-
#1280
by
jpo234
on 16 Nov, 2017 08:57
-
Shotwell: no updates on plans announced early this year for a crewed circumlunar Dragon flight. Surprising that there are as many people as there are who want to fly such a mission and can afford it. #NewSpaceEurope
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089167764869120
This chimes with a previous comment from her, that this might be a viable business.
-
#1281
by
cscott
on 16 Nov, 2017 12:38
-
Shotwell: expect we’ll do BFR/BFS missions to the Moon before Mars, given administration’s interest. Hope it will be for a permanent settlement. #NewSpaceEurope
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089584640884737
That is, they think they might be able to get the government to pay for a (significant fraction of the cost of a) lunar mission.
Like with CRS, Shotwell is adept at working the funding available to accomplish SpaceX goals, even if that means tweaking SpaceX plans (like F1 or "Mars first").
-
#1282
by
Negan
on 16 Nov, 2017 16:48
-
Also the "operational flight environment" for Dragon on a FH launch and in cis-lunar space is significantly different than Dragon on F9 launch or in LEO.
The operational flight environment in cis-lunar is different, but very well understood. Why is a test flight to cis-lunar the only way to prove a Dragon can operate successfully there?
It might be nice for Dragon's computers to be tested outside of LEO, even if it doesn't go all the way to the moon.
Another reason why I find this hard to believe as necessary is due to the 210 day on orbit attached to station requirement. Why is 7 days beyond LEO so different than 210 days in LEO?
Edit: We're talking about the affect on computers.
-
#1283
by
gongora
on 16 Nov, 2017 16:54
-
Another reason why I find this hard to believe as necessary is due to the 210 day on orbit attached to station requirement. Why is 7 days beyond LEO so different than 210 days in LEO?
The Van Allen Belts?
-
#1284
by
nacnud
on 16 Nov, 2017 16:56
-
And thermal environment, and outside the magnetosphere and longer range comms. Etc. All well understood but different to LEO
-
#1285
by
oldAtlas_Eguy
on 16 Nov, 2017 17:16
-
Consumables. That includes prop for 3 axis stabilization which is not used for its time connected to the ISS. Also food water and air. The 7 day value probably has a 3X or even 5X margin on these items.
-
#1286
by
Negan
on 16 Nov, 2017 17:30
-
Another reason why I find this hard to believe as necessary is due to the 210 day on orbit attached to station requirement. Why is 7 days beyond LEO so different than 210 days in LEO?
The Van Allen Belts?
So a couple of passes through the Van Allen Belts are worse than 210 days in LEO?
Edit: Maybe they can copy Apollo and avoid the worst of the belts.
Edit: From the Moon mission conspiracy debunking sights, I don't see how this would be a consideration since the time in the belts is so short.
-
#1287
by
Negan
on 16 Nov, 2017 18:00
-
And thermal environment, and outside the magnetosphere and longer range comms. Etc. All well understood but different to LEO
True. Apollo proved one spacecraft could be designed to operate in both environments, and that was before all the knowledge spacecraft designers have today. Heck they were even thinking of using Gemini for a circumlunar mission.
-
#1288
by
gongora
on 16 Nov, 2017 19:42
-
Another reason why I find this hard to believe as necessary is due to the 210 day on orbit attached to station requirement. Why is 7 days beyond LEO so different than 210 days in LEO?
The Van Allen Belts?
So a couple of passes through the Van Allen Belts are worse than 210 days in LEO?
Edit: Maybe they can copy Apollo and avoid the worst of the belts.
The environment is different outside the Van Allen belts.
-
#1289
by
Negan
on 16 Nov, 2017 22:28
-
Another reason why I find this hard to believe as necessary is due to the 210 day on orbit attached to station requirement. Why is 7 days beyond LEO so different than 210 days in LEO?
The Van Allen Belts?
So a couple of passes through the Van Allen Belts are worse than 210 days in LEO?
Edit: Maybe they can copy Apollo and avoid the worst of the belts.
The environment is different outside the Van Allen belts.
And Dragon 2 is designed to operate in both environments (with the exception of communications) like Apollo was.
Edit: Added quote from article
https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2017/02/spacex-private-moon-mission-2018/"Musk said Dragon 2 could come back from the Moon, too. "The heat shield is quite massively over-designed," he said. Musk also said the vehicle was sufficiently hardened against radiation to keep its crew safe beyond the Earth's protective radiation belts. Dragon 2's systems are "triple redundant," Musk added, and the only major upgrade needed would be in communications systems."
https://nepp.nasa.gov/files/24815/GOMAC2003_LaBel_HBD_Validation_pres.pdf
-
#1290
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 18 Nov, 2017 17:09
-
Shotwell: no updates on plans announced early this year for a crewed circumlunar Dragon flight. Surprising that there are as many people as there are who want to fly such a mission and can afford it. #NewSpaceEurope
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089167764869120
More than a half hundred confirmable. Now, how many of those ... want to beat US/China/Russia governments(!) to a very public visit to the vicinity of the moon?
Keep in mind the impact of Apollo 8. While far from "flag and footprints" of Apollo 11, everyone on earth knew that America was certain to land on the moon.
But ... adventurers on a free return won't have such a presumption. It may take a decade more before a single one of them can touch the surface.
What's it worth to buy "bragging rights" to "pwn" all of the earth's governments ... for more than a decade?
That's what will power the economics of lunar free return adventurer flights.
I'm certain that even with Jeff Bezos considerable pride, the first time adventurers return from a SX Dragon 2 free return flight safe, he'll not be able to wait for it. Knowing him, he'd dare Musk to do it himself, and somehow work out a means "to make it so" for both.
It's increasingly likely to happen. Whether that causes anything else to follow as a result, who knows?
-
#1291
by
Ludus
on 19 Nov, 2017 03:18
-
Shotwell: no updates on plans announced early this year for a crewed circumlunar Dragon flight. Surprising that there are as many people as there are who want to fly such a mission and can afford it. #NewSpaceEurope
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089167764869120
More than a half hundred confirmable. Now, how many of those ... want to beat US/China/Russia governments(!) to a very public visit to the vicinity of the moon?
Is there some confirmation of 50 people with the money who want to fly around the moon?
-
#1292
by
MATTBLAK
on 19 Nov, 2017 03:30
-
Although the first couple of circumlunar 'tourist' flights would likely only have two people aboard, the internal volume of a Dragon 2 could allow 4 people to fly a mission like this with about the same usable volume per person as 3x in an Apollo CM. Slightly more, even.
I could imagine a follow-up mission to this that could have SpaceX testing Dragons in 'deep space' at either DRO orbits or even L-2. Two Dragons docked 'nose to nose' would have enough internal volume for two or even three folk to loiter out there with supplies for more than a month. Part stunt; part deep space shakedown, testing life support systems, radiation mitigation, communications and navigation. Hey - I'm gonna use that idea for my next story...
-
#1293
by
nacnud
on 19 Nov, 2017 03:34
-
Why go to the expense of two dragons, take a BEAM instead. Add an extended duration pallet to the trunk too, if needed... Could make for some interesting stories.
-
#1294
by
MATTBLAK
on 19 Nov, 2017 03:45
-
Yes - or a reused Dragon 1.0 module. Or even base a Bigelow with a basic propulsion bus out at DRO or L-2. The idea is increased habitable volume for living, supply storage and experiments. It would have to be 'Beam 2.0' version. But even that wouldn't launch prefabricated with all the needed equipment. The Beam could be packed on top of the Falcon upper stage and after the TLI burn; it inflates and the crew docks with it and extracts it from the upper stage. The Dragon with crew of 2 could be packed to the eyeballs with supplies and equipment, which the crew could transfer to the Beam to free up lots of room in the capsule. The Beam - filled with water and food supplies - could then become the solar storm shelter for the crew. At the end of the mission, the Dragon burns back towards Earth. Filled with trash and uneeded equipment; the Beam is then jettisoned to burn up on re-entry.
-
#1295
by
nacnud
on 19 Nov, 2017 03:48
-
A modern Soyuz.
-
#1296
by
MATTBLAK
on 19 Nov, 2017 03:54
-
-
#1297
by
nacnud
on 19 Nov, 2017 04:08
-
BEAM and the Orbital Module are a comparable mass, though beam is nearly three times the size, 16m2 vs 6m2.
-
#1298
by
MATTBLAK
on 19 Nov, 2017 06:24
-
BEAM has proven itself to be a viable future option. Though on ISS; they tend to keep the hatch to it shut most times and only go in there a few times per year. Future versions will need to be open a lot longer than that to be viable for regular and long term crewed space operations. I remember the 'Inspiration Mars' guys looked at BEAM derivative to have extra Habitation space for the 500 day Mars flyby mission. For such a Mars mission, other options include having the Dragon docked to either an enhanced Cygnus as a habitat, or a refurbished and used Dragon 1.0 pressure vessel. Another idea of mine is to have the Dragon docked to 2x inline Soyuz Orbital modules. One would be the Habitat and the other could be a storm shelter lined with polyethylene sheeting and water tanks.
But I digress...
-
#1299
by
AncientU
on 19 Nov, 2017 11:42
-
Yes - or a reused Dragon 1.0 module. Or even base a Bigelow with a basic propulsion bus out at DRO or L-2. The idea is increased habitable volume for living, supply storage and experiments. It would have to be 'Beam 2.0' version. But even that wouldn't launch prefabricated with all the needed equipment. The Beam could be packed on top of the Falcon upper stage and after the TLI burn; it inflates and the crew docks with it and extracts it from the upper stage. The Dragon with crew of 2 could be packed to the eyeballs with supplies and equipment, which the crew could transfer to the Beam to free up lots of room in the capsule. The Beam - filled with water and food supplies - could then become the solar storm shelter for the crew. At the end of the mission, the Dragon burns back towards Earth. Filled with trash and uneeded equipment; the Beam is then jettisoned to burn up on re-entry.
Try this approach without destroying hardware on each trip... only way it will be repeatable at any significant cadence. Maybe leave the Beam or Beam derivative with station-keeping capability in Lunar orbit (suggest EML-1 or 2 better than DRO), either bring back the trash(like good backpackers do) or temporarily stow it in an expendable 'trash bag' which is sent on course to burn up in atmosphere.
