prices?

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #5 on:** 05/26/2011 04:01 pm »

Quote from: buel on 05/26/2011 03:18 pm

At what height would a rocket/spacecraft have to get to to orbit the earth, as in the ISS?

I believe that the ISS orbits at above 200 miles altitude. The shuttle (and Apollo before it) both flew up to an initial orbit of about 135 miles. Technically, space begins at 66 miles but you will want to go comfortably above that to avoid the orbit quickly decaying because of contact with the very highest layers of the atmosphere.

Quote from: buel on 05/26/2011 03:18 pm

Also, please may i ask if anyone else on this brilliant forum has any other thoughts on pricing/prices?

I believe that Space Adventures LLC have already quoted a price for a lunar fly-around mission. IIRC, it is in the region of $100M per seat. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. It isn't unaffordable but it would be a very exclusive club.

Personally, a seven-day flight cooped up in a Soyuz with one or two others isn't my cup of tea. I'll wait until Bigelow cruisers are doing it. 180 or 330 cubic meters sounds a lot better, IMHO.

Jason1701 · « **Reply #6 on:** 05/26/2011 07:52 pm »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 05/26/2011 04:01 pm

I believe that Space Adventures LLC have already quoted a price for a lunar fly-around mission. IIRC, it is in the region of $100M per seat. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. It isn't unaffordable but it would be a very exclusive club.

Personally, a seven-day flight cooped up in a Soyuz with one or two others isn't my cup of tea. I'll wait until Bigelow cruisers are doing it. 180 or 330 cubic meters sounds a lot better, IMHO.

It's $150 million. The participants should have plenty of room: the descent module, the orbital module, and another orbital module attached to the EDS. Way more room than Apollo.

Jim · « **Reply #7 on:** 05/26/2011 07:53 pm »

Quote from: Jason1701 on 05/26/2011 07:52 pm

It's $150 million. The participants should have plenty of room: the descent module, the orbital module, and another orbital module attached to the EDS. Way more room than Apollo.

No, Apollo had a lunar module attached.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #8 on:** 05/26/2011 07:55 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 05/26/2011 07:53 pm

Quote from: Jason1701 on 05/26/2011 07:52 pm

It's $150 million. The participants should have plenty of room: the descent module, the orbital module, and another orbital module attached to the EDS. Way more room than Apollo.

No, Apollo had a lunar module attached.

8.

Jason1701 · « **Reply #9 on:** 05/26/2011 08:04 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 05/26/2011 07:53 pm

Quote from: Jason1701 on 05/26/2011 07:52 pm

It's $150 million. The participants should have plenty of room: the descent module, the orbital module, and another orbital module attached to the EDS. Way more room than Apollo.

No, Apollo had a lunar module attached.

CM was 5.9 m3, LM 6.7 m3. Soyuz descent module is 3.5 m3, orbital module is 5 m3, for a total of 13.5 m3 in the Space Adventures proposal - more than Apollo's 12.6 m3.

Jorge · « **Reply #10 on:** 05/26/2011 08:05 pm »

Quote from: Jason1701 on 05/26/2011 08:04 pm

Quote from: Jim on 05/26/2011 07:53 pm
Quote from: Jason1701 on 05/26/2011 07:52 pm

It's $150 million. The participants should have plenty of room: the descent module, the orbital module, and another orbital module attached to the EDS. Way more room than Apollo.

No, Apollo had a lunar module attached.

CM was 5.9 m3, LM 6.7 m3. Soyuz descent module is 3.5 m3, orbital module is 5 m3, for a total of 13.5 m3 in the Space Adventures proposal - more than Apollo's 12.6 m3.

0.9 m3 more is not "way more room", as you claimed earlier.

Scia · « **Reply #11 on:** 05/26/2011 08:21 pm »

With SpaceX to finish the Falcon Heavy in 2013 and to start flying crew to the ISS by 2014-2015. I think its plausible to think we might mount serious cis-lunar missions by the end of the decade.

I hope it works out.

jhoblik · « **Reply #12 on:** 05/26/2011 09:12 pm »

Falcon Heavy 9 + dragon I think easy could do cis-lunar flight.
1pilot and 6 customers.
Price could be somewhere around 20-40 millions. I think they will have "plenty of customers".
If I have this money I will buy it,but I will not spend millions for earth orbit flight.

buel · « **Reply #13 on:** 05/26/2011 09:24 pm »

Hi, thank you for some brilliant answers!!
Please can someone explain what 'cis-lunar' is? (Sorry for the naiveity)

Jason1701 · « **Reply #14 on:** 05/26/2011 09:32 pm »

Quote from: buel on 05/26/2011 09:24 pm

Please can someone explain what 'cis-lunar' is? (Sorry for the naiveity)

As it applies to space exploration, it means missions around the moon, either flybys or orbits.

buel · « **Reply #15 on:** 05/26/2011 09:41 pm »

Thank you for that.
Im learning so much from this thread alone!!

baldusi · « **Reply #16 on:** 05/26/2011 10:18 pm »

Quote from: jhoblik on 05/26/2011 09:12 pm

Falcon Heavy 9 + dragon I think easy could do cis-lunar flight.
1pilot and 6 customers.
Price could be somewhere around 20-40 millions. I think they will have "plenty of customers".
If I have this money I will buy it,but I will not spend millions for earth orbit flight.

Seven crew on an eight day trip on 10m³? The supposed 14m³ pressurized space, is for cargo. A crew version would be more along 10m³. And you need a bathroom.
Besides, a Dragon to the ISS is calculated at 133M. A Falcon Heavy is 68M extra. That's 200M. And the Dragon isn't even developed for BEO.

buel · « **Reply #17 on:** 05/28/2011 10:11 pm »

Hi,
Please can i ask if anyone knows of the price for flights to the 'edge of Space'?
I've watched a program called How the Earth Made Us where the presenter, Iain Stewart, travelled in an English Electric Lightening jet to 50,00ft.

Is there anywhere other than Russia that does these kind of flights?

buel · « **Reply #18 on:** 05/29/2011 03:04 pm »

anyone please?

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #19 on:** 05/29/2011 03:51 pm »

Quote from: buel on 05/29/2011 03:04 pm

anyone please?

If Virgin Galactic fly passengers, they're going to charge ~$100,000 per seat. However, currently, I think that the Russian air force is the only organisation with the equipment and the cash flow problems that they actually do things like that with conventional aircraft.

A_M_Swallow · « **Reply #20 on:** 05/29/2011 03:52 pm »

Quote from: buel on 05/28/2011 10:11 pm

{snip}

Please can i ask if anyone knows of the price for flights to the 'edge of Space'?

$200,000 a passenger with Virgin Atlantic.
http://www.virgingalactic.com/booking

Scia · « **Reply #21 on:** 05/29/2011 04:06 pm »

Quote from: baldusi on 05/26/2011 10:18 pm

Quote from: jhoblik on 05/26/2011 09:12 pm
Falcon Heavy 9 + dragon I think easy could do cis-lunar flight.
1pilot and 6 customers.
Price could be somewhere around 20-40 millions. I think they will have "plenty of customers".
If I have this money I will buy it,but I will not spend millions for earth orbit flight.
Seven crew on an eight day trip on 10m³? The supposed 14m³ pressurized space, is for cargo. A crew version would be more along 10m³. And you need a bathroom.
Besides, a Dragon to the ISS is calculated at 133M. A Falcon Heavy is 68M extra. That's 200M. And the Dragon isn't even developed for BEO.

But can't it be modified for BEO?

why would they create a LAS that allows dragon to " provide the capability for Dragon to land almost anywhere on Earth or another planet with pinpoint accuracy'

If they did not intend for it to go BEO

They have also said that getting to mars was the long term/Main Goal of the company.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #22 on:** 05/29/2011 05:45 pm »

If you believe the Dragon to Mars hype, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you! Seriously, before Elon Musk starts trying to sell us on SpaceX to Mars, I'd like to see some operational success and mastery of LEO ops, plus a realistic architecture proposed for these beyond-LEO missions.

buel · « **Reply #23 on:** 05/29/2011 06:19 pm »

Is Elon Musk/SpaceX promising a lot but delivering little then?

baldusi · « **Reply #24 on:** 05/29/2011 09:05 pm »

A future Dragon, could be used as a crasher capsule for Mars, if it were to fly there in a spaceship that provided the habitation space, power and delta-v to get there. It would also need a LV to go up. So, even from the hypothetical POV, what they stated, while not a lie, has more spin than the RS-25D turbopump.

kkattula · « **Reply #25 on:** 05/30/2011 06:38 am »

Quote from: buel on 05/29/2011 06:19 pm

Is Elon Musk/SpaceX promising a lot but delivering little then?

He/they have delivered a helluva lot in a relatively short time, but the 'promises' (more like letting us in on their vision of the future) are huge.

neutrino78x · « **Reply #26 on:** 05/30/2011 04:07 pm »

I just hope NASA is going to expedite the human rating on these commercial rockets. As of the next (and last) shuttle flight, we will be officially dependent on the Russians. This is not the time for NASA to play games with making up new requirements so it takes Commerical forever. They need to have one specification, and not modify it, so SpaceX et al. can knock this thing out in a year or so.

Luckily there is no military need for human spaceflight right now. But it sure would be nice to send USA astronauts up on USA rockets instead of Russian, despite it being the "International" Space Station.

--Brian

ugordan · « **Reply #27 on:** 05/30/2011 06:58 pm »

Quote from: neutrino78x on 05/30/2011 04:07 pm

I just hope NASA is going to expedite the human rating on these commercial rockets.

Rockets are not the big problem, the spacecraft are.

neutrino78x · « **Reply #28 on:** 05/31/2011 04:05 am »

Quote from: ugordan on 05/30/2011 06:58 pm

Rockets are not the big problem, the spacecraft are.

Well whatever it is that requires a human rating, NASA needs to make sure this is not something that is going to take 20 years. That would be really frustrating. Don't play games, NASA. Just give a succinct series of tests that these companies can do so we can get this ball rolling.

--Brian

Jason1701 · « **Reply #29 on:** 05/31/2011 12:09 pm »

Quote from: neutrino78x on 05/31/2011 04:05 am

Quote from: ugordan on 05/30/2011 06:58 pm
Rockets are not the big problem, the spacecraft are.

Well whatever it is that requires a human rating, NASA needs to make sure this is not something that is going to take 20 years. That would be really frustrating. Don't play games, NASA. Just give a succinct series of tests that these companies can do so we can get this ball rolling.

--Brian

The way I see it, NASA doesn't have much of a choice but to get the ball rolling quickly. If they hinder the human-rating process, the companies can fly tourists and other nations' astronauts to Bigelow stations under FAA approval, and NASA can keep paying twice the price to the Russians.