FH to the moon?

[Xspace_engineerX]

Hey guys,

Question about possibility here:

Assuming that FH gets the performance that spaceX has been claiming, and that spaceX develops a crewed dragon with propulsive landing capabilities to 2016, could they theoretically do a moon mission with FH/dragon?

I have no idea if we have the information to do the math here, but I assume that some of you guys are a lot better informed 

[M129K]

Hey guys,

Question about possibility here:

Assuming that FH gets the performance that spaceX has been claiming, and that spaceX develops a crewed dragon with propulsive landing capabilities to 2016, could they theoretically do a moon mission with FH/dragon?

I have no idea if we have the information to do the math here, but I assume that some of you guys are a lot better informed 

They could, with a dual launch scenario. Dragon is short on Delta V though, so a lunar lander possibly based on the Kestrel or Superdraco engine would be necessery. I'll draw up something that makes use of Falcon Heavy later.

[Kaputnik]

We don't know the isp of the super-draco, the prop loading of the Dragon, and therefore the delta-v of the spacecraft as a whole. but I think it's a very safe bet to say that it is far, far short of what's needed to de-orbit and land on the moon, let alone take off again.

Oh and there are probably a lot of issues around communications and thermal environment flying a Dragon beyond the ISS.

[Orbiter]

FH could probably easily do a circumlunar mission with a Dragon however. But for a full-up landing and return? You'd need a Falcon X at least.

[meekGee]

Dragon is short on dV, but definitely not on thrust.

So at a basic level, with some sort of extended trunk, it might be possible.

All hypothetical though, since I don't think SpaceX cares to invest the time and energy towards that, even if they got paid for it.  "Not on the way to Mars".

[Jim]

It would be a one way trip.  Dragon doesn't have the DV for lunar launch and TEI.   Nor does the FH have the capability to lift the necessary propellant to enable it to.

[Rhyshaelkan]

thanks for the link manboy

[llanitedave]

I'm sure that three Falcon Heavies could do an Apollo-scale mission.  Just because the launch vehicles would be relatively inexpensive, though, doesn't mean the mission hardware would be.

[TrevorMonty]

I was wondering if a reusable 2nd stage (LOX-LH2 fueled version) for FH could deliver a Dragon to L1 or LLO, partially refuel using lunar supplied fuel and return to earth. 
Trip scenario would be
1) Earth to L1or LLO, passenger transfer to lunar lander.
2) 2nd stage with Dragon still attached would partially refuel using lunar supplied fuel.
3) Return passengers would transfer from lander to Dragon
4) Dragon would separate from 2nd stage just before earth re entry. 2nd stage may have to do a burn to slow its re entry speed.

PS: I mentioned this in another thread thought this would be better place for it.

[savuporo]

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.vxs.pdf

Isnt Rohrabacher still waiting for an answer on this one, or did he give up ?

[ClaytonBirchenough]

First, I doubt FH will have the performance claimed by SpaceX for sometime.

"to the moon"...

Circumlunar? possibly

LLO? possibly

Lunar landing? no

[cleonard]

Lunar landing, sure.  Soft lunar landing, no.

How about a so called free return trajectory around the moon and recover the Dragon.  Is there enough deltaV in a stock dragon fro that?

[sdsds]

I guess the interesting mission mode would involve two launches and a lunar orbit rendezvous. The first launch would put an uncrewed Dragon into lunar orbit, to be used for the trans-Earth return and landing. The crew would then launch directly to the lunar surface in a second Dragon, then lift off from the Moon and rendezvous with the Earth-return vehicle in lunar orbit.

No need for depots. No need for propellant transfer.

[jketch]

The problem is that a dragon doesn't have nearly enough delta-V to land on the moon and then get back to LLO. Delta-v from LLO to the surface is 1.87km/s, so even if you had a fully fueled vehicle in LLO, you'd need 3.75km/s of delta-v to do it, which Dragon isn't anywhere near having. A direct descent from EML-1 to the moon and back is even more costly, you'd need 4.3km/s to do the round trip. All of this is per wiki, so take it with a grain of salt, but I doubt their delta-v numbers are too far off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

[Xspace_engineerX]

Anyone have a number as to what delta-v crew dragon is going to be capable of

[Avron]

I for one would be thrilled with a FH free return and even more happy with a circumlunar trip in the next three years. I think this is a distinct possibility, based on existing technology and some that may be hiding at Vandenberg (FH)   

[Lars_J]

Anyone have a number as to what delta-v crew dragon is going to be capable of

It will be difficult to get a full handle on, since the amount of delta-v in low thrust mode (Draco) is going to be significantly higher than in high thrust mode (inefficient non-vacuum-optimized super Draco). To land on the moon, you will need much more thrust than just the Draco thrusters can provide.

[ArbitraryConstant]

It would be a one way trip.  Dragon doesn't have the DV for lunar launch and TEI.   Nor does the FH have the capability to lift the necessary propellant to enable it to.

Seems like it would require 2+ launches, an EDS, replace Dragon's trunk with an actual service module, and build a new lander from scratch.

[heinkel174]

Anyone have a number as to what delta-v crew dragon is going to be capable of

Likely a few hundred m/s. IIRC Soyuz has around 400m/s.

By contrast the Apollo CSM can do 2800m/s but more than 60% of its mass is propellant. So you need a massively boosted Dragon.

[Lobo]

It would be a one way trip.  Dragon doesn't have the DV for lunar launch and TEI.   Nor does the FH have the capability to lift the necessary propellant to enable it to.

Seems like it would require 2+ launches, an EDS, replace Dragon's trunk with an actual service module, and build a new lander from scratch.

Really depends how what scale of mission you are looking for. 

As has been pointed out, Dragon doesn't have the dV to get down and back up.
However, you could do a few things.
1)  Lunar Direct.  Land Dragon on it's superdracos, with a disposable propellant stage under it.  As the superdracos are angled, if the prop stage isn't wider than Dragon, there shouldn't be a plume impingement problem.  you -might- get such a mission in a single launch.  it would be pretty limited though.  Probably about as capable as the Russian LK missions would have been.  And the dragon capsule isn't the best for staging EVA's out of obviously.
The angled Superdracos also mean you loose efficiency.  But, they are powerful enough, you might get away with it if you can carry enough extra prop in the prop stage.

2)  Apollo-light.  Two FH launches.  one launches Dragon to LLO (would need additional prop in a service module.).  Another launches an unmanned lander to LOR with Dragon.  The lander could use superdracos for it too.  This would probably be less capable than Apollo, unless an additional hydrolox stage was used to boost FH's TLI capacity.

3)  Apollo+.  Launch Dragon with a service module on one launch to LEO on the first FH.  Launch a lander on another FH to LEO.  And then launch a dedicated hydrolox CPS to LEO for EOR of the 3 elements before doing the TLI burn.  I would think you could get something a little more capable than Apollo with that.  The limitation would be the size of the hydrolox EDS you could get up.  The first two FH launch might put more mass into LEO than the 3rd FH's EDS could get through TLI.  Although, you might be able to do a two stage burn.  The FH upper stage doing the first part of EDS burn if it gets to LEO with residuals. Then it's discarded and the hydrolox CPS does the rest.  A Dragon with a large SM would brake itself and the lander into LLO just like the Apollo CSM did. 
You'd need three pads at the Cape that could launch the 3 elements in rapid succession though.  You might be able to do it with just two though.  Launch a hypergolic lander into LEO to loiter.  Then prep the crew on the dragon CSM and the hydrolox CPS at LC-40 and LC-39A.  Launch the CPS first to mate with the bottom of the lander, and once that operation was successful, quickly launch the crew on dragon to dock with the lander like Apollo did with the LEM.  Burn for TLI before there's too much boiloff.

[ArbitraryConstant]

1)  Lunar Direct.  Land Dragon on it's superdracos, with a disposable propellant stage under it.  As the superdracos are angled, if the prop stage isn't wider than Dragon, there shouldn't be a plume impingement problem.  you -might- get such a mission in a single launch.  it would be pretty limited though.  Probably about as capable as the Russian LK missions would have been.  And the dragon capsule isn't the best for staging EVA's out of obviously.
The angled Superdracos also mean you loose efficiency.  But, they are powerful enough, you might get away with it if you can carry enough extra prop in the prop stage.

I don't think this would work, not even with Saturn V. Apollo couldn't do this for the same reason SpaceX can't: delta-v from the lunar surface to Earth is too much. Apollo did LOR because they didn't have to eat the delta-v penalty of landing the return fuel and then having to return from the wrong side of that delta-v deficit.

The direct return idea would have required an even larger rocket than Saturn V. The cosine losses and under expanded exhaust from the superdracos just make it worse, they make delta-v worse when you're already incurring a large delta-v penalty.

Apollo was incredibly well optimized for the problem at hand. A simpler mission would have required a far larger launcher.

2)  Apollo-light.  Two FH launches.  one launches Dragon to LLO (would need additional prop in a service module.).

Yeah, would probably be workable. The thing to do would be to use one superdraco and give it a huge expansion nozzle. It would be pretty close to the Apollo SM main propulsion.

[macpacheco]

I think this has his statement:



It been at least 6 months since I watched the video.
But I recall Elon stating on a NPC (National Press Club) answering this question from the audience (a manned mission to the moon), that it would take two FHs to do it.
I think it was a pretty short answer, I think he said it would take two Dragons, dunno if modified or not.

[MATTBLAK]

2x Falcon Heavy launches:

Launch 1: Dragon Command Module/Service Module combo (big delta-vee capability) with a LM: Dragon-based (no heatshield at the bottom) crew module, mounted on a Descent/Ascent Stage with clustered, throttling Dracos and O2/H2O consumables. LM wet mass - 16-to-18 metric tons. Crew of two Astronauts if Dragon is to loiter for extended periods in lunar orbit. 4x crew if the LM is transporting an Outpost Crew.

Launch 2: FH with Earth Departure Stage, with either LOX/CH4 or LOX/LH2 propellants. Dragon & Dragon-LM rendezvous and dock with EDS for TLI.

On later mission architectures; propellant depots and reusable landers could be phased in. The Descent/Ascent Stage would make a good Cargo Lander if the Dragon is replaced with a cargo pallet or module on a one way trip - lots of downmass if an Ascent later is not required. Other mission efficiencies can be obtained if the Falcon Heavies in question are partly or fully reusable. Though for EDS duties; perhaps an FH could be an expendable version for maximum propellant load in the EDS.

[sdsds]

2x Falcon Heavy launches: [...]

I think you're essentially describing the mission mode dubbed "EOR+LOR" in the variation DIRECT proposed for J246 + J130. (Note the DIRECT approach was designed to provide the same level of mission capability as CxP Ares I + Ares V.) I believe the delta-v budget for a mission like that can work. But I don't believe the dollar budget for that will work. You propose an EDS and a lander, neither of which would be used in non-lunar missions and so the entire cost of developing them would be borne by the lunar effort.

The problem is that a dragon doesn't have nearly enough delta-V to land on the moon and then get back to LLO. Delta-v from LLO to the surface is 1.87km/s, so even if you had a fully fueled vehicle in LLO [...]

Yes, you are totally correct to put the initial focus on the vehicle that makes the lunar ascent. In Apollo (or as proposed for CxP) that vehicle was the ascent stage of the LM (or LSAM), and as you say it was delivered fully fueled to the lunar surface. To believe the dream of a SpaceX lunar surface sortie mission, we have to somehow imagine a Dragon-derived vehicle sitting on the Moon with sufficient propellant to get up to a lunar orbit rendezvous.

I believe there might be a way to do that at a development cost that isn't totally outlandish. In short it involves a big propulsion module in place of the trunk, AND an outboard propellant drop tank for the capsule.

[MP99]

Anyone have a number as to what delta-v crew dragon is going to be capable of

Likely a few hundred m/s. IIRC Soyuz has around 400m/s.

By contrast the Apollo CSM can do 2800m/s but more than 60% of its mass is propellant. So you need a massively boosted Dragon.

That figure for Dragon isn't even half of what's required for TEI, never mind LOI or descent / ascent.

cheers, Martin

[MATTBLAK]

Well-spotted, sdsds - those similarities to Direct's architecture!! And in the above post, I was essentially proposing a Dragon crew cabin mounted atop a 'Common Ascent/Descent Stage' with sufficient propellants and delta-vee ability to get back up to the orbiting Dragon CM. With the craft being a 'one piece' Ascent/Descent vehicle; that's why I proposed a separate propulsion module for it to be attached to. This concept might lend itself to future reusability, whether the propulsion was storable hypergolics or LOX/methane - fill up that stage over and over again from an L-1 based propellant depot.

Or if it were deemed desirable to keep the Dragon expendable and in one piece as an existing moldline, landing with its own Dracos; a crasher stage could do most of the descent delta-vee duties. The Dragon would then do the 'terminal descent burn', using perhaps only 15 or 20% percent of it's total propellants and saving the rest for ascent. Though, it still seems to me that a slight redesign, cramming as much propellants as possible into the Dragon spacecraft hull, is going to be necessary. No aero-entry braking and parachutes available like for Mars!

In fact, why not design a bare-bones, surface habitat Dragon for long sortie mission?! Use a crasher stage or Common Descent Stage to get it to the surface. But instead of Ascent propellants; devote the downmass to oxygen, water, food, a solar array and extra radiation shielding. Such a craft might make a good 'hut' for 2x crew stays lasting as long as a two week Lunar day. Rather like the old Apollo Applications for Lunar concepts that had a 'LM Shelter' with no ascent propellants - just a lot of consumables, with the crew coming along in a separate LM shuttle.

[MP99]

Hey guys,

Question about possibility here:

Assuming that FH gets the performance that spaceX has been claiming, and that spaceX develops a crewed dragon with propulsive landing capabilities to 2016, could they theoretically do a moon mission with FH/dragon?

I have no idea if we have the information to do the math here, but I assume that some of you guys are a lot better informed 

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.vxs.pdf

Nice.

Just a reminder that this is using hydrolox for TLI & LOI, and the MPCV with maybe 4x the dV of Dragon.

Don't forget, also, that Dragon (while hypergolic, like MPCV) further reduces its Isp through cosine losses on the SuperDracos, and atmosphere-optimised nozzles.

I suspect that we will first see Raptor/methalox as an upper stage for FH, and that this would be required to make a decent-sized lander mission close.

cheers, Martin

[MP99]

Well-spotted, sdsds - those similarities to Direct's architecture!! And in the above post, I was essentially proposing a Dragon crew cabin mounted atop a 'Common Ascent/Descent Stage' with sufficient propellants and delta-vee ability to get back up to the orbiting Dragon CM. With the craft being a 'one piece' Ascent/Descent vehicle; that's why I proposed a separate propulsion module for it to be attached to. This concept might lend itself to future reusability, whether the propulsion was storable hypergolics or LOX/methane - fill up that stage over and over again from an L-1 based propellant depot.

Unfortunately, going via EML further increases the dV's over those listed in that PDF. (But in that environment, methalox is easily a "storable" propellant, which makes life much easier for a pre-positioned methalox stage.)

Or if it were deemed desirable to keep the Dragon expendable and in one piece as an existing moldline, landing with its own Dracos; a crasher stage could do most of the descent delta-vee duties. The Dragon would then do the 'terminal descent burn', using perhaps only 10 or 15% percent of it's total propellants and saving the rest for ascent.

Please note from the PDF:-

Descent by Lander: dV = 2.074 km/s
Ascent by Lander: dV = 1.974 km/s

Likely a few hundred m/s.

If this is correct, Dragon has perhaps a 1/5th of the dV to achieve what you describe (ascent + a bit of the descent).

Though, it still seems to me that a slight redesign, cramming as much propellants as possible into the Dragon spacecraft hull, is going to be necessary.

Dragon's SuperDracos are optimised for use in atmosphere (poor Isp in vacuum) and lose further Isp by cosine losses from their canted orientation.

Both seem to be fixable, but that would turn a Lunar Dragon ("Grey Dragon"?) into a whole 'nother beast from the one we're familiar with. Given the massively different thermal environment, and the likelihood of needing separate orbital and surface craft (as per Apollo, CxP, the PDF above, etc, etc), you have to question whether Dragon's chassis (which, EG includes a heatshield) is even the right starting point.

Please note that Altair's Ascent Module was about 3.2t, which included tanks for a further 3.1t of hypergolic propellant just to perform the ascent phase.

cheers, Martin

[M129K]

A dual launch with Falcon Heavy with lunar landing is possible if you assume a specially developed EDS using hydrogen and oxygen. However, I doubt SpaceX would be willing to develop something like that unless it's a longer term project.

An alternative could be to let the Falcon Heavy upper stage refuel itself in LEO with a kerolox drop tank. Assuming an empty mass of 5 tons and 50 tons of propellant, such a refueled improvised EDS could throw 26 tons on TLI and 16 tons into LLO with a seperately launched payload. A lunar lander with a mass of 16 tons and a 317 second Isp could carry a ~2 ton habitat down to the surface and back up again, sufficient for an Apollo reboot with a single stage lander. This lander could be light enough to be brought into orbit with Falcon 9, as many sources claim it can lift about 16 tons to LEO rather than 13 tons. I'm not sure about this though, so I'll leave it at that.

A second Falcon Heavy could be launched with a Dragon with an 1800 m/s delta V propulsion module (~18 tons) and a short-fueled drop tank. The tank is thrown away, Dragon undocks, turns around, waits for the tank to be moved away and redocks with the EDS. It should have barely enough delta V for TLI. If necessery, Dragon can be launched seperately like in CxP to allow for a higher TLI payload. Or, Falcon Heavy launched Dragon to GTO, where Dragon with extra propulsion module (21.2 ton total) has sufficient delta V to enter LLO and return.

Once both Dragon and the LM are in orbit, the crew descends to the surface and explores the surface/plants the SpaceX flag and returns to orbit, where Dragon is waiting for them to return. Sounds complicated, but aside from the drop tank, no development would be necessary that wouldn't be necessary with a hydrolox EDS. It might be worth the extra one or two launches, as it saves the development of hydrolox propulsion that SpaceX apparently doesn't feel like developing.

[imspacy]

I'm sure that three Falcon Heavies could do an Apollo-scale mission.  Just because the launch vehicles would be relatively inexpensive, though, doesn't mean the mission hardware would be.

Actually it does...
Most costs, problems, and delays of the Saturn/Apollo moon project derived directly from the decision to use a single massive rocket, rather than Von Braun's EOR multiple small/cheap rockets.

The great majority of Apollo costs, delays, problems were in Saturn V development, and getting a CM/SM/LM stack light enough to launch on a single Sat V...especially the LEM..
Von Braun's multi launcher Apollo approach would have gotten America to the moon 2 years sooner for less than half the cost....enabled much longer stays, more science... And left us with an affordable, sustainable space infrastructure built on economical multi-use mid-size boosters for economical lunar colonies, Mars missions, etc.

[CuddlyRocket]

Assuming that FH gets the performance that spaceX has been claiming, and that spaceX develops a crewed dragon with propulsive landing capabilities to 2016, could they theoretically do a moon mission with FH/dragon?

I'm sure the first question SpaceX would ask is: Who's paying for it?

Because until that theoretical question is asked, I don't think they'll bother with any others!

[MP99]

A dual launch with Falcon Heavy with lunar landing is possible if you assume a specially developed EDS using hydrogen and oxygen. However, I doubt SpaceX would be willing to develop something like that unless it's a longer term project.

According to DIRECT baseball cards, the "DIVHUS" has 26.8t of "Usable Post-Ascent Propellant", which for a ~50t IMLEO would give ~19.5t through TLI (exc their payload adapter & DIVHUS burnout).

Given this is basically the ICPS from SLS block 1, that would be a pretty perfect fit, mass- & prop-wise, to max out the LEO capability of an FH. And NASA will pay for mods to make this passive through the ascent / perform TLI only. This is not to say there wouldn't be significant costs to integrate with FH instead of SLS.

cheers, Martin

[Jim]

The massive costs and delays of the Saturn/Apollo moon project all derived directly from the decision to use a single massive rocket, rather than Von Braun's EOR multiple small/cheap rockets.

The great majority af Apollo costs, delays, problems were in Saturn V development, and getting a CM/SM/LM stack light enough to launch on a single Sat V...
Von Braun's multi launcher Apollo approach would have gotten America to the moon 2 years sooner for less than half the cost.... And left us with an affordable, sustainable space infrastructure built on economical multi-use mid-size boosters.

Wrong, more unsupported  statements.  You have no relevant document to back up that claim.  Lets see how many there are:
1.  Two years earlier.
2.  1/2 Costs
3.  Sustainable infrastructure
4.  delays in Saturn V development, CSM

[mmeijeri]

Wrong, more unsupported  statements.

What's your personal opinion? Would it have taken longer to use EELV class launchers in a LEO rendez-vous + LLO rendez-vous scenario, with the lander being put through TLI separately from the capsule and mostly dry and only fueled once it arrived in LLO?

[guckyfan]

Steve Jurvetson has declared he wants a flight to LLO for a foto session. They may make him a good price. FH can do  TLI. They need to increase the delta-v of Dragon for LOI and TEI. Put some extra fuel in the trunk.

[M129K]

Steve Jurvetson has declared he wants a flight to LLO for a foto session. They may make him a good price. FH can do  TLI. They need to increase the delta-v of Dragon for LOI and TEI. Put some extra fuel in the trunk.

And an engine, and you know, some fuel to begin with. Dragon has no real propulsive capabilities in its current form.

[M129K]

According to DIRECT baseball cards, the "DIVHUS" has 26.8t of "Usable Post-Ascent Propellant", which for a ~50t IMLEO would give ~19.5t through TLI (exc their payload adapter & DIVHUS burnout).

Given this is basically the ICPS from SLS block 1, that would be a pretty perfect fit, mass- & prop-wise, to max out the LEO capability of an FH. And NASA will pay for mods to make this passive through the ascent / perform TLI only. This is not to say there wouldn't be significant costs to integrate with FH instead of SLS.

cheers, Martin

Sure you can use the iCPS, but I personally doubt that would ever happen. If we're talking about a SpaceX lunar mission, I think it's more likely they would develop either a dedicated EDS themselves or do something like a drop tank for FH like I described earlier. And SpaceX isn't very keen on hydrolox propulsion, last time I heard. Apparently it's very expensive.

[guckyfan]

Steve Jurvetson has declared he wants a flight to LLO for a foto session. They may make him a good price. FH can do  TLI. They need to increase the delta-v of Dragon for LOI and TEI. Put some extra fuel in the trunk.

And an engine, and you know, some fuel to begin with. Dragon has no real propulsive capabilities in its current form.

?

The manned Dragon will have the SuperDraco as repeatedly stated in this thread.

And that may not even be necessary. The Dracos are used for orbital maneuvering in LEO. They probably can do these maneuvers too and without the cosine losses.

[M129K]

?

The manned Dragon will have the SuperDraco as repeatedly stated in this thread.

And that may not even be necessary. The Dracos are used for orbital maneuvering in LEO. They probably can do these maneuvers too and without the cosine losses.

Which are extremely inefficient sea level optimized engines firing with a significant angle. The Dracos don't have the thrust for maneuvers like TEI. The Orion main engine, for example, has 67 times the thrust of a single Draco engine. Sure, they're clustered, but they're also angled. There's also the fact that Dragon is most likely not designed to use propellant stored in the trunk, and that it might be simpler to put a real propulsion stage in the trunk than putting feed lines for the the inefficient SuperDraco engines.

Put a small prop stage with vacuum optimized SuperDraco or maybe even a Kestrel engine and you'll get much better performance and it might even be simpler to do.

[go4mars]

It would be a one way trip.  Dragon doesn't have the DV for lunar launch and TEI.   Nor does the FH have the capability to lift the necessary propellant to enable it to.

Looks like it's time for a "Grey Dragon" thread.

[guckyfan]

Put a small prop stage with vacuum optimized SuperDraco or maybe even a Kestrel engine and you'll get much better performance and it might even be simpler to do.

Quite possible that this is the easiest, cheapest and most efficient solution. One or two SuperDraco with vacuum nozzle, two for redundancy if assumed necessary. But the built in SuperDracos might be usable too.

[manboy]

thanks for the link manboy

No problem. It seems like the "disappearing post" problem continues.

[newpylong]

Steve Jurvetson has declared he wants a flight to LLO for a foto session. They may make him a good price. FH can do  TLI. They need to increase the delta-v of Dragon for LOI and TEI. Put some extra fuel in the trunk.

Is Jurvetson going to pay to have the trunk modified for liquid fuel tanks and all of the other modifications for BLEO? He has deep pockets but that is an expensive joyride.

[sdsds]

This is from a different thread but I think it is highly relevant here:

For a while we (outside observers) have assumed that Dragon would always involve an expendable nose cap and an expendable trunk. Now I'm not so certain that Dragon will retain any expendable flight hardware in its ultimate specification.

The nose and trunk appear to be undergoing a more significant redesign than many of us anticipated. And this is following on the heels of a Falcon redesign that turned out to be more comprehensive than the initial speculation. For all we know, the new Dragon could have its radiators installed inside the rumored "fins" and allow the trunk section to be offered as an optional equipment package for carrying unpressurized cargo.

It will be interesting to see the public reveal. I suspect there will still be surprises for well-informed fans.

Some of these details could have a major impact on any Dragon evolved from the "new Dragon." In particular, making the thermal control system entirely contained within the capsule module via radiators installed inside fins. Combined with an alternate power solution, this leaves the "trunk" space fully available for use as a disposable propulsion stage.

[Ben the Space Brit]

An unmodified FH could launch an off-the-shelf Dragonlab onto a lunar free-return trajectory. However, Dragon couldn't brake into orbit. An MPS (likely based on Superdraco or Kestrel) would be needed. IMO, even though many would see it as a stunt, a free-return Dragonlab mission around the Moon carrying active and passive sensors in the trunk and BEO environment analysing sensors in the cabin and on the boom would be a good way of proving Dragonlab is suitable for BEO missions (shades of Red Dragon). Getting the capsule through the atmosphere to recover the bubble chambers and whatever else you have in the cabin would also be a nice test of whether Dragon's TPS and geometry is good for cis-lunar missions.

A crewed lunar mission using FH would need to save delta-v wherever possible to maximise the amount of propellent available for ROI. Staging through EML-1 would be one way of doing so, as would Lagrangian rendezvous of the Dragon and lander. I still think that a higher-impulse upper stage engine will be needed for crew-to-Luna using Falcon Heavy; maybe a methane-burning version of Merlin-1D-VAC to push the Isp up into the 360s or even beyond.

[edit]
A bit of clarification

[rockinghorse]

Falcon Heavy will have reusable boosters and first stage, so it is quite improbable that it can actually deliver 53 tons into LEO. Therefore possible Moon spacecraft must be delivered into LEO in 20–30 ton chunks. But I do not see orbital assembly a problem at all. In practice Dragon + upper stage makes fast enough Moon lander vehicle and the rest is just getting external fuel tanks into orbit.

As SpaceX or Musk has pointed out, Dragon can land equally well into Mars, Earth or Moon.

Therefore I would guess that we need one Falcon 9R launch that delivers upper stage+astronauts into orbit. Then we need one (or two) Falcon Heavy launch that delivers external fuel tanks for Grey Dragon lander and upper stage. And about four Falcon Heavy launches that delivers Moon rover, habitat and other science equipments into Moon.

There is one important detail that is worthy to consider. The reusable upper stage can probably also land on Moon. This helps a lot with equipment delivery and it may be possible that it is not necessary to use Dragon's SuperDragos at all for Moon landing and ascend. This simplifies things as there is no need for Apollo style orbital docking with Moon lander. Only external fuel tanks must be incorporated into Moon spacecraft at LEO, but this should not be a problem.

This would be super cheap to operate although initial R&D expenses are several billions. But this concept to use upper stage as Lunar Lander vehicle would enable commercial Moon trips. As everything — expect external fuel tanks — are fully reusable, this should push the costs down quite considerably. Perhaps just few millions per tourist.

Later we could have Lunar refueling station that tourists could be launched with single Falcon Heavy upper stage into Moon and then upper stage is refueled on Moon and upper stage is launched back to Earth. No need for separate Dragon module. This could push down the cost even further. But this is of course long term project and I do not expect it to fly before 2020's.

[Jcc]

How about just sending a small rover to win the Google X Prize?

[Bargemanos]

How about just sending a small rover to win the Google X Prize?

http://www.astrobotic.com/2011/02/06/astrobotic-technology-announces-lunar-mission-on-spacex-falcon-9/

[Dave G]

By now, it should be obvious that there is no way to do a manned lunar surface mission with the currently planned FH and Dragon.  In other words, a manned moon mission would require additional hardware.

SpaceX has also made clear they are not very interested in the moon.  In other words, they're not going to develop new hardware for a moon mission on their dime.  SpaceX may be willing to lunar launch someone else's hardware, but that's about it.  They're not going to spend their own resources on a lunar mission.  They've clearly set their sights on Mars.

However, I do believe they can send Dragon around the moon without landing.  That would be a helluva ride.  People would pay for that.  And it would require no additional hardware development for SpaceX.  So that will probably happen.

[rpapo]

And apart from the resultant PR, it would serve as a first-class test of the PICA-X heat shield.

I do not for one moment think that the Dragon's current delta-V, even with the SuperDracos, would be enough to perform both a lunar orbit insertion and a return boost back, so I don't believe they would be doing a repeat of Apollo 8.  More like a repeat of Apollo 13 . . . hopefully without the malfunction.

[savuporo]

How about just sending a small rover to win the Google X Prize?

Spend $100M on a launch to win 20M prize ? ( ignoring all the time, money, spezialized skills and manhours required actually build a spacecraft capable of landing on the moon )

[KelvinZero]

By now, it should be obvious that there is no way to do a manned lunar surface mission with the currently planned FH and Dragon.  In other words, a manned moon mission would require additional hardware.

SpaceX has also made clear they are not very interested in the moon.  In other words, they're not going to develop new hardware for a moon mission on their dime.  SpaceX may be willing to lunar launch someone else's hardware, but that's about it.  They're not going to spend their own resources on a lunar mission.  They've clearly set their sights on Mars.

I agree about SpaceX not going out on any limb creating lunar landers etc. On the other hand I think there have been a few comments suggesting they would be interested in capturing business for landing scientific missions etc? I mean where they are paid up front and there is ongoing business. For example I remember a quote on some website that Elon had claimed they would charge $80m for one ton cargo missions during Constellation, and another that Elon described Dragon as a platform for landing on any body.. I interpreted that to mean the experience would qualify them to make small (eg unmanned and one way) lunar and mars landers and get immediate cash.

(sorry about just quoting from my very shoddy memory.. can anyone else identify that dragon quote?)

[sdsds]

I agree SpaceX isn't likely interested in a version of Dragon customized such that it is solely suited for lunar surface missions. I propose here by means of the attached diagram an "Extended Duration Mission Kit" which would be an add-on to Crewed Dragon. I make some assumptions about what Crewed Dragon will include different from Cargo Dragon, and those are shown in the diagram through use of various colors.

Starting with the basic Cargo Dragon in brown, I've added in pink features I hope to see in Crewed Dragon:
 + Electrical power provided by batteries
 + Thermal control provided by "capsule fin" radiators
 + NDS-compatible SpaceX docking system

The extended duration mission kit shown in blue includes:
 + SpaceX docking system electrical and propellant transfer
 + propellant storage tanks
 + photovoltaic electrical power generation

The propellant tanks in this mission kit would be sized to meet the demands of the mission type with the largest delta-v requirement. I here assume that to be lunar ascent.

Anyway, I hope the picture is worth at least some fraction of a thousand words. "Happy Christmas to all!"

[Lobo]

I don't think this would work, not even with Saturn V. Apollo couldn't do this for the same reason SpaceX can't: delta-v from the lunar surface to Earth is too much. Apollo did LOR because they didn't have to eat the delta-v penalty of landing the return fuel and then having to return from the wrong side of that delta-v deficit.

The direct return idea would have required an even larger rocket than Saturn V. The cosine losses and under expanded exhaust from the superdracos just make it worse, they make delta-v worse when you're already incurring a large delta-v penalty.

Apollo was incredibly well optimized for the problem at hand. A simpler mission would have required a far larger launcher.

I Didn't realize it was -that- inefficient.  I thought they opted for a separate lander because it would result in a more capable mission with the same size launcher...and they had lots of money....and the technical difficulties of incorporating both functions into a single Apollo CSM. 

Then this probably wouldn't work. 

Yeah, would probably be workable. The thing to do would be to use one superdraco and give it a huge expansion nozzle. It would be pretty close to the Apollo SM main propulsion.

yea, they'd already have a hypergolic engine of adequate capability.

Two FH launches would probably be the minimum required to get a man to the surface and back home.  Capability for the surface mission would still be fairly limited. 

[Lobo]

I wonder if they could use the Dragon pressure vessel to make a simple lander.  There wouldn't be any downward visibility so it'd have to land using cameras or using an automated system.  Put the pressure vessel on top of a hypergolic descent stage.  The pressure vessel would have a single downward facing central superdraco as the ascent engine.  The descent stage would have the same thing.  The Dragon Pressure vessel already is designed to have a side hatch, so the cabin could be pressurized and depressurized like the LEM was.  The DM could have a porch on it so the astronauts could step out the side hatch onto the porch. 

It'd still be a whole new vehicle development, but at least it'd have some commonality with Dragon.   

[guckyfan]

I wonder if they could use the Dragon pressure vessel to make a simple lander. 

....

It'd still be a whole new vehicle development, but at least it'd have some commonality with Dragon.   

But why would they? Designing a pressure vessel is not difficult. The Dragon pressure vessel is designed to fit into a cone shape for earth reentry. It is not the optimal design for a moon lander.

They can have all the commonality with Dragon they can wish for by using the avionics, Dracos and a modified SuperDraco.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I wonder if they could use the Dragon pressure vessel to make a simple lander. 

....

It'd still be a whole new vehicle development, but at least it'd have some commonality with Dragon.   

But why would they?

Really, the only reason would be simplifying the production line so that you don't have to have separate basic fabrication for the two crewed spacecraft. I'm sure they could also reuse bits of the landing software for the crewed Dragon too.

IMO, the long pole would be Superdraco-VAC, the Exploration Dragon MPS (I'm still voting for a LCH4/LO2 version of Kestrel) and the high-impulse upper stage (buy MB60 off-the-shelf from Mitsubishi Heavy?).

[CuddlyRocket]

... I do believe [SpaceX] can send Dragon around the moon without landing.  That would be a helluva ride.  People would pay for that.  And it would require no additional hardware development for SpaceX.  So that will probably happen.

And apart from the resultant PR, it would serve as a first-class test of the PICA-X heat shield.

I do not for one moment think that the Dragon's current delta-V, even with the SuperDracos, would be enough to perform both a lunar orbit insertion and a return boost back, so I don't believe they would be doing a repeat of Apollo 8.  More like a repeat of Apollo 13 . . . hopefully without the malfunction.

The manned Dragon will have to be tested, and with a crew, at some point. Obvious scenarios are LEO atop an F9. However, SpaceX have made it clear that they are interested in selling manned Dragon flights to parties other than NASA, and the wider the demonstrated envelope of mission scenarios the bigger the potential market. So, perhaps they might consider putting a manned Dragon atop an FH and slinging it round the Moon. As well as demonstrating the capabilities of the craft on a 6-day mission, there is also the demonstration of SpaceX navigational abilities etc.

More expensive; but are there benefits worth that cost? Media exposure / PR of course - especially if they send a woman and an ethnic minority person (only white men have been to date) - but there's an opportunity for sponsorship, advertising or the making of an IMAX documentary etc. as well as paid flights (perhaps). But more importantly would be the engineering credibility - they might at that point be the only entity on the planet able to send people to the Moon!

[guckyfan]

It is quite clear that they are not interested in sending people to the moon, unless someone pays including the development. Doing it with FH they would need a dedicated lander and two or three launches.

Once MCT is flying they may be able to do a moon mission with a refuelled upper stage without a separate orbiter and land significant payload along with crew. But that would be OT for this thread.

They could do the slingshot. Probably with a service module they could do moon orbits with one FH. That might not be too expensive for excentric billionaires even including the service module development.

[rst]

The manned Dragon will have to be tested, and with a crew, at some point. Obvious scenarios are LEO atop an F9. However, SpaceX have made it clear that they are interested in selling manned Dragon flights to parties other than NASA, and the wider the demonstrated envelope of mission scenarios the bigger the potential market. So, perhaps they might consider putting a manned Dragon atop an FH and slinging it round the Moon. As well as demonstrating the capabilities of the craft on a 6-day mission, there is also the demonstration of SpaceX navigational abilities etc.

And if something goes wrong with the life support, the crew is likely dead, as the lack of delta-V for LOI/TEI also means that the spacecraft lacks the delta-V for early aborts.  Apollo did do Apollo 7, which was 11 days in a CSM in LEO, before trying anything else.

Even if they want to do this for some other reason, it seems like a crazy thing to do with the spacecraft the first time out.

[rst]

I wonder if they could use the Dragon pressure vessel to make a simple lander.  There wouldn't be any downward visibility so it'd have to land using cameras or using an automated system.  Put the pressure vessel on top of a hypergolic descent stage.  The pressure vessel would have a single downward facing central superdraco as the ascent engine.  The descent stage would have the same thing.

For propulsion, as long as we're designing fantasy spacecraft, there's also the Soviet LK arrangement:  single engine for both ascent and descent, with landing legs that stay on the surface.  You could also add tanks for the descent fuel attached to the legs, if weight in the ascent half-stage was at a premium.

But either way, this looks different enough from Dragon (different propulsion arrangement, no heat shield, landing legs, different sensors) that it might as well have its own pressure vessel.

[Rocket Science]

I wonder if they could use the Dragon pressure vessel to make a simple lander.  There wouldn't be any downward visibility so it'd have to land using cameras or using an automated system.  Put the pressure vessel on top of a hypergolic descent stage.  The pressure vessel would have a single downward facing central superdraco as the ascent engine.  The descent stage would have the same thing.  The Dragon Pressure vessel already is designed to have a side hatch, so the cabin could be pressurized and depressurized like the LEM was.  The DM could have a porch on it so the astronauts could step out the side hatch onto the porch. 

It'd still be a whole new vehicle development, but at least it'd have some commonality with Dragon.   

I played around with this a while back, have a look!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30567.msg989644#msg989644

[Avron]

It'd still be a whole new vehicle development, but at least it'd have some commonality with Dragon.   

I played around with this a while back, have a look!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30567.msg989644#msg989644

Try something different like an MCT .. maybe a mini version..  I for one don't think there will be much in common with Dragon. For your MCT or LCT .. look at a single engine for landing and return.  Then a Dragon to get back to Earth.

[llanitedave]

There are some decent lunar lander designs already out there.  Let those that can build the lander, and just have SpaceX do the launching.  Three FH launches could support an Apollo-scale lunar mission, maybe slightly more capable.  One FH would launch the lander, one to launch the CSM, a Dragon with an extended trunk for extra life support, and one to launch the fuel.  They could be assembled in LEO and then head on their way.

[CuddlyRocket]

The manned Dragon will have to be tested, and with a crew, at some point. Obvious scenarios are LEO atop an F9. However, SpaceX have made it clear that they are interested in selling manned Dragon flights to parties other than NASA, and the wider the demonstrated envelope of mission scenarios the bigger the potential market. So, perhaps they might consider putting a manned Dragon atop an FH and slinging it round the Moon. As well as demonstrating the capabilities of the craft on a 6-day mission, there is also the demonstration of SpaceX navigational abilities etc.

And if something goes wrong with the life support, the crew is likely dead, as the lack of delta-V for LOI/TEI also means that the spacecraft lacks the delta-V for early aborts.  Apollo did do Apollo 7, which was 11 days in a CSM in LEO, before trying anything else.

Even if they want to do this for some other reason, it seems like a crazy thing to do with the spacecraft the first time out.

I wasn't thinking of going to the Moon the first time out - even whilst idly speculating on the forum on Christmas Day, I'm not that crazy!

But if SpaceX wants to be the means of going to Mars, their equipment can't stay in LEO for ever!

[imspacy]

I don't think this would work, not even with Saturn V. Apollo couldn't do this for the same reason SpaceX can't: delta-v from the lunar surface to Earth is too much. Apollo did LOR because they didn't have to eat the delta-v penalty of landing the return fuel and then having to return from the wrong side of that delta-v deficit.

The direct return idea would have required an even larger rocket than Saturn V. The cosine losses and under expanded exhaust from the superdracos just make it worse, they make delta-v worse when you're already incurring a large delta-v penalty.

Apollo was incredibly well optimized for the problem at hand. A simpler mission would have required a far larger launcher.

The Apollo project was constrained, delayed, and entirely driven by Nasa's chosen 'Big Frigging Rocket' (BFR) monolithic single rocket Saturn V approach....
The majority of Apollo's costs, delays, problems, constraints were due to the very high cost/problem of developing the BFR Saturn V, the resulting artificial severe constraints on payload/component weight forced massive safety/mission tradeoffs and costs to keep the combined CM/SM/LEM weight down to single Saturn V capabilities...like the LEM's SWIP Super Weight Improvement Project... adding years and many $billions to the cost... with the resulting Saturn V BFR costing an unsustainable, unaffordable 5 $billion per launch.. hence the dead end 'footprints and flags' Apollo and Saturn V's cancellation after a relative few flights..

A program based on multiple $70 million Falcon Heavy boosters would avoid the artificial, self-imposed BFR based severe payload weight constraints for improved safety, reusability, capability, longer stays... allowing extended stays, even colonies... create real lunar space infrastructure....
A rational American Lunar program would be based on the combined EOR/LOR ... low cost multi-use medium boosters, separately launched components, refuleable service modules, lunar landers...on-orbit module connection/fueling, reusable landers/boosters/capsules..

With the Falcon Heavy's sub $1k/lb to leo cost, we can have robust, sustainable, affordable American lunar infrastructure...

[Rabidpanda]

Since when is Falcon Heavy only $70 million?

[Dave G]

A rational American Lunar program would be based on the combined EOR/LOR ...

The same could be said for EOR/MOR with a manned Mars mission.  And this leads to another possibility: Once the hardware for a Mars mission has been developed, they may want to do a Lunar surface test flight to shake the bugs out.

As an analogy, SpaceX has made clear that they are not interested in Spaceport America as a long-term solution, and yet they are preparing a pad there as we speak.  In other words, while hardware is usually purpose designed, test methods are often opportunity driven.

Obviously, there are differences.  There is no atmosphere on the moon, and Mars has twice the gravity, but assuming they figure out how to land an earth return vehicle on the moon, it would be a good test.  The moon is only a few days away.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Obviously, there are differences.  There is no atmosphere on the moon, and Mars has twice the gravity, but assuming they figure out how to land an earth return vehicle on the moon, it would be a good test.  The moon is only a few days away.

It is my understanding that Mars's atmosphere is tenuous enough that an all-propulsive landing is possible without intense aerobraking during re-entry (sort of like how SpaceX plan on bringing the F-9r's core back). That's the reason why Boeing's SLS exploration plan called for the Mars lander to be tested on the Moon.

[rockinghorse]

Since when is Falcon Heavy only $70 million?

$77 million is for secondary payload, up to 6.5 tons to GTO. it is $135 million for the whole 21 ton rocket.

However, as Falcon Heavy has reusable boosters and probably reusable first stage, this changes the pricing and tonnage after Falcon Heavy has been demonstrated. 70 million could well be the price of reusable Falcon Heavy. My guess is that Falcon Heavy pricing will be $40 million for 26 tons to LEO.

[Jim]

1.  The Apollo project was constrained, delayed, and entirely driven by Nasa's chosen 'Big Frigging Rocket' (BFR) monolithic single rocket Saturn V approach....
2.  The majority of Apollo's costs, delays, problems, constraints were due to the very high cost/problem of developing the BFR Saturn V, the resulting artificial severe constraints on payload/component weight forced massive safety/mission tradeoffs and costs to keep the combined CM/SM/LEM weight down to single Saturn V capabilities...like the LEM's SWIP Super Weight Improvement Project... adding years and many $billions to the cost...

3.  with the resulting Saturn V BFR costing an unsustainable, unaffordable 5 $billion per launch.. hence the dead end 'footprints and flags' Apollo and Saturn V's cancellation after a relative few flights..

4.  A program based on multiple $70 million Falcon Heavy boosters would avoid the artificial, self-imposed BFR based severe payload weight constraints for improved safety, reusability, capability, longer stays... allowing extended stays, even colonies... create real lunar space infrastructure....
A rational American Lunar program would be based on the combined EOR/LOR ... low cost multi-use medium boosters, separately launched components, refuleable service modules, lunar landers...on-orbit module connection/fueling, reusable landers/boosters/capsules..

5.  With the Falcon Heavy's sub $1k/lb to leo cost, we can have robust, sustainable, affordable American lunar infrastructure...

More nonsense.

1.  Unsupported statements.

2.  It was no where close to billions.  The whole program cost just over 25 billion in 1973.

3.  Apollo Saturn mission cost was around $400 million.

4.  Typical nonsense  to propose everything Spacex.
Anyways, there is no money or need for any govt sponsored lunar missions.

5.  The vehicle nor its cost is proven.

[Jim]

China's potential military use of the Moon creates a need for the U.S. government to create a counter balance of capabilities.   

says who?  What military use? and why would the US have to counter it?

Anyways, there is no military use of the moon.

[Xspace_engineerX]

China's potential military use of the Moon creates a need for the U.S. government to create a counter balance of capabilities.   

says who?  What military use? and why would the US have to counter it?

Anyways, there is no military use of the moon.

I agree that the military moon idea is farfetched to say the least, but there is something to be said for the geopolitical drivers of space exploration.

 If china sends men to the moon, I'd bet that the government would send us back. It's a massive pissing contest, yes, but so was the space race.

[Hyperion5]

2.  It was no where close to billions.  The whole program cost just over 25 billion in 1973.

You've got to inflation adjust the figures to put them in perspective though.  25 billion dollars is far more than 25 billion dollars today. 

3.  Apollo Saturn mission cost was around $400 million.

I believe that they're thinking of cost in a different way than you are, Jim.  When people ripped for the Space Shuttle for almost "costing" a billion and a half dollars per launch, they were inflation adjusting the overall program costs and dividing by the total number of missions.  They were not actually measuring the per mission cost. 

5.  The vehicle nor its cost is proven.

You can say that Jim, but by that definition, an Atlas V Heavy is not proven either.  Just like a Falcon Heavy, it hasn't flown, but the base launcher's cost and reliability are proven.  Similarly the Falcon 9 is on its way to being proven in both reliability and cost.  I remember Motorola executives scoffing at the iPhone shortly before it launched just as some ULA executives were scoffing at Spacex.  The Motorola execs believed the iPhone would be a dismal failure and were counting on failure.  When it didn't happen Motorola found itself crushed by the new competition.  I remember a saying that applied well to the case of hoping for failure, "Don't count your chickens till they hatch".  ULA would do well to heed that lesson and not count on Spacex failing.

[luinil]

Okay then, how about the need for the U.S. to forge stronger ties with Pacific Rim allies?   Japan, Korea and Singapore would all like very much to be part of a manned mission to the moon.  If not the U.S., they will be drawn into the Chinese program.

Don't know for Korea and Singapore, but I don't see Japan teaming with China any time soon, their relations are currently too damaged to do this, but a space race in Eastern Asia between Japan and China is possible, even if not very probable.

[Jim]

You can say that Jim, but by that definition, an Atlas V Heavy is not proven either.  Just like a Falcon Heavy, it hasn't flown, but the base launcher's cost and reliability are proven. 

The F9 costs are not either.

[KelvinZero]

I don't think manned missions in of them selves should be viewed as a holy grail. We have done those and it brought us here.
I think we should always be thinking in terms of what they would actually be doing there, and do they have the motivation/reason to stay. Personally I just hope the Chinese keep up ongoing robotic landers, and never lose sight of the fact that the payload is the ultimate justification, not just finding jobs for launchers.

Also not fully on topic, has there been any speculation at what a manned lunar architecture could look like using only the non heavy, fully reusable falcon 9, launched many times? What is its expected cargo to LEO anyway? I couldnt find it online though I vaguely recall it being half the non-reusable payload?
That would seem to really limit the size of the components, but I guess a modified upper stage or two would be your earth departure stage and possibly your moon landing stage, refueled in orbit.

[ArbitraryConstant]

I don't think this would work, not even with Saturn V. Apollo couldn't do this for the same reason SpaceX can't: delta-v from the lunar surface to Earth is too much. Apollo did LOR because they didn't have to eat the delta-v penalty of landing the return fuel and then having to return from the wrong side of that delta-v deficit.

The direct return idea would have required an even larger rocket than Saturn V. The cosine losses and under expanded exhaust from the superdracos just make it worse, they make delta-v worse when you're already incurring a large delta-v penalty.

Apollo was incredibly well optimized for the problem at hand. A simpler mission would have required a far larger launcher.

The Apollo project was constrained, delayed, and entirely driven by Nasa's chosen 'Big Frigging Rocket' (BFR) monolithic single rocket Saturn V approach....

Except the post I was responding to was talking about a single launch mission.

Your response didn't really seem to address anything I was saying. I just happened to be the person whose post you replied to when you wrote a rant from scratch.

The point of my post was to respond to the suggestion that a direct return mission would be smaller, because it wouldn't. LOR creates a very large impulse savings for the mission.

EOR has advantages but it doesn't really save impulse in the same way.

The majority of Apollo's costs, delays, problems, constraints were due to the very high cost/problem of developing the BFR Saturn V, the resulting artificial severe constraints on payload/component weight forced massive safety/mission tradeoffs and costs to keep the combined CM/SM/LEM weight down to single Saturn V capabilities...like the LEM's SWIP Super Weight Improvement Project... adding years and many $billions to the cost... with the resulting Saturn V BFR costing an unsustainable, unaffordable 5 $billion per launch.. hence the dead end 'footprints and flags' Apollo and Saturn V's cancellation after a relative few flights..

AFAICT Saturn V is in many ways yet to be equaled, and AFAICT it cost significantly less than that. It's by no means clear to me that a multi-launch campaign for every mission would have turned out differently with the technology of the time or now.

SpaceX is working on a rocket that encroaches on Saturn V territory and you can bet if that's available it'll be the vehicle of choice for any moon mission.

[Lobo]

I wonder if they could use the Dragon pressure vessel to make a simple lander.  There wouldn't be any downward visibility so it'd have to land using cameras or using an automated system.  Put the pressure vessel on top of a hypergolic descent stage.  The pressure vessel would have a single downward facing central superdraco as the ascent engine.  The descent stage would have the same thing.  The Dragon Pressure vessel already is designed to have a side hatch, so the cabin could be pressurized and depressurized like the LEM was.  The DM could have a porch on it so the astronauts could step out the side hatch onto the porch. 

It'd still be a whole new vehicle development, but at least it'd have some commonality with Dragon.   

I played around with this a while back, have a look!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30567.msg989644#msg989644

Cool.

[Lobo]

It'd still be a whole new vehicle development, but at least it'd have some commonality with Dragon.   

I played around with this a while back, have a look!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30567.msg989644#msg989644

Try something different like an MCT .. maybe a mini version..  I for one don't think there will be much in common with Dragon. For your MCT or LCT .. look at a single engine for landing and return.  Then a Dragon to get back to Earth.

But the title of the thread is "FH" to the Moon, not MCT to the moon.  I'm sure some modified MCT could do it if it could do a Mars mission.  But I think the idea here is rampant speculation with FH, and derivatives of soon to be existing hardware in CrewDragon.

[Avron]

It'd still be a whole new vehicle development, but at least it'd have some commonality with Dragon.   

I played around with this a while back, have a look!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30567.msg989644#msg989644

Try something different like an MCT .. maybe a mini version..  I for one don't think there will be much in common with Dragon. For your MCT or LCT .. look at a single engine for landing and return.  Then a Dragon to get back to Earth.

But the title of the thread is "FH" to the Moon, not MCT to the moon.  I'm sure some modified MCT could do it if it could do a Mars mission.  But I think the idea here is with FH, and derivatives of soon to be existing hardware in CrewDragon.

Thus the LCT..  launched I guess via FH.. or FH's  CrewDragon to the moon.. only if they laws of nature change. now if it was linked (docked) to a LCT it may work.. but not land. I would love to see a FH with Dragon do a freereturn. To the moon and back via FH., now that may work with "soon to be existing hardware"

[Dave G]

Thus the LCT.. 

For a Lunar Colonial Transporter to work, you would need someone who wants to colonize the Moon.  SpaceX has said several times they are not interested in this.  In fact, SpaceX has said colonizing the Moon would be harder than colonizing Mars, due to lack of atmosphere, relative lack of resources, and lower gravity.

In other words, SpaceX will not spend their own resources on lunar specific hardware.  They might use the Moon as a test for MCT, but that's about it.  If someone else develops new hardware specifically for a manned Moon mission, SpaceX has said they would be glad to launch it.

[AncientU]

FH should send a Dragon or DragonLab to EML-2, pause and take the money shot of Moon and Earth from 60,000 km beyond the moon.  A high velocity return and re-entry would prove access to a future deep space outpost at a 'reasonable' cost, should an asteroid (or whatever) show up there one day.

[TomH]

Okay then, how about the need for the U.S. to forge stronger ties with Pacific Rim allies?   Japan, Korea and Singapore would all like very much to be part of a manned mission to the moon.  If not the U.S., they will be drawn into the Chinese program.

Oh my! The Koreans and Chinese both hate and abhor Japan. Please do some research involving the historical relations of these nations.

[DaveJes1979]

Why is everyone assuming that we need a Dragon-sized spacecraft to put men on the moon?  That is an awfully large capsule.  You might be able to get there with a single Falcon Heavy if you start thinking more along the lines of a Gemini-sized two man capsule strapped to some hydrolox stages.  Sure, you can't stretch out your legs and you use a MAG to meet the call of nature, but if you land your habitat and rover ahead of time you can have a useful little mission with two launches that don't need to be timed and phased in concert.

[Ben the Space Brit]

You're just shifting the burden onto the precursor missions - how do you get the hab and the rover on the Moon? More importantly, where do they come from? Whilst we're at it, where do these hydrolox stages come from? And how do you get enough delta-v to return from the Moon to Earth?

I'm not saying it's undoable, what I'm saying is that there is a lot of expensive and time-consuming hardware development that is needed first. This is a fact that cannot be hand-waved away.

[KelvinZero]

Quoting the whole thing because it is a little way back..

I agree SpaceX isn't likely interested in a version of Dragon customized such that it is solely suited for lunar surface missions. I propose here by means of the attached diagram an "Extended Duration Mission Kit" which would be an add-on to Crewed Dragon. I make some assumptions about what Crewed Dragon will include different from Cargo Dragon, and those are shown in the diagram through use of various colors.

Starting with the basic Cargo Dragon in brown, I've added in pink features I hope to see in Crewed Dragon:
 + Electrical power provided by batteries
 + Thermal control provided by "capsule fin" radiators
 + NDS-compatible SpaceX docking system

The extended duration mission kit shown in blue includes:
 + SpaceX docking system electrical and propellant transfer
 + propellant storage tanks
 + photovoltaic electrical power generation

The propellant tanks in this mission kit would be sized to meet the demands of the mission type with the largest delta-v requirement. I here assume that to be lunar ascent.

Anyway, I hope the picture is worth at least some fraction of a thousand words. "Happy Christmas to all!"

Initially I couldnt imagine the Dragon being useful for the moon since the delta-v is so different, but then I remembered that the Dragon's propulsion system is meant to be sufficient for the LAS, an uncomfortably large g force, whereas the crew of the apollo lander stood up during landing.. Maybe the dragon engines are powerful enough if the fuel lasts.. but could such engines last to give you around 2km delta-v if the fuel was available?

Another thought re the picture  (missing from the quoted version).. Because of the weird side mounted nature of the dragon engines, could the additional fuel be in a trunk below the dragon? This would mean it could be there all the way from earth, and could be dropped during ascent from the moon. (big drawback, you couldn't use the dragon landing gear, which I guess may be sufficient for bearing the much greater weight of the ascent propellant if in lunar gravity.. on the other hand it occurs to me having your heat shield that close to the regolith with the thrust throwing stones around could be bad. Is this a lunar only dragon?)

[TrueBlueWitt]

Why is everyone assuming that we need a Dragon-sized spacecraft to put men on the moon?

You're right. We don't need that. We just can't afford to develop anything else.

Why not strip a Dragon to bare minimum..a separate lander. Strip heat shield.. parachutes.. Aero panels and super Draco's. Add back the bare minimum vacuum optimized super Draco's monted vertical(no cosine loss). Could add inflatable airlock. Add fuel in space where heat shield removed. Would the mass/fuel savings be enough to justify a separate dragon based disposable lander?

[guckyfan]

Why not strip a Dragon to bare minimum..a separate lander. Strip heat shield.. parachutes.. Aero panels and super Draco's. Add back the bare minimum vacuum optimized super Draco's monted vertical(no cosine loss). Could add inflatable airlock. Add fuel in space where heat shield removed. Would the mass/fuel savings be enough to justify a separate dragon based disposable lander?

Sounds good. And while they are at it they can change the shape of the pressure vessel also. That would be the easiest step of them all. The Dragon shape was dictated by aerodynamic needs. It increases weight per volume and manufacturing complexity.

[go4mars]

Because... side mounted nature of the dragon engines, could the additional fuel be in a trunk below the dragon? This would mean it could be there all the way from earth, and could be dropped during ascent from the moon. (big drawback, you couldn't use the dragon landing gear, which I guess may be sufficient for bearing the much greater weight of the ascent propellant if in lunar gravity.. on the other hand it occurs to me having your heat shield that close to the regolith with the thrust throwing stones around could be bad. Is this a lunar only dragon?)

Some good points and interesting thoughts in there. 

So trunk has some internal tanks, and trunk protects the heat shield during both landing and takeoff.  With some of those small nose-cone retractable circular solar arrays (or maybe exceptional batteries) the biggest outstanding challenge might be getting the fuel from the trunk to the dragon's superdracos.   

As to strength of trunk, it already needs to be able to handle the weight of a loaded dragon at 4 or 5 g's (during takeoff from Earth).
So conceivably it could support the partly full trunk tank mass of 6x dragon at lunar gravity. 

[rockinghorse]

Why not strip a Dragon to bare minimum..a separate lander. Strip heat shield.. parachutes.. Aero panels and super Draco's. Add back the bare minimum vacuum optimized super Draco's monted vertical(no cosine loss). Could add inflatable airlock. Add fuel in space where heat shield removed. Would the mass/fuel savings be enough to justify a separate dragon based disposable lander?

Because it is cheaper to design new Lunar Module. The point of Dragon is that it is capable to land on Earth. The Moon landing capability is free byproduct.

However other suggestion to have extra fuel tank in trunk, is better.

Although I would still land the whole upper stage to the Moon. Also I think that to have separate upper stage and Dragon is unnecessary complication and I think that Dragon is there only because SpaceX cannot yet make reusable upper stage. But as soon as SpaceX can return the upper stage on Earth, they will discard Dragon and merge it with upper stage.

[go4mars]

About 2 years ago, Elon mentioned that he wasn't going to work hard on upper stage reuse for 5 or 6 years.  One way to take that: waiting until raptor is available.

 If it stays as a separate stage, I suspect it will be returnable from geostationary at least.  If incorporated with the spaceship, then BEO return is probable.  I think there's more future flexibility and delta v advantage to keeping them separate, but unlike some other guy I haven't had a team of brilliant engineers paid to think about Mars architectures for a decade. 

Although it's conceivable maybe to have a big raptor upperstage and/or raptor powered spaceship launched by FH, I think those will wait for bigger, beefier 1st stage cores. 

So for the purpose of this thread, FH roughly as envisaged, and crew dragon, are the baselined elements.

[guckyfan]

About 2 years ago, Elon mentioned that he wasn't going to work hard on upper stage reuse for 5 or 6 years.  One way to take that: waiting until raptor is available.

Possible, but I think they may want the Falcon upper stage returnable as proof of concept and improve on it in the Raptor upper stage. I may be wrong though and they see that as an unnecessary expense of money and engineering capacity.

So for the purpose of this thread, FH roughly as envisaged, and crew dragon, are the baselined elements.

Agree, they will not spend too much on the Falcon/Dragon family. They can fly the missions that bring in the money now. Interplanetary and the moon can wait for the Raptor family unless someone pays really big for it.

[sdsds]

Quoting the whole thing because it is a little way back..

[...] The propellant tanks in this mission kit would be sized to meet the demands of the mission type with the largest delta-v requirement.

[...] Maybe the dragon engines are powerful enough if the fuel lasts.. but could such engines last to give you around 2km delta-v if the fuel was available?

Yes in terms of total duration of firing. That's because their design use involves multiple firings for propulsive landings on Earth. Would their design allow them to burn all of that propellant in a single go? Maybe. Maybe not. For the sake of the fantasy I'm guessing "Yes."

Another thought re the picture  (missing from the quoted version).. Because of the weird side mounted nature of the dragon engines, could the additional fuel be in a trunk below the dragon? This would mean it could be there all the way from earth, and could be dropped during ascent from the moon.

In my version of the fantasy, the propulsion module in the location where the trunk goes now would be a crasher descent stage. Else, how could the ascent propellant (much less the capsule) be delivered to the lunar surface?

[Ben the Space Brit]

Because of the weird side mounted nature of the dragon engines, could the additional fuel be in a trunk below the dragon?

IIRC, at one point, one of the options for the trunk is extra propellent tanks for the hypergolic fuel system. I don't know if that's still the case.

In any case, assuming that Superdraco-VAC (with added expansion nozzles) has a high enough Isp, there's no reason why a simple propulsion module can't be contrapted out of a maximum-length trunk.

Regarding a lander? The Dragon's hatch isn't really ideal for getting in and out with an EVA suit and PLSS pack, so I'd flip the pressure vessel on its side so that the hole for the CBM hatch could be used as the surface hatch and the LIDS is attached to where the crew hatch would be on the Dragon. The pressure vessel is basically hexagonal in profile; it's not ideal but is easily big enough for a 2-crew landing party plus a few days' consumables.

An off-the-shelf Dragon could be used as the basis of a cargo lander with the pressure vessel replaced with unpressurised cargo racks and a much larger access port.

[Jcc]

If the modified trunk engines and fuel supply are to serve for both descent and ascent, plus return to earth, that seems to be asking a lot of them.

Apollo has 3 separate propulsion units for that. The command module didn't land to reduce propulsion requirements for descent and ascent. The LM was made of very thin and light material, plus half of it was left behind on the lunar surface to save fuel on ascent.

Even the Constelation plans followed that pattern, so what is the huge advance in propulsion technology at will allow you to carry all the fuel needed to land, ascend and return to earth down to the lunar surface?

[Rocket Science]

If you pre-position a tanker in orbit you could refuel in orbit prior to PDI and TEI...

[KelvinZero]

In my version of the fantasy, the propulsion module in the location where the trunk goes now would be a crasher descent stage. Else, how could the ascent propellant (much less the capsule) be delivered to the lunar surface?

I had imagined a crasher stage also, possibly even the second stage that is already beneath the trunk at the time of launch, supposing we find a way to refuel it.. but I hadn't thought about it that deeply, just that the mass you put above could alternatively be beneath.

Two other things occur to me:
*The unusual rocket configuration could also allow the Dragon to drop really heavy payloads right on the surface, a la Curiosity.
*Add some legs to the crasher stage and the Dragon could land that too, effectively adding throttle ability to what might be a standard in-space stage.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Here's a thought: Some of the Mars One art I've seen has shown Dragon-like hab modules daisy-chained all in a row. I know that Dragon is quite small but is there any reason why one or two couldn't be contrapted to act as a crew shelter? I'm thinking of a sleeping area and maybe relaxation area for an extended surface stay.

I know this all sounds needlessly elaborate but, if we're thinking of doing lunar surface using nothing but re-purposed FH and Dragon bits, something like this might be useful.

[KelvinZero]

If the modified trunk engines and fuel supply are to serve for both descent and ascent, plus return to earth, that seems to be asking a lot of them.

Apollo has 3 separate propulsion units for that. The command module didn't land to reduce propulsion requirements for descent and ascent. The LM was made of very thin and light material, plus half of it was left behind on the lunar surface to save fuel on ascent.

Even the Constelation plans followed that pattern, so what is the huge advance in propulsion technology at will allow you to carry all the fuel needed to land, ascend and return to earth down to the lunar surface?

That wasn't really what I was suggesting... but I think there is a potential huge advance on the horizon and sort of on topic:
F9R could potentially deliver propellant to orbit 100 times cheaper than today. We could refuel those massive second stages we are currently throwing away and use them as our earth departure stages. (add SEP and ISRU and you could refuel in lunar orbit and on the lunar surface as well, land the things on the moon and then send them all the way home to land propulsively on earth)

[M129K]

Here's a thought: Some of the Mars One art I've seen has shown Dragon-like hab modules daisy-chained all in a row. I know that Dragon is quite small but is there any reason why one or two couldn't be contrapted to act as a crew shelter? I'm thinking of a sleeping area and maybe relaxation area for an extended surface stay.

I know this all sounds needlessly elaborate but, if we're thinking of doing lunar surface using nothing but re-purposed FH and Dragon bits, something like this might be useful.

You could, but as you said, it would be small. There's only about 10m^3 of volume in a Dragon, and not all of that is habitable. However, judging from pictures of the interior, there's probably enough space for two beds and maybe a treadmill. It would be a lot more comfortable than the small, cramped lander.

[M129K]

That wasn't really what I was suggesting... but I think there is a potential huge advance on the horizon and sort of on topic:
F9R could potentially deliver propellant to orbit 100 times cheaper than today. We could refuel those massive second stages we are currently throwing away and use them as our earth departure stages. (add SEP and ISRU and you could refuel in lunar orbit and on the lunar surface as well, land the things on the moon and then send them all the way home to land propulsively on earth)

A Falcon 9R could deliver the Falcon 9 upper stage to orbit with maybe about 10 tons of propellant left over. If the upper stage can hold about 90 tons of propellant, you could get a fueled stage in orbit in 9 Falcon 9 launches, or two Falcon Heavy launches.

A fully fueled F9 upper stage could get about 32 tons into Low Lunar Orbit, and if you attach a set of landing legs, it can land about 10 tons down to the surface. That would make for a dangerously tall lander though, so I'd recommend against doing that.

[RigelFive]

I'm trying to think of any launch vehicle ever designed that just had all of this extra dial up "free" capability to allow flexible or modular mission planning to go to the moon or Mars.  Maybe the Russian/Soviet Universal Rocket UR-700 concept.  Not even SLS looks close to me for allowing LEO to Mars mission flexibility.  This spiral development philosophy makes everything 50x more expensive.

[AncientU]

I'm trying to think of any launch vehicle ever designed that just had all of this extra dial up "free" capability to allow flexible or modular mission planning to go to the moon or Mars.  Maybe the Russian/Soviet Universal Rocket UR-700 concept.  Not even SLS looks close to me for allowing LEO to Mars mission flexibility.  This spiral development philosophy makes everything 50x more expensive.

Spiral?

[Ben the Space Brit]

I'm trying to think of any launch vehicle ever designed that just had all of this extra dial up "free" capability to allow flexible or modular mission planning to go to the moon or Mars.  Maybe the Russian/Soviet Universal Rocket UR-700 concept.  Not even SLS looks close to me for allowing LEO to Mars mission flexibility.  This spiral development philosophy makes everything 50x more expensive.

The only thing that comes close (IMHO at least) is the Atlas-V Phase 2/3A, which scales from 25t IMLEO (crew launch) up to 105t IMLEO (five cores & heavy upper stage). I imagine that the HLV version has around 40t through TMI.

[sdsds]

I'm trying to think of any launch vehicle ever designed that just had all of this extra dial up "free" capability to allow flexible or modular mission planning to go to the moon or Mars.

Yes this is different (and exciting), particularly when compared with Apollo where everything was designed for a specific class of mission. The notion of flexible spacecraft mission modules or capability kits which allow the basic design to be used for multiple types of missions is driven by overall cost savings and a recognition of how high a percentage of costs are associated with design, development and test engineering, rather than manufacturing and operations per se.

This has an extra importance for FH/Dragon lunar missions. The Moon isn't a big part of SpaceX planning. But if all the pieces of the architecture (i.e. the mission kits or modules) were useful in other contexts, then with "spacecraft lego" they might be assembled into something lunar-capable. That's what allows a lunar mission "for free" (i.e. without designing any new lunar-specific modules).

In an earlier post I presented a picture of an extended duration Dragon kit that might enable lunar ascent. With this post I present another picture and another generally useful module (shown in green). This new module goes where the trunk would be in an ISS cargo Dragon. But it is a full-on propulsion stage with vacuum expansion nozzles on Draco-based engines. In the mission architecture I'm proposing, this stage would propel almost all of the lunar descent, being jettisoned a few hundred meters above the lunar surface. (After that, Dragon itself does the tiny but precise hovering descent portion.)

[KelvinZero]

Or perhaps the crasher stage could just be a drop tank? You have already solved the problem of having external fuel tanks for the ascent.
These super dracos must be enormously overpowered if they can be used for a LAS so I guess they are enough to support all that extra fuel going down. I guess it is not reasonable to simply include less of them, since there would then not be the same redundancy?.. Perhaps this redundancy is irrelevant on the moon where not getting to quite the right orbit is still a fail.
(rats, just saw the issue that then they would not be optimized for space, unless it was an in-space only dragon)

A fully fueled F9 upper stage could get about 32 tons into Low Lunar Orbit, and if you attach a set of landing legs, it can land about 10 tons down to the surface. That would make for a dangerously tall lander though, so I'd recommend against doing that.

I have always liked the idea of having the cargo around the base of a conventional-shaped rocket stage, so it is near the ground. This would be very stable re center of gravity especially when the tank is near empty. The legs could be on the cargo also, and left on the surface. Everything would be preassembled in earth orbit, including extending the legs.. one less thing to go wrong. There are a bunch of different ways of laying out the cargo and still keeping the center of mass above the engines. In the extreme, if the cargo is one large indivisible piece (and doesnt happen to be a donut), you could balance it with a smaller mass out on an arm. All those struts could get left on the surface just like the legs.

[TrevorMonty]

I haven't read this thread alway through so this may have been covered. Most thread talks about landings. In regards to fly by missions we know FH can send Dragon around moon and support a small crew for fhe trip but it would be bit cramp. To make trip more enjoyable and safer, why not add additional crew space. My thought was to use a modified Orbital Cygnus, something similar to  attached Mars mission concept.

members.marssociety.org/inspiration-mars/finalists/TIMEx.pdf

The plan would be to launch all modules on same FH, but stack it with Cygnus at bottom with propulsion module and Dragon at top. This would allow for launch abort by Dragon if needed. Once 2nd stage has done TLI Cygnus and Dragon would dock for rest of trip. Additional fuel in trunk may eliminate need for propulsion module. Additional life support in Cygnus would add cost but also redundancy and may allow for a crew of 7. Having to dispose of Cygnus at end of mission will add significantly to cost but will make trip a lot more pleasant and any extra crew would help pay for it. .

[Burninate]

If what you want is a direct 'flag & footprints' Lunar landing, then 5-ton Dragon, in its current form, is indeed borderline feasible - assuming that you fill its extended trunk with ~7 tons of propellant and a quad of moderate power high ISP engines for the 'return' stage (Falcon 9 launchable), then add a 'landing' stage with ~12 tons of propellant in it and landing legs (Falcon 9 launchable), then add a 'boost' stage with ~50 tons of propellant in it (Falcon Heavy launchable), and assemble these in orbit.  Boost stage is left to impact Luna on the early descent, landing stage is left on the surface or perhaps detaches during ascent.

A Lunar return mission costs surprisingly similar amounts of dV to a Mars return mission, if you treat aerobraking transitions as 'free'.

Mighty uncomfortable trip though, with scant payload for better living conditions, or science experiments.  No lunar rover to play with, no living quarters, no backup equipment.  The above also assumes you can get reasonable high-ISP vacuum-optimized engines.  More likely, you're stuck with lower ISP engines, need science and hab space, want a rover & dedicated airlock, Dragon Rider's LAS is going to add a decent number of tons, and then you end up with roughly similar mass fractions but split over *three* Falcon Heavy launches.

Stretch goal: Four or five Falcon Heavy launches will buy you a BA-330 on the surface of Luna (though not returned with DragonRider).

[docmordrid]

And why bother with that complexity when Musk has said they may do a lunar mission as a proof of capability, and the statement could be interpreted as meaning with a new launcher? Everything seems pointed towards an intermediate Raptor launcher well before the MCT launcher/vehicle.

[Burninate]

And why bother with that complexity when Musk has said they may do a lunar mission as a proof of capability, and the statement could be interpreted as meaning with a new launcher? Everything seems pointed towards an intermediate Raptor launcher well before the MCT launcher/vehicle.

A ~150T.LEO 9-raptor (which would indeed be useful here) and a ~500T.LEO 27-raptor (3 core Heavy) seem to be the options.