SpaceX and cis-lunar Space Tourism

[docmordrid]

Which would stop neither sound nor smells nor the inescapable fact that everyone will know what you're doing. People can be very squeamish about such things, especially in mixed-gender company.

One of my late 1960's college dorms was an early co-ed with a shared bathroom in each hall, each having several shower and toilet stalls. Quite interesting when someone joined the group on a weekend when it was empty, only to have  someone of the opposite gender pass the soap over the wall on Monday.

You get over it.

[TrevorMonty]

I found this article on cis lunar space craft after listening to Space Show about it.
Definitely not a near term thing but interesting concept.

http://denecs.usc.edu/hosted/ASTE/527_20111/03%20-%20The%20US%20Department%20of%20Space%20-%202011/J.1%20AIAA%20Space%202012.pdf

[ChrisWilson68]

It's kind of hard for me to see someone saying, "Well, I'd really like to go to the Moon.  I'm even willing to pay $20 million to do it.  I'm willing to risk my life.  I'm willing to be in an uncomfortably small space for days.  I'm willing to throw up repeatedly from space sickness.  I'm willing to use zero-g toilets.  But have to put up with someone of the opposite sex using the toilet on the other side of curtain?  No, I won't put up with that.  Cancel the trip."

[Dave G]

There's a difference between employees and passengers. Also between adventurers and tourists.

I respectfully disagree.  Human space travel is an inherently risky proposition, and will be for a long time.  This is well understood.

Its like TT racing on the Isle of Man, where people die every year.  Same with hang gliding.  As long as the risks are well understood by participants, nobody blames politicians. 

But if a TT motorcycle crashed into a group of spectators, that would be a major issue, since spectators didn't sign up for that type of risk.

So that's the type of approach the FAA is taking for space tourism.  They're not focused on tourist safety.  They're focused on preventing any collateral damage.

[sanman]

You're missing the whole point of Red Dragon, which is that it makes only minor modification to the existing Dragon.

Your Silver Dragon is so vastly different from Dragon that you get virtually no benefit from starting with Dragon at all.  You might as well start from scratch and design a Moon lander.

Alright, then call it a forerunner of MCT. Maybe it would be an antecedent of MCT before the heat shield and aerobraking are added on.

[Burninate]

{snip}
Also, it may be possible to use the FH second stage LOX tank as a hab module.  Remember that the second stage powers TLI, so it's already on the trip to the moon.  All you would need is a hatch and some thrusters on the second stage for docking.

LOX tanks are empty boxes.  You would also have to add things like a galley, toilet, air conditioning, cabinets and lights before it could live in it.  Such modifications can only be done on the Earth's surface.

I went most of my life not understanding what the hell 'reuse an upper stage as a habitat' actually meant, because it's presented as some kind of miracle innovation, with the implication that astronauts are going to literally climb into a spent stage and make it home.  What it means is just re-using the *earthside tooling* currently being used for making 5-10m diameter pressure vessels that hold propellant, and building a habitat of that size on Earth.  The only actual savings is not having to build an entirely new factory in order to pump out one habitat.

[darkenfast]

I'm going to be a pessimist here.  I don't think that there will be a market for cis-lunar trips once it's been done one or maybe two times.  We know that fairly well-off people will pay the 1/4 million dollars to go sub-orbital.  We know that there are a group of millionaires who will spend $30 million to spend a few days on a space station.  I think that there are some fairly wealthy individuals who would spend a big chunk of their fortune to walk on the Moon (and they won't give a hoot about the toilet arrangements, any more than any forum member here would).

What I don't think is that there is a market for more than a couple of record-setters to pay a multiple of what it costs to go to orbit in order to fly near the moon without landing. 

[TrevorMonty]

IMHO lunar flybys are going to be about it with FH in near future. To make lunar landings viable they need fuel in Lunar orbit to supply landers, the possible options I see for this are ISRU from Asteriod or lunar ice both of which will require large infrastructure and years to develop.

The other near term option is SpaceX's BFR, if this can deliver around 50t to lunar orbit as a fully reusable LV then tourism to lunar surface may drop to tens instead of hundreds of millions per seat.

[Celebrimbor]

I'm going to be a pessimist here.  I don't think that there will be a market for cis-lunar trips once it's been done one or maybe two times.  We know that fairly well-off people will pay the 1/4 million dollars to go sub-orbital.  We know that there are a group of millionaires who will spend $30 million to spend a few days on a space station.  I think that there are some fairly wealthy individuals who would spend a big chunk of their fortune to walk on the Moon (and they won't give a hoot about the toilet arrangements, any more than any forum member here would).

What I don't think is that there is a market for more than a couple of record-setters to pay a multiple of what it costs to go to orbit in order to fly near the moon without landing. 

I don't know.  For me - it would be qualitatively cooler than orbiting the Earth to leave Earth behind, fly around the moon, look at the far side up close, for real, and return (at extreme speed!) into the Earth atmosphere and land softly.  Definitely worth pay more than twice (if I could afford it).

[rst]

I went most of my life not understanding what the hell 'reuse an upper stage as a habitat' actually meant, because it's presented as some kind of miracle innovation, with the implication that astronauts are going to literally climb into a spent stage and make it home.  What it means is just re-using the *earthside tooling* currently being used for making 5-10m diameter pressure vessels that hold propellant, and building a habitat of that size on Earth.  The only actual savings is not having to build an entirely new factory in order to pump out one habitat.

Actually, there have been proposals to refit spent stages in orbit; Wernher von Braun himself was pushing the idea, during the design discussions that ultimately led to Skylab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_workshop

[moralec]

I found this article on cis lunar space craft after listening to Space Show about it.
Definitely not a near term thing but interesting concept.

http://denecs.usc.edu/hosted/ASTE/527_20111/03%20-%20The%20US%20Department%20of%20Space%20-%202011/J.1%20AIAA%20Space%202012.pdf

Amazing find! This is very similar to what I had in mind. A vessel designed specifically to stay (and travel) in space is the logical way to go. I never thought about the possibility of assembling it on the ISS, but is not a crazy idea. Spare progress ships could in fact be used for extra space at a cheap price, although they may increase the amount of fuel required for the journey.

I insist that having large modules in this extraterrestrial vessel is important: in order to make the trip attractive for tourists, it is important to provide a comfortable accommodation (at least decent bathrooms). Larger ships also generate redundancy: in case of an emergency you could disassemble a damaged section of the ship, bringing tourists safely to the rendezvous point. Furthermore, the larger the crowd the better as you split fixed costs with more people.

The concept could be expanded with a lunar lander. I'm thinking in the Morpheus here (very similar to the Apollo Lander but completely automated). It could preform various excursions while the vessel is on lunar orbit, taking tourists from the vessel to surface and back. And it could stay parked on the moon while the vessel goes back to LEO.

While on LEO the vessel could be obtain supplies from dragon 1 unmanned capsules, and the dragon 2 could function like a taxi  taking and returning tourists. Neither of these ships are needed to make the entire lunar transfer trip. They just need to go back and forth with people, supplies and trash.

[ChrisWilson68]

You're missing the whole point of Red Dragon, which is that it makes only minor modification to the existing Dragon.

Your Silver Dragon is so vastly different from Dragon that you get virtually no benefit from starting with Dragon at all.  You might as well start from scratch and design a Moon lander.

Alright, then call it a forerunner of MCT. Maybe it would be an antecedent of MCT before the heat shield and aerobraking are added on.

There has been a lot of discussion of this on other threads -- the requirements of a lunar lander/ascent vehicle are so vastly different from the requirements of a Mars lander/ascent vehicle that its counterproductive to try to combine them or use one to develop the other.

It's like trying to develop a combination screwdriver and hammer, or trying to develop a screwdriver that will lead to a hammer.  If you need to pound in a nail, develop a hammer.  If you need to drive a screw, develop a screwdriver.  They may both be things that help you fasten objects together, but they're not similar enough to share a development path.

[guckyfan]

There has been a lot of discussion of this on other threads -- the requirements of a lunar lander/ascent vehicle are so vastly different from the requirements of a Mars lander/ascent vehicle that its counterproductive to try to combine them or use one to develop the other.

It's like trying to develop a combination screwdriver and hammer, or trying to develop a screwdriver that will lead to a hammer.  If you need to pound in a nail, develop a hammer.  If you need to drive a screw, develop a screwdriver.  They may both be things that help you fasten objects together, but they're not similar enough to share a development path.

MCT will be designed for one purpose only, that is landing on Mars and returning from there, no compromise.

However landing on Mars and developing a capsule design for LEO crew transport are even more different tasks. Yet there is the Red Dragon concept.

I would be very surprised if MCT will not turn out to be able to do a moon landing and return as well as landing on Mars and return.

[docmordrid]

ISTM Mars and Moon landers share enough features that an omnivorous device is possible - especially if we shade towards using a Mars lander on the Moon.

It'll carry mass it doesn't need (TPS) and require deep throttling (and/or multiple engines with some shut down) but as a proof of capability test (as Musk put it) before taking the big leap, why not?

[guckyfan]

It'll carry mass it doesn't need (TPS) and require deep throttling (and/or multiple engines with some shut down) but as a proof of capability test (as Musk put it) before taking the big leap, why not?

It does need the TPS because it will reenter earth atmosphere. Deep throttle may be the biggest problem. Also without refuelling on the moon it would suffer a very severe payload drop. I thought of sending two vehicles. One tanker fully refuelled in LEO and the MCT. The tanker can refuel MCT after earth departure and return on a free or almost free return trajectory while a well fuelled MCT lands on the moon.

BTW it took me a few seconds to get your picture.

[docmordrid]

I was actually thinking of a stripped down TPS-less vehicle as an adapted  lunar lander, but yeah.

As for the hammer-driver, that's not the only kind. I was actually surprised at how many there are.

[AncientU]

IMHO lunar flybys are going to be about it with FH in near future. To make lunar landings viable they need fuel in Lunar orbit to supply landers, the possible options I see for this are ISRU from Asteriod or lunar ice both of which will require large infrastructure and years to develop.

Why is it that so many think you need ISRU to have fuel in orbit?  Load it on a reusable launcher (tanker upper stage) and stand back... presto, fuel in orbit.  And that didn't take "large infrastructure and years to develop."

Depots if and only if ISRU is logical and technical fallacy.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Why is it that so many think you need ISRU to have fuel in orbit?  Load it on a reusable launcher (tanker upper stage) and stand back... presto, fuel in orbit.  And that didn't take "large infrastructure and years to develop."
Depots if and only if ISRU is logical and technical fallacy.

Agreed, there are several studies featuring that concept.

[moralec]

I was actually thinking of a stripped down TPS-less vehicle as an adapted  lunar lander, but yeah.

As for the hammer-driver, that's not the only kind. I was actually surprised at how many there are.

I think it all comes down to cost. What is cheaper? to develop a new lander (huge cost in terms of development, but probably cheaper in operation) ? or to use a stripped down version of the existing capsule (the other way around)...

If the plan is to use it on an ongoing basis (like for turism), I think the idea of a new lander is better. However, if it just for a few times (preparing for mars) maybe is just better to use the existing capsule. 

[TrevorMonty]

IMHO lunar flybys are going to be about it with FH in near future. To make lunar landings viable they need fuel in Lunar orbit to supply landers, the possible options I see for this are ISRU from Asteriod or lunar ice both of which will require large infrastructure and years to develop.

Why is it that so many think you need ISRU to have fuel in orbit?  Load it on a reusable launcher (tanker upper stage) and stand back... presto, fuel in orbit.  And that didn't take "large infrastructure and years to develop."

Depots if and only if ISRU is logical and technical fallacy.

AncientU: If you are going to quote somebody's statement, make sure you include all the relative parts of the statement. Here is the 2nd paragraph of my statement which you forgot include. 

"The other near term option is SpaceX's BFR, if this can deliver around 50t to lunar orbit as a fully reusable LV then tourism to lunar surface may drop to tens instead of hundreds of millions per seat."