FH to the moon?

[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.