SpaceX and cis-lunar Space Tourism

[TrevorMonty]

There is some demand out there for a lunar flyby mission. Space Adventures Soyuz mission is all go.

 http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1406/15lunarsoyuz/#.U59XkGf7Jgg

[Vultur]

There is some demand out there for a lunar flyby mission. Space Adventures Soyuz mission is all go.

 http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1406/15lunarsoyuz/#.U59XkGf7Jgg

Wow. If that really happens it would be incredible.

[meekGee]

There is some demand out there for a lunar flyby mission. Space Adventures Soyuz mission is all go.

 http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1406/15lunarsoyuz/#.U59XkGf7Jgg

In terms of value-per-$, I think that's the ultimate deal.

Much rather have a destination-based trip, with all sorts of views of Earth and moon, then spend a week in "Space Hotel".  Adventure all the way.

[RanulfC]

I say this as the one who started the thread, and who is on the "Mars side" of the ISRU argument.

The words in the title add up to a description of what this thread is about.  There is no "Mars" in "SpaceX and cis-lunar Space Tourism"

Randy - see you on the Mars HSF thread, we can slug it out there.

Trust me I TRIED to avoid this but... Well the MCT was mentioned and of course part of the "name" there is "Mars," so while not in the title it WAS part of the "subject"

Running now... very fast...

Randy

[MP99]

After fuelling in LEO, MCT with 70 mT cargo can get itself to EML-2 (<4 km/s?), with substantial residuals .

IIRC, the round-trip EML2-surface-EML2, is in the ballpark of your 5.3 km/s capability, so after refuelling MCT can land its 70 mT on the surface then lift something close to that back to EML2 without refuelling on the surface. I'd suggest landing at beginning of Lunar night, and taking off not much after dawn in order not to boiloff the propellants.

..............

MCT landing on the Moon is heavier than MCT landing on Mars (also carries ascent prop), so you can use the same propulsion without T:W issues.

................

Recovering those tanker stages could be fun, though!

cheers, Martin

EML-2 might be an interesting staging point for reusable moonlanders flying between lunar surface and EML-2.

MCT goes back to earth. No point in going through EML-2. My idea about refuelling is send one MCT and one tanker through TLI, refuel MCT in flight and let the tanker RTLS after looping around the moon with very little or no delta-v after TLI except for the landing burn, which is very small.

I note that you left out my comment:-

More interestingly, the EML2-surface-TEI dV isn't much more than EML2-surface-EML2, so substantial payload could go back to Earth's surface if you assume no propulsion required for Earth reentry.

...so I came to same conclusion as you re the return journey. (The direct return makes this much easier than having to make plane changes to rendezvous with an orbiting return capsule in LLO.)

However, I don't think it's as easy to dismiss the detour via EML-2 on the outbound journey.

Your architecture requires two launches - lander & tanker.

The slow-boat trajectory can get an almost identical tanker prop payload to EML-2 as your TLI, as long as you can wait three months for delivery. But if the lander is carrying a smaller payload, it may only need to take on part of the tanker's prop load, so you may need less tanker flights, overall.

And, IIRC, the dV penalty to land is much smaller once you target non-equatorial landing sites.

Also, MCT would have daily launch opportunities to EML-2, and no time constraints on the EML-2 to landing site leg, vs monthly launch windows if going direct to LLO.



Also, I believe EML-2 is a good accumulation point for tankers in support of a convoy of MCTs bound for Mars. They can be launched in the quiet times between conjunction / opposition windows and loiter at EML until ready, fuelling either Moon or Mars missions as needed.

cheers, Martin

[AncientU]

Also, MCT would have daily launch opportunities to EML-2, and no time constraints on the EML-2 to landing site leg, vs monthly launch windows if going direct to LLO.

Also, I believe EML-2 is a good accumulation point for tankers in support of a convoy of MCTs bound for Mars. They can be launched in the quiet times between conjunction / opposition windows and loiter at EML until ready, fuelling either Moon or Mars missions as needed.

cheers, Martin

Q.E.D. ==> Gateway!

Edit: added quote for clarity

[TrevorMonty]

If SpaceX have any hope of a tourist business,  their launches need to be a lot more reliable. How many scrubs as space tourist would you put up with?

[QuantumG]

If SpaceX have any hope of a tourist business,

They don't. This thread has nothing to do with SpaceX's hopes.

[Dave G]

How many scrubs as space tourist would you put up with?

Many.

I think the word "tourist" may not be fitting.  Think of the people who pay $100,000 to climb Mount Everest.  They know the journey will be arduous.  They know they may die.   That's part of the lure.

Space "tourists" may not experience as much difficulty as climbing Everest, but I think there is a general  expectation of thorough training, cramped quarters, very limited amenities, and possible death.

When space tourism becomes easy, safe, and routine, then much of the excitement will be gone.  It will be like a commercial airline.  But that's a long way off.

[meekGee]

How many scrubs as space tourist would you put up with?

Many.

I think the word "tourist" may not be fitting.  Think of the people who pay $100,000 to climb Mount Everest.  They know the journey will be arduous.  They know they may die.   That's part of the lure.

Space "tourists" may not experience as much difficulty as climbing Everest, but I think there is a general  expectation of thorough training, cramped quarters, very limited amenities, and possible death.

When space tourism becomes easy, safe, and routine, then much of the excitement will be gone.  It will be like a commercial airline.  But that's a long way off.

Obligatory mandatory late evening quote:

[TrevorMonty]

Just watched documentary on moon landings. All astronauts said how fragile earth looked from space and how they never it for granted now.

 This had me thinking how important space tourism could be in affecting terrestrial affairs. Any body who can afford a space flight especially orbital will have a lot money and most likely political  influence. It would be interesting to see what they do with that money and power after going to space.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

How many scrubs as space tourist would you put up with?

Many.

I think the word "tourist" may not be fitting.  Think of the people who pay $100,000 to climb Mount Everest.  They know the journey will be arduous.  They know they may die.   That's part of the lure.

Space "tourists" may not experience as much difficulty as climbing Everest, but I think there is a general  expectation of thorough training, cramped quarters, very limited amenities, and possible death.

When space tourism becomes easy, safe, and routine, then much of the excitement will be gone.  It will be like a commercial airline.  But that's a long way off.

At first the ride up and back is part of the experience of Space "Travel".  Eventually when it becomes routine, like intercontenental air travel, the ride up and down will just be a method of getting there and the focus of the "tourist" will be what they will do at the destination.  Like space walks, zero g sports/activities, and walking on the moon.

[Oli]

If SpaceX have any hope of a tourist business,

They don't. This thread has nothing to do with SpaceX's hopes.

Without tourists they won't be able to fly Dragon v2 "thousand of times".

How many scrubs as space tourist would you put up with?

Many.

I think the word "tourist" may not be fitting.  Think of the people who pay $100,000 to climb Mount Everest.  They know the journey will be arduous.  They know they may die.   That's part of the lure.

Actually the word tourist is very fitting, Everest has become a tourist destination, with very little risk involved (if you pay).

[wannamoonbase]

How many scrubs as space tourist would you put up with?

Many.

I think the word "tourist" may not be fitting.  Think of the people who pay $100,000 to climb Mount Everest.  They know the journey will be arduous.  They know they may die.   That's part of the lure.

Space "tourists" may not experience as much difficulty as climbing Everest, but I think there is a general  expectation of thorough training, cramped quarters, very limited amenities, and possible death.

When space tourism becomes easy, safe, and routine, then much of the excitement will be gone.  It will be like a commercial airline.  But that's a long way off.

If I was shelling out $100,000,000 to go to the moon I'd want more of an experience than being treated like a piece of cargo.  Like going to a great restaurant or flying first class it's an experience, not just a meal or flight.  i think the service side with the training, handling, education, access to unusual places and scenes is important.

I think it's much more likely to come from a US provider than any other country.  But I hope to see Lunar flyby tourism in the 5-10 year window.