SpaceX Crewed Dragon Circumlunar Mission

[maitri982]

Any guesses as to whether or not the falcon heavy used for this launch will support flight proven boosters?

[Comga]

We can go back and forth forever on SLS, NASA's budget and those who set it, SpaceX's relationship with NASA, [/size]etc, but....

How will SpaceX recover the crew from the mission around the moon?

There are at least four possibilities:
1) Proven parachute landing in the ocean
2) SpaceX's undemonstrated propulsive landing on the Super Dracos
3) Soyuz style propulsively assisted parachute landing in the dessert. 
4) A drogue only descent with propulsive assist (not mentioned anywhere else that I know of.)

There could be significant dispersion in the location of a splash-down.  SpaceX will have to develop an water recovery operation adequate for crew recovery for Commercial Crew, if NASA doesn't change its demand, but they won't have enough assets to cover a large part of the ocean.  Option 1 seems unlikely.

Option 2 seems pretty far out there.  Almost everything will have been proven, including Falcon Heavy, but not propulsive landing.

Option 3 is my best guess.  There is lots of area in the American southwest, and if the Dragon comes down 100 km off course, it's not likely to be a big problem.  It was, IIRC, the landing method SpaceX wanted to use for Commercial Crew at the beginning, so they have already planed for it.  They used to have plans to demonstrate this from a helicopter drop.

Option 4 is my favorite, with option 3 as a backup.  However, the strongest advantage of option 4 is that there would be much less drift under the parachutes, but that won't be the biggest source of landing point error when returning from the moon.

[Jim]

Which now really puts it out there - what is NASA (or anyone else) doing developing expendables?  And is there any place for them in a reusable market that has SpaceX, and at some point BO?

The reusable market has yet to exist.

[kraisee]

How can anyone, other than a member of congress, support SLS and Orion at their costs? 

Its the same old two edged sword that we faced on DIRECT.

SLS has become a money pit of a program, but the decision makers for that program are exactly the same ones who are the core supporters of NASA within Congress, and they are the only line of defense against the other members of Congress who would prefer to gut the whole agency budget for other programs of their choice.

Don't forget that NASA's top line budget is also set by these same people (think: which leading appropriator represents NASA rocket design center in Alabama?   Always follow the money).

Then we must also remember that these same people are chosen by the electorate in their own states specifically to look out for the interests of the people in that state.   So it isn't much of a surprise that they push programs that create jobs in those districts.   That's their actual job.

So, the choice sadly comes down to supporting the expensive SLS program and the rest of NASA in tow, or remove the core political support for the agency and see the whole of NASA's budget gutted - and that would include gutting SpaceX's contracts and the science budget too.

You don't have to like it - I don't - but the choice comes down to putting up with SLS, or cutting everyone's budget.   Pinching my nose, I'll continue to 'support' SLS.

Ross.

You could find substitute government projects: Mars habitats and a lander come to mind. It's not like we are on the verge of running out of things to spend on for Mars exploration or colonization.

Yes, that was what we tried to promote back in the day.

The blockage we hit was that particularly Sen. Shelby had a strangle hold of this one big program that was very lucrative for his district, and he had enough power on appropriations committee to keep it.

Any split of that money into other elements like propellant depots, landers and habs would have meant the NASA would be obligated to share the budget resources with some of the other centers (JSC, KSC etc) and that would have made Alabama/Marshall's pie slice smaller.   That's why he wanted one huge rocket development program as the centerpiece of the NASA HSF budget.

I have seen nothing in recent years to indicate this situation has changed.

SpaceX might yet tip the balance - they certainly have the best chance to do so - but they will need a few more years to change the political momentum that underpins the whole agency.

And I'm not trying to bash SpaceX at all, but the truth is that their two recent accidents don't work in their favour in the question of whether they can replace the big NASA program.   They just don't yet seem ready to take on the mantle of Flagship NASA Human Space Flight Program of Record.   They can get there, but first they are going to need to demonstrate they are reliable.   20 to 30 totally successful missions would demonstrate that their recent accidents are definitely not part of a larger trend, were actually aberrations, and that they can indeed be heavily relied upon by the US Government and Taxpayer.

Similarly, because each mission costs so much, if SLS screws the pooch on any of its early flights, all their bets are off there too.   This whole question could still swing either way.

But the single biggest factor, I believe, is just who is lined-up to replace the 82 year old Shelby pro-NASA powerhouse on the Senate appropriations committee whenever he retires?   That choice will dictate years of NASA's future top-line budget hopes *FAR* more than anything else will.

Ross.

[meekGee]

How can anyone, other than a member of congress, support SLS and Orion at their costs? 

Its the same old two edged sword that we faced on DIRECT.

SLS has become a money pit of a program, but the decision makers for that program are exactly the same ones who are the core supporters of NASA within Congress, and they are the only line of defense against the other members of Congress who would prefer to gut the whole agency budget for other programs of their choice.

Don't forget that NASA's top line budget is also set by these same people (think: which leading appropriator represents NASA rocket design center in Alabama?   Always follow the money).

Then we must also remember that these same people are chosen by the electorate in their own states specifically to look out for the interests of the people in that state.   So it isn't much of a surprise that they push programs that create jobs in those districts.   That's their actual job.

So, the choice sadly comes down to supporting the expensive SLS program and the rest of NASA in tow, or remove the core political support for the agency and see the whole of NASA's budget gutted - and that would include gutting SpaceX's contracts and the science budget too.

You don't have to like it - I don't - but the choice comes down to putting up with SLS, or cutting everyone's budget.   Pinching my nose, I'll continue to 'support' SLS.

Ross.

You could find substitute government projects: Mars habitats and a lander come to mind. It's not like we are on the verge of running out of things to spend on for Mars exploration or colonization.

Yes, that was what we tried to promote back in the day.

The blockage we hit was that particularly Sen. Shelby had a strangle hold of this one big program that was very lucrative for his district, and he had enough power on appropriations committee to keep it.

Any split of that money into other elements like propellant depots, landers and habs would have meant the NASA would be obligated to share the budget resources with some of the other centers (JSC, KSC etc) and that would have made Alabama/Marshall's pie slice smaller.   That's why he wanted one huge rocket development program as the centerpiece of the NASA HSF budget.

I have seen nothing in recent years to indicate this situation has changed.

SpaceX might yet tip the balance - they certainly have the best chance to do so - but they will need a few more years to change the political momentum that underpins the whole agency.

And I'm not trying to bash SpaceX at all, but the truth is that their two recent accidents don't work in their favour in the question of whether they can replace the big NASA program.   They just don't yet seem ready to take on the mantle of Flagship NASA Human Space Flight Program of Record.   They can get there, but first they are going to need to demonstrate they are reliable.   20 to 30 totally successful missions would demonstrate that their recent accidents are definitely not part of a larger trend, were actually aberrations, and that they can indeed be heavily relied upon by the US Government and Taxpayer.

Similarly, because each mission costs so much, if SLS screws the pooch on any of its early flights, all their bets are off there too.   This whole question could still swing either way.

But the single biggest factor, I believe, is just who is lined-up to replace the 82 year old Shelby pro-NASA powerhouse on the Senate appropriations committee whenever he retires?   That choice will dictate years of NASA's future top-line budget hopes *FAR* more than anything else will.

Ross.

That's a very good analysis IMO.

SpaceX is not quite ready, agreed, but most of us are talking in terms of "reasonable trajectories": "If everything goes reasonably OK for all players".

Failures for any of the players can change or delay the outcome of course. (And already have)

Shelby, formidable as he is, is just a symptom of the way the system is structured.  If it wasn't him, it'd have been someone else. No shortage of his type in politics.

[kraisee]

...
You don't have to like it - I don't - but the choice comes down to putting up with SLS, or cutting everyone's budget.   Pinching my nose, I'll continue to 'support' SLS.

Ross.

I've heard that claim before.  I have yet to see any convincing evidence that it's true.

I certainly think it is wise to be healthily skeptical of any information you get regarding political motives - on all subjects.   But this is what I believe, based on doing my time in the wringer.

This viewpoint was formed by my experience, and that of Chuck, Steve and our team, based on ~7 years of fighting for a major program change between 2005 and 2011.

We walked a lot of the halls of power in DC.   We had so many meetings with Senators and Congressmen, and their various staff members in the Russel, Hart and Rayburn buildings, OMB, West Wing, E Street etc.   We also met a variety of company Exec's and even a few lobbyists.   Gads, how many lunches did we have in Union Station?!?

If you're trying to make a real difference, believing your own thing only gets you so far.   We had our heads collectively stuck in the sand for the first few years, but to really change things you have to learn what's really going on, who wants what - and why.   It took us about three years to finally figure out the real motives for all of the big NASA players in DC.   Thanks to a handful of people willing to really teach us the ropes, we actually got under the skin of the whole NASA-related political landscape there, and what I said above remains what I believe today.

Personally, the whole political environment was never comfortable for me.   I got out of that world in 2011 and don't miss it for one second.   But it sure was an eye opening experience.   Perhaps more people should push a cause the way we did, because it teaches you the difference between how you think the government runs, how you wish the government were run, and the reality of how it actually does.

Ross.

[meekGee]

Which now really puts it out there - what is NASA (or anyone else) doing developing expendables?  And is there any place for them in a reusable market that has SpaceX, and at some point BO?

The reusable market has yet to exist.

The funny part is that it already does, even before the first reused rocket flies.

This is because customers estimate that the most likely future course is that SpaceX will have a low cost highly reusable system soon.

Anyone who's job requires to look forward and determine how to position their company, can't afford to wait till after this has become a done deal, or else they'll be too late.

You may not be seeing signs of it, but I believe that in the last year, this perception has gone from being "fringe" to being the common wisdom.

[Coastal Ron]

This viewpoint was formed by my experience, and that of Chuck, Steve and our team, based on ~7 years of fighting for a major program change between 2005 and 2011.

I first became active on space blogs because of DIRECT, so I salute you for your efforts.  It's not easy pushing a boulder up a hill you can't see the top of, and all you have is the faith that it's the right thing to do.

Ultimately though I learned about the cost of the Shuttle system, and I eventually came to the conclusion that government systems that relied on using Shuttle technology were not going to result in affordable transportation systems.

Even if you ignore the cost challenges the SLS has, it's very apparent that the U.S. Government doesn't have a need to move enough mass to space that merits owning and operating it's own unique transportation system.  And that is the real program killer here, since every year it just becomes more and more apparent that there is nothing for the SLS and Orion to support.

We already know what the future is, since the USAF stopped depending on NASA for rides to space after the Challenger accident, and NASA has already committed to using the private sector for supporting the ISS.

If anything this SpaceX Moon trip is just the confirmation that our private sector is truly up to taking over the task of space transportation from NASA.  NASA knows that, so it's just a matter of how long it will take the politicians to finally admit to it...

[gospacex]

If you're trying to make a real difference, believing your own thing only gets you so far.   We had our heads collectively stuck in the sand for the first few years, but to really change things you have to learn what's really going on, who wants what - and why.   It took us about three years to finally figure out the real motives for all of the big NASA players in DC.

With healthy dose of cynicism and common sense, you do not need "few years" to figure these things out. Just assume that everyone acts in his own interests (even if this hurts overall society) - and you'll have a rather accurate first approximation of what's going on.

[jongoff]

So this might deserve its own thread, but I got thinking about the whole "how could you build on this to get to lunar landings" question, and came up with a first-pass concept that basically closes (technically--the politics of making it happen require a wee bit of willful suspension of disbelief): http://selenianboondocks.com/2017/02/random-thoughts-first-pass-analysis-of-a-white-dragonxeus-lunar-sortie-mission/

Basically, a two-launch, joint ULA/SpaceX mission. Falcon Heavy launches Dragon V2 and a tanker module. ULA launches a Vulcan/ACES 546 with the ACES having a Xeus landing kit and a crew cabin module. The two stacks rendezvous and swap propellant between the tanker and the ACES stage. Dragon then discards the tanker, and attaches to the now fully-refueled Xeus stack. Xeus does the TLI burn, the LOI burn, and then the crew enters the crew cabin and leaves the Dragon in LLO. Xeus and crew cabin descend to the surface, the astronauts/tourists get out and do their thing for a day or two, then Xeus takes off with the crew cabin and returns to LLO. Dragon mates back up, and Xeus does the homeward burn.

Without doing anything clever, the concept barely closes with a tiny bit of margin. But there are several clever things you could do that might even allow you to have enough margin to make the mission really work, while recovering the Xeus/crew cabin in LEO for refueling and subsequent missions.

I'm suggesting a ULA/SpaceX mission because I really think that a) SpaceX doesn't care about the Moon (White Dragon is an exception since they don't have to really do much new development to start tapping a new market), and b) ULA/Masten are better positioned for a *lunar* lander, and they actually want to develop one--assuming they can find the development funding.

I don't even want to know how many people you'd have to get seriously drunk to get SpaceX and ULA singing kumbaya, and Boeing and LM giving ULA their blessing to openly compete with SLS/Orion. But the concept comes close enough to working that it's at least an intriguing technical thought.

~Jon

[avollhar]

A short reminder on orbital mechanics:
without any crazy slingshot maneuvers at the moon or large course corrections, the orbital periods (Earth-apogee-Earth) are as follows for different apogee heights

384000 km  =  9.7 days
500000 km = 14.4 days
640000 km = 20.9 days

[corneliussulla]

It appears to me the likely scenario here is that Musk is looking at all ways to increase SpaceX income so he can afford ITS development. Along come a couple guys willing to pay $80 mill each lets say to live out a dream. Musk thinks if I could sell a mission like this twice a year I would have $120 mill (guesstimate) a year to get things moving on ITS. This is probably worth delaying the red dragon programme

He knows this will have political implications for NASA and SLS. He privately probably thinks SLS is a load of nonsense but doesn't want to embarrass NASA so he lets the administration know what he is up to. This sets alarm bells off at NASA and they come up with daft idea of first mission of SLS being manned ( meanwhile falcon design must be frozen and flown 7 times) and maybe ask Musk to delay announcement until they announce There moon mission which he did.

It's hard to know the exact events but Elon needs cash to get ITS done and he is not a guy who will wait around for NASA/ congress to change its mind on SLS. Once falcon is frozen and dragon certified he might be able to spend all surplus from satellite launch and ISS servicing missions on ITS development. Lets say that $200 mill a year plus moon tourists at $100 mill a year. Budget for ITS could be $3 billion over 10 years to 2028. Things are not static of course but hard to see that budget being enough to develop ITS when a Nimitz class carrier costs $13 bill and they already have the plans.

Elon is going to have to come up with some more ideas or get administration and NASA fired up about his vision of Mars to get An ITS on Mars by end of 2020ies, maybe his other ventures will start throwing shed loads of cash in coming years because he probably needs between 4 to 10 times the resources Available from spacex to get this job done.

[Bynaus]

A short reminder on orbital mechanics:
without any crazy slingshot maneuvers at the moon or large course corrections, the orbital periods (Earth-apogee-Earth) are as follows for different apogee heights

384000 km  =  9.7 days
500000 km = 14.4 days
640000 km = 20.9 days

I actually start to think that Elon mixed up miles and km in the telecon. So then it would be 400'000 km, not miles - approximately the distance of the Moon.

Also, orbital periods with an apogee at the Moon are not a good approximation for the duration of a free return flight. Take Apollo 13, which lasted just short of 6 days.

[ringsider]

It wouldn't surprise me if one of them might be James Cameron, don't forget the guy is an adventurer and billionaire.

One of them might be Musk?

[Archibald]

It appears to me the likely scenario here is that Musk is looking at all ways to increase SpaceX income so he can afford ITS development. Along come a couple guys willing to pay $80 mill each lets say to live out a dream. Musk thinks if I could sell a mission like this twice a year I would have $120 mill (guesstimate) a year to get things moving on ITS. This is probably worth delaying the red dragon programme

He knows this will have political implications for NASA and SLS. He privately probably thinks SLS is a load of nonsense but doesn't want to embarrass NASA so he lets the administration know what he is up to. This sets alarm bells off at NASA and they come up with daft idea of first mission of SLS being manned ( meanwhile falcon design must be frozen and flown 7 times) and maybe ask Musk to delay announcement until they announce There moon mission which he did.

It's hard to know the exact events but Elon needs cash to get ITS done and he is not a guy who will wait around for NASA/ congress to change its mind on SLS. Once falcon is frozen and dragon certified he might be able to spend all surplus from satellite launch and ISS servicing missions on ITS development. Lets say that $200 mill a year plus moon tourists at $100 mill a year. Budget for ITS could be $3 billion over 10 years to 2028. Things are not static of course but hard to see that budget being enough to develop ITS when a Nimitz class carrier costs $13 bill and they already have the plans.

Elon is going to have to come up with some more ideas or get administration and NASA fired up about his vision of Mars to get An ITS on Mars by end of 2020ies, maybe his other ventures will start throwing shed loads of cash in coming years because he probably needs between 4 to 10 times the resources Available from spacex to get this job done.

When you think about it, everything Musk done since 2001 (post- PayPal era) is geared to support Mars colonization someday.

- Solar city = large solar arrays on Mars since Mars Direct nuclear pile is politically unacceptable

- Tesla: electric Mars rovers, obviously

- reusable rocket / capsules: Mars landers

- Space internet, lunar tourists, NASA-COTS-CCDEV, military sats, competition with Arianespace: funding, funding, more funding.

It is a two-prongue attack on Mars colonization: on one side, technology readiness, on the other, massive funding and dollars. Both developments are to work together and converge on Mars within the next decade.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Evil Dragon?

That would be the one that Elon spoke about during a NASA TV interview with the 'Lay-zors'.

[Oersted]

When you think about it, everything Musk done since 2001 (post- PayPal era) is geared to support Mars colonization someday.

- Solar city = large solar arrays on Mars since Mars Direct nuclear pile is politically unacceptable

- Tesla: electric Mars rovers, obviously

- reusable rocket / capsules: Mars landers

- Space internet, lunar tourists, NASA-COTS-CCDEV, military sats, competition with Arianespace: funding, funding, more funding.

It is a two-prongue attack on Mars colonization: on one side, technology readiness, on the other, massive funding and dollars. Both developments are to work together and converge on Mars within the next decade.

His Boring Company project as well. He obviously realised that tunnelling is our best bet for creating a Mars base. When tunnelling the 'building materials' are already there, and with well-functioning machinery there is practically no limit to the size of the base. He must have been reading the 'Amazing habitats'-thread...  :-)

[JamesH65]

I dunno. There are some pretty smart people out there - you generally don't acquire large amounts of cash without some level of intelligence (unless you inherit it - Trump?). Did the training the Apollo guys get enable them to duct tape containers together? Or is that something any intelligent person could do. Of course, there are lots of switches in Apollo to learn - that's not the case in Dragon where everything is automated, or computer controlled.

Well, it's not about duct taping things, it's more about not panicking and keeping focus on the situation.
As a D-day veteran put it: 'Training is what makes you do the correct things when people are shooting at you'

That sort of training is not limited to astronauts.

[JamesH65]

Please stop calling them tourists. They are not. I'd call them adventurers, explorers, something like that. Not tourists. They are not going to turn up and go, like a tourist would.

They could very well just turn up and go. A turnip could do it. With a food and water dispenser a dog or chimp could do this. They are TOURISTS.

Matthew

Just like....astronauts in the same seat?

These are completely automated craft. Anyone in them in a turnip, whether they pay for the trip or not. So you are clearly saying that astronauts are turnips, just along for the ride.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I've said this before but I'll say it again. I'd personally want at least one pilot/engineer along for the ride.

A lot can happen in seven days and I'd prefer to have someone who is able to manually execute course-correction burns and steer the thing through re-entry if the computers become balky or an error in the FHUS sends them on an unexpected and marginal trajectory (steeper re-entry corridor, for example). Then there is the issue of correct training to fix any fixable problems.