SpaceX Crewed Dragon Circumlunar Mission

[Svetoslav]

That's correct. The Falcon 9 upgrades do make the Falcon Heavy largely obsolete when it comes to large satellites. And it's extremely hard to predict the launch market.

Just two years ago the Proton rocket had a large market. Now the almost total lack of customers is astounding. The smallsat revolution is just starting, and we've yet to see who'll purchase small and heavy lift vehicles.

On the other side, the question : "What market could BFR have?" should be paraphrased as : "What market could BFR have BESIDES human spaceflight and beyond-LEO missions?"

If the answer is "nothing", and the answer for Falcon Heavy is also "nothing", I dare say: use the rocket which already exists.

My prediction is that after Falcon Heavy achieves a successful flight (now or later), the ball is passed to the President and the Congress. If they push for Lunar mission, their decision will be the one who matters.

[su27k]

Although this post will annoy certain people, this is a perfect proof on why Musk amazing peopleism is a bad thing. To put it short, SpaceX did show significant progress during the last few years. But he dropped far too many promising plans. Red Dragon. Lunar Dragon. Falcon Heavy for human missions.

So what? The Russians and NASA dropped many many more promising plans than SpaceX. I propose the measurement of greatness should be how much actual progress has been made, not how many plans are dropped. (BTW, how is any of these related to "amazing peopleism" is beyond me...)

[Svetoslav]

So what? The Russians and NASA dropped many many more promising plans than SpaceX. I propose the measurement of greatness should be how much actual progress has been made, not how many plans are dropped. (BTW, how is any of these related to "amazing peopleism" is beyond me...)

It's good that you mentioned NASA and the Russians. While NASA didn't have anything besides the Shuttle, it was believed that Russia is able to send humans beyond LEO faster. Because of a heavy launch vehicle (Proton) + spacecraft that's ready (Soyuz) + an escape stage. You have the launch vehicle, you have the spacecraft - just add a reinforced heat shield and make the stage, and you're ready.

This was how you were supposed to send tourists to the Moon. SpaceX was to use a Falcon Heavy rocket and Dragon.

Don't get me wrong - what SpaceX is doing with regards to reusability and launch vehicles is very important. They're now an important factor of the launch market. However, launch vehicles can take you only that far. You still need to decide what you're going to do with these launch vehicles and whether you have the will to do it. Jumping from one launch vehicle to another and then to another doesn't seem wise.

Sending a car with a test dummy to Mars is one thing. But are we serious about sending humans beyond LEO? This questions needs to be answered. Public stunts won't send you to Mars.. or the Moon... or even to LEO.

[speedevil]

Launch 1: Crew Dragon into Low Earth orbit. First stage lands on a barge fairly far out at sea.
Launch 2: Falcon 9, Block 5 places upper stage into orbit with the largest propellant load possible for a fully expendable launch: about 20 tons of prop. The Crew Dragon rendezvous and docks with the stage in less than 6 hours and then the Trans-Lunar injection burn happens. My question(s) is this - would there be enough delta-v to push that Dragon to escape velocity? Would the Dragon need an increased propellant supply to perform more maneuvers? Is the cost profile for 2x Falcon 9, Block 5 comparable to a single, all-up Falcon Heavy launch? Does the Falcon Heavy have to have some extra man-rating? I thought the whole Block 5 Falcon family was man-rated...

Cost for a fully reusable FH launch should be less than two F9 launches.
Falcon Heavy is a different rocket for Falcon 9.
'Man Rating' - which is a sort-of-fuzzy concept if you're not in the NASA framework is for the whole system as launched generally, for good reasons.
'largest propellant load for an expendable stage' is not quite 22.8 tons remaining, if you launch it with no payload, I suspect it'll be close.

http://www.quantumg.net/rocketeq.html is useful.
For ISP of 348, initial mass of 111500, dry mass of 4000, you get a delta-v of 11.3km/s.

More relevantly, for the max payload 22800kg+4000, 26800 final mass, 111500+22800= 134300 initial mass, we get 5.5km/s.

Backing that out, and starting with an initial mass of 111500 comes out with 22250kg, which makes sense.

If we assume dragon 2 wet mass for everything you need for the trip is 10000kg, this gets you 2100m/s.
This is slighly short of what you want for TLI, but can probably be made up by the fact that you can start out in a moderately more energetic orbit than LEO, and a few hundred m/s from dragon.

If we transfer over propellant - even only LOX - to the 'launched empty' stage from the dragon one, it all gets rather better.

[su27k]

So what? The Russians and NASA dropped many many more promising plans than SpaceX. I propose the measurement of greatness should be how much actual progress has been made, not how many plans are dropped. (BTW, how is any of these related to "amazing peopleism" is beyond me...)

It's good that you mentioned NASA and the Russians. While NASA didn't have anything besides the Shuttle, it was believed that Russia is able to send humans beyond LEO faster. Because of a heavy launch vehicle (Proton) + spacecraft that's ready (Soyuz) + an escape stage. You have the launch vehicle, you have the spacecraft - just add a reinforced heat shield and make the stage, and you're ready.

This was how you were supposed to send tourists to the Moon. SpaceX was to use a Falcon Heavy rocket and Dragon.

And the Russians had this plan for what, 20 years? And it's going nowhere, hardly a convincing example of successful planning.

Also need to remember for SpaceX sending tourists to the Moon is not the objective, it's a means to an end, the end goal is City on Mars.

Don't get me wrong - what SpaceX is doing with regards to reusability and launch vehicles is very important. They're now an important factor of the launch market. However, launch vehicles can take you only that far. You still need to decide what you're going to do with these launch vehicles and whether you have the will to do it. Jumping from one launch vehicle to another and then to another doesn't seem wise.

SpaceX is not jumping to just another launch vehicle, EM made it clear they'll work on BFS next, that's Big Falcon Spaceship, not a simple LV.

[woods170]

Although this post will annoy certain people, this is a perfect proof on why Musk amazing peopleism is a bad thing. To put it short, SpaceX did show significant progress during the last few years. But he dropped far too many promising plans. Red Dragon. Lunar Dragon. Falcon Heavy for human missions.

Respectfully, I disagree.

There was nothing promising about either Red Dragon or Lunar Dragon.

Red Dragon was always going to be a platform kit-bashed to do unmanned landings on Mars. From day 1 of the Red Dragon proposal it was clear that it would take a different spacecraft to actually land humans on Mars. As such, Red Dragon was mostly a distraction, courtesy of SpaceX involvement in the Commercial Crew Program. At best it would have replicated science that has already been done on Mars by NASA.
The two major aspects of Red Dragon, that could have contributed to ITS (aka BFR/BFS) were retro-propulsive Mars entry-and-descent and small-scale ISRU prototyping. Those are now deferred to the first, unmanned, missions of BFR/BFS. They are not off the table.

Lunar Dragon was a distraction as well because - again - it does not significantly contribute to the ultimate goal of SpaceX: humans to Mars. Flying just a few persons on such a small spacecraft does not generate enough revenue to significantly contribute to the budget needed for BFR/BFS. Flying 50 to 100 people around the Moon on a single flight is much more promising. Heck, for the same price-tag they might even land on the Moon.

Falcon Heavy was never intended to fly humans. Sticking a Crew Dragon on top for tourist missions to the Moon is a distraction. It requires mods to Falcon Heavy that were not originally intended to be part of the FH design. As such they add cost to the FH system and ties up engineering capability where those engineers really should be working on the actual Mars system (BFR/BFS). So, it is a distraction.

It was discussed in another thread that Crew Dragon is a technological dead-end once it is flying. And that is correct given that the Crew Dragon architecture has no place in the final Mars architecture. As such, any other mission based on the Crew Dragon architecture is therefor also a dead-end: Red Dragon, Lunar Dragon, DragonLab, etc.
Once Crew Dragon start flying CCP missions it becomes a sustainment program. But it will be killed, without remorse, the minute Crew Dragon missions are no longer needed by NASA.

Doing away with systems and architectures that have served their purpose but are no longer useful to SpaceX is part of what SpaceX is all about. There are plenty of examples: Falcon 1, Falcon 9 v1.0, Falcon 9 v1.1, Grasshopper, DragonLab, Red Dragon, Merlin 1A, Merlin 1C, Kestrel, Cargo Dragon (will be retired once the CRS-1 obligations have been met). Etc, etc.

It is as Elon stated it: from this point forward all balls are on BFR/BFS.

[AbuSimbel]

Although this post will annoy certain people, this is a perfect proof on why Musk amazing peopleism is a bad thing. To put it short, SpaceX did show significant progress during the last few years. But he dropped far too many promising plans. Red Dragon. Lunar Dragon. Falcon Heavy for human missions.

Nobody really believes BFR will be ready around 2025, right? The Heavy delays spread within a 5-year period. I'd say that if Musk says 2025, in reality this means 2030.

This in fact means more delays for beyond-Low Earth Orbit missions. However, I prefer for Musk and other private companies to stop talking too much about Moon and Mars and focus on near space. It's closer. How about sending a man to space before this decade is out?

Yes it annoys people like me, for example.
This whole 'Musk amazing peopleism' thing is really starting to annoying me. Not the alleged 'Musk amazing peoples' but the ones who engage in the noble battle of reminding others how stupid they're for trusting Musk, how irrational they're to think SpaceX's goals have a chance, how they should know better. I'm tired of people who start their arguments by discounting who disagrees with them and their opinion as wrong because they're 'irrational amazing peoples'. When you do it you do not become the bearer of the rational truth, you're just arrogant.
Guess what? From my experience I've found more irrationality and bias in the 'amazing people fighters' than in the ones they fight. It's not rational to engage in a personal crusade against an entrepreneur you don't even know because for whatever reason you hate his guts (not saying it is your case, just that I've seen many cases like this).
Most importantly: it's not rational to always assume the worst, it's not rational to predict the future basing solely on past performance pretending nothing has changed and progress doesn't exist.
No one in recent history has more experience in actually developing, building and operating rocket engines, reusable LVs, space capsules, building new launchpads and GSE, heck nobody has more actual, recent experience in flat-out rocket development than SpaceX has, at least not in the US! Despite all this many still treat them as inexperienced newcomers, dreamers with silly projects who don't know what they're talking about, always bet against them instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt.
To those people I say: that's irrationality! Always assuming the worst doesn't makes you a realist, it makes you a pessimist.

Nobody really believes BFR will be ready around 2025, right?

Yes, yes I do. Guess I'm a amazing people for this right?
Well I'll tell you something: I'm convinced it's possible for it to launch into orbit well before 2022. The reason is many see the delays with FH, Crew Dragon, see Elon setting 'aspirational' deadlines and assume SpaceX is intrinsically not capable of delivering on schedule. I think there is more than that, and not analyzing the reasons behind those delays is superficial and leads to wrong conclusions. And those reasons are not only 'Elon sets impossible deadlines'. Thinking it all comes to that is not rational.

-FH is not 5 years late, the 2011 Falcon Heavy will never exist. Today's rocket is essentially its replacement with a different structural design, very different capabilities, reuse of the first stage. It wasn't only a different rocked for its design, but especially for its purpose: when it was introduced in 2011 the intentions were to 'launch as many Falcon 9s as Heavies', it was an important project, key to entering an existing market outside the capabilities of F9.  But then, as the latter kept evolving, the purpose for FH kept eroding. With F9 Full thrust the design of the Heavy had to be heavily modified accordingly while its usefulness appeared more limited than ever, further slowing down its development.
None of this apply to BFR: it is now not only useful for SpaceX, but necessary for their constellation, Mars, and their sheer existence given how they're essentially betting everything on it. Also it doesn't have the disadvantage of depending on another evolving development flow like Falcon Heavy did with Falcon 9.

-Crew Dragon too had to adapt and change its development flow for Commercial Crew: Commercial Crew Crew Dragon is different from the manned capsule that Elon said would come 4 years after Cargo Dragon. Its development is late nonetheless, but 2 years late, not 5. Not only that, but those Commercial Crew delays are in part independent from SpaceX and, as many sources have stated, partly result from the difficulties of working with NASA and 'translating' between one development philosophy and another. Even in this case the BFR is a whole different story: they're trying to stay as independent as possible from other entities.

To sum up: the BFR is not only revolutionary as a vehicle: its development process is revolutionary in itself. It won't be paperwork-oriented, demonstrate it on paper before flight NASA style: it will leverage reusability from the start, with BFS suborbital testing and demonstrate its design by actually flying, cheaply, and acquiring flight history in doing so. Not to mention it will fully take advantage of SpaceX's development agility.
The genius lies in the fact that this Second stage + spacecraft design is so versatile that it's very prone to iteration: you can start by flying suborbitally the basic ship without the heath shield and acquire confidence in the design. Most of this confidence then gets passed by while the vehicle gradually transitions to the orbital cargo version by adding the heath shield, the payload interface and the dispensing equipment, and finally to a crew vehicle. Improvements can be even passed horizontally from one version to the others when they all fly. Other crewed capsules only acquire flight history by actually flying manned, the BFS will be proven in its reliability well before it flies crewed. The airframe, the propulsion systems, the tankage, the EDL will be flight tested with high fidelity from the beginning. I think it is possible for it to surclass every previous launch system in reliability very early in its development (1-2 years since the first orbital flight) and sport unprecedented reliability by expendable spaceflight standards (many orders of magnitude better) at the end of its development cycle (mid to late 2020s).
That's why I think it'll be much faster and easier to go from BFS cargo to the manned one (with cislunar ECLSS) than it has been to go from cargo dragon to crew dragon, and that a Lunar cruise could be possible in 2021-2022.

[AbuSimbel]

So what? The Russians and NASA dropped many many more promising plans than SpaceX. I propose the measurement of greatness should be how much actual progress has been made, not how many plans are dropped. (BTW, how is any of these related to "amazing peopleism" is beyond me...)

It's good that you mentioned NASA and the Russians. While NASA didn't have anything besides the Shuttle, it was believed that Russia is able to send humans beyond LEO faster. Because of a heavy launch vehicle (Proton) + spacecraft that's ready (Soyuz) + an escape stage. You have the launch vehicle, you have the spacecraft - just add a reinforced heat shield and make the stage, and you're ready.

This was how you were supposed to send tourists to the Moon. SpaceX was to use a Falcon Heavy rocket and Dragon.

Don't get me wrong - what SpaceX is doing with regards to reusability and launch vehicles is very important. They're now an important factor of the launch market. However, launch vehicles can take you only that far. You still need to decide what you're going to do with these launch vehicles and whether you have the will to do it. Jumping from one launch vehicle to another and then to another doesn't seem wise.

Sending a car with a test dummy to Mars is one thing. But are we serious about sending humans beyond LEO? This questions needs to be answered. Public stunts won't send you to Mars.. or the Moon... or even to LEO.

Frankly, committing to the BFR (a vehicle designed with BEO in mind) seems to me much more serious than pursuing a one off, dangerous stunt like Gray Dragon was.

[Svetoslav]

Respectfully, I disagree.

There was nothing promising about either Red Dragon or Lunar Dragon.

Red Dragon was always going to be a platform kit-bashed to do unmanned landings on Mars. From day 1 of the Red Dragon proposal it was clear that it would take a different spacecraft to actually land humans on Mars. As such, Red Dragon was mostly a distraction, courtesy of SpaceX involvement in the Commercial Crew Program. At best it would have replicated science that has already been done on Mars by NASA.

That's just flatly wrong. And it's a perfect example of why such apologetics won't work. Initially it wasn't about BFR. BFR as a plan was embraced by Musk only after Dragon 2 was gutted so much during development, especially during the CCDev program, that it was abandoned. But initially it was Dragon advertised as the interplanetary spacecraft, outfitted with retro-rockets and capable of landing on any planetary bodies.

Now, when NASA oversees the crew vehicle development, we have a Dragon that serves the purpose of NASA, but no longer serves the dream of SpaceX. So Musk is pursuing his dream in the form of BFR.

Musk said the development of BFR is moving along quickly. Well, I don't believe it. What they have shown to us is an engine (a working one, indeed), and a powerpoint rocket.

Well, they can't build that powerpoint rocket without NASA and public funds. Just can't. They succeeded in building Falcon Heavy, but in order to cut costs, they are using two flight-proven boosters.

It won't work again with BFR, which is a brand new rocket.

[mlindner]

Respectfully, I disagree.

There was nothing promising about either Red Dragon or Lunar Dragon.

Red Dragon was always going to be a platform kit-bashed to do unmanned landings on Mars. From day 1 of the Red Dragon proposal it was clear that it would take a different spacecraft to actually land humans on Mars. As such, Red Dragon was mostly a distraction, courtesy of SpaceX involvement in the Commercial Crew Program. At best it would have replicated science that has already been done on Mars by NASA.

That's just flatly wrong. And it's a perfect example of why such apologetics won't work. Initially it wasn't about BFR. BFR as a plan was embraced by Musk only after Dragon 2 was gutted so much during development, especially during the CCDev program, that it was abandoned. But initially it was Dragon advertised as the interplanetary spacecraft, outfitted with retro-rockets and capable of landing on any planetary bodies.

Now, when NASA oversees the crew vehicle development, we have a Dragon that serves the purpose of NASA, but no longer serves the dream of SpaceX. So Musk is pursuing his dream in the form of BFR.

Musk said the development of BFR is moving along quickly. Well, I don't believe it. What they have shown to us is an engine (a working one, indeed), and a powerpoint rocket.

Well, they can't build that powerpoint rocket without NASA and public funds. Just can't. They succeeded in building Falcon Heavy, but in order to cut costs, they are using two flight-proven boosters.

It won't work again with BFR, which is a brand new rocket.

I've heard this rhetoric before many times with SpaceX. Saying something is difficult or unlikely is one thing, but making blanket claims like "can't" or "won't work" has been proven again and again and again to hold no bearing for SpaceX. You'll end up on the wrong side a history, like many a pessimistic poster has done on this forum.

The first stages in rocket design is physics simulation and aerodynamic modeling via supercomputer with occasional testing to back up modeling. Vehicle profile aerodynamic modeling is very robust. The difficult bits are the engines and tank materials design. A lot of this testing will be done in simulation. They're already securing manufacturing facilities. You don't do that for a powerpoint rocket.

[M.E.T.]

Respectfully, I disagree.

There was nothing promising about either Red Dragon or Lunar Dragon.

Red Dragon was always going to be a platform kit-bashed to do unmanned landings on Mars. From day 1 of the Red Dragon proposal it was clear that it would take a different spacecraft to actually land humans on Mars. As such, Red Dragon was mostly a distraction, courtesy of SpaceX involvement in the Commercial Crew Program. At best it would have replicated science that has already been done on Mars by NASA.

That's just flatly wrong. And it's a perfect example of why such apologetics won't work. Initially it wasn't about BFR. BFR as a plan was embraced by Musk only after Dragon 2 was gutted so much during development, especially during the CCDev program, that it was abandoned. But initially it was Dragon advertised as the interplanetary spacecraft, outfitted with retro-rockets and capable of landing on any planetary bodies.

Now, when NASA oversees the crew vehicle development, we have a Dragon that serves the purpose of NASA, but no longer serves the dream of SpaceX. So Musk is pursuing his dream in the form of BFR.

Musk said the development of BFR is moving along quickly. Well, I don't believe it. What they have shown to us is an engine (a working one, indeed), and a powerpoint rocket.

Well, they can't build that powerpoint rocket without NASA and public funds. Just can't. They succeeded in building Falcon Heavy, but in order to cut costs, they are using two flight-proven boosters.

It won't work again with BFR, which is a brand new rocket.

BFR was unveiled in 2016. That was before Red Dragon was cancelled. The scaled down BFR was presented in September 2017, as a more affordable alternative.

Red Dragon was always a mere precursor to BFR. Now they are just skipping that step.

[Proponent]

On the other side, the question : "What market could BFR have?" should be paraphrased as : "What market could BFR have BESIDES human spaceflight and beyond-LEO missions?"

If the answer is "nothing", and the answer for Falcon Heavy is also "nothing", I dare say: use the rocket which already exists.

According to Musk, the purpose of the 6-hour coast for the demo is to demonstrate to DoD FH's ability to perform direct injection to GEO, so that's one market. Another is anything that flies on D4H (with the possible exception of very-high-energy missions?). Those are small markets, but since FH has so much in common with F9, it may well be enough to make FH viable, even if it's large capacity and relatively low cost don't engender additional uses.

[Svetoslav]

If you want to go to Mars, there's a step which is unwise to be skipped. I'm talking, of course, about the Moon.

[speedevil]

If you want to go to Mars, there's a step which is unwise to be skipped. I'm talking, of course, about the Moon.

Indeed.
Moon, Methone, Mercury, Mars.
Only makes sense.

[rockets4life97]

This isn't a BFR thread...

The mistake people make is comparing BFR development to FH instead of to F9. F9 is SpaceX's current workhorse. BFR is SpaceX's next workhorse. It is hard to say that F9 was 5 years late. I do expect BFR to fly in the early 2020s. I'm way more confident in BFR flying than the SLS full stack ever flying.

[Svetoslav]

rockets4life97 may be right.

I'm asking once again: Will there be a market for BFR rocket? Who will buy it?

[mme]

If you want to go to Mars, there's a step which is unwise to be skipped. I'm talking, of course, about the Moon.

I'm not sold on that necessity (other than cislunar shakedown missions.) But even if it's wise to go to the Moon first, going there with the BFS is more relevant than going with FH and Crew Dragon.

This isn't a BFR thread...

The mistake people make is comparing BFR development to FH instead of to F9. F9 is SpaceX's current workhorse. BFR is SpaceX's next workhorse. It is hard to say that F9 was 5 years late. I do expect BFR to fly in the early 2020s. I'm way more confident in BFR flying than the SLS full stack ever flying.

This is the crewed cislunar thread. I think the current plan is now to do it with BFR (maybe with the original customers even, but definitely for shakedown flights.) Supposedly (ignoring development cost) it will be relatively cheap to launch.

[rockets4life97]

I'm asking once again: Will there be a market for BFR rocket? Who will buy it?

Commercial and government satellite customers who buy F9 and FH currently, including SpaceX's Starlink constellation. Remember BFR can do all those flights fully reusable and half an order of magnitude cheaper than F9/FH.

Everything else after that (missions to the rest of the solar system, point-to-point travel) is gravy.

[Svetoslav]

Apparently I skipped to learn the part about BFR reusability. Let's see what's going to happen. But for now, the focus of this evening is Falcon Heavy.

[mme]

rockets4life97 may be right.

I'm asking once again: Will there be a market for BFR rocket? Who will buy it?

Starlink for one.  USG for their "Back to the Moon, no Mars, no an asteroid but call it Mars, no I mean the Moon" missions.  It looks like it'll have VI so the USG for missions that require a heavy and VI.

If the fuel cost is less than the cost of a second stage and assorted recovery operations that's all that matters.

No idea if it'll happen but it doesn't seem impossible.