SpaceX Crewed Dragon Circumlunar Mission

[Coastal Ron]

Lots of talk about risks, and no doubt they are all valid.

We should all keep in mind though that the two individuals that are paying for this trip would know the story of Apollo 13, and would be aware that there would be no equal level of potential support (i.e. no lunar module for instance as a refuge) in case something went wrong.  They are going into this with their eyes wide open.

So are they expecting a true tourist flight, where everything has been proven?  No.

These individuals, whoever they are, are willing to take substantial risks in order to do something that will go down in the history books - either because they were a success, or a failure.

SpaceX knows this too.  It's a risk for them, especially since even though this effort is not related to what they plan to do regarding Mars, it will be connected in the mind of the public.

So really the question should be whether we should be encouraging and supporting assumed risk?  There are many sports we enjoy where the likelihood of death and injury is part of the "excitement", so how is this any different?  It's not.  It's just new, and in a new realm that previously was reserved for governments and science.

If the goal is to expand humanity out into space, and I would argue that is the only reason to have a government human spaceflight program, then this type of activity is important.  Does it check all the boxes for all the activities everyone wants?  No, but then again we're not paying for it - private citizens are.

And isn't that the real reason we should be cheering for this to succeed?

My $0.02

[meekGee]

I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.

So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.

Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.

The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.

Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.

In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....

If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!

But there is context.  This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi. 

I don't like their Mars plans either.  They're focued on colinization  which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program.  We're on about step three.

So you don't like the Mars plan since it is too far-reaching, and you don't like this plan since it is too near sighted.

Hard man to please.

What is it that you want them to aim at?

Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.

Not tourism and colonization.

What is more interplanetary than ITS?

Do you really think it'll only fly to Mars?

No 6-month trips to NEOs? That's something NASA should be doing - using ITS for exactly what you want.

But ITS will only come into being in the context of a Mars colonization plan.  It sure as hell didn't come into being as an evolution of planetary probes or ISS LEO flights.

[jimvela]

Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.

Not tourism and colonization.

This isn't a zero-sum game, despite what some people assert. 
Having paying customers fund development accelerates everything, which can be an enabler for more exploration and science.

In the not too terribly distant past, I was on vacation at my houseboat at lake Powell.   We came across a lady walking along the docks gossiping on an early iridium phone. One of my good friends and colleagues was utterly disgusted with this.  His initial reaction was complete horror- how could someone "misuse" something as grand as a satellite network for something as repugnant (to him) as gossip?

The answer shocked him- "That's what we build this stuff for- so everyone that can afford it uses it, letting us have more capability to do those things that *you* want to do."

Keep the faith, bud- there's room in this game to do science, exploration, and any matter of goofing off.  This isn't a bad thing, its a really, really good next step.

[mme]

I'm honestly very surprised at the level of risk-aversion and negativity to this idea.

The idea of sending tourists beyond LEO on a very early FH mission is not wise.

First off, sending anyone with no prior spaceflight experience on a prolonged mission where there is no possibility of early return is perilous. If the crew were all experienced, that would be "safer".

Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.

Third, FH with its 27 engines needs to be fully tested before putting crew on it, and ultimately tourists.

One mitigation approach that I happen to really like (for obvious reasons) is to fly a tourist mission to ISS, and then have the Dragon rendezvous and dock with an upper stage orbited by a FH. The additional performance from this approach may allow the Dragon to contain enough prop to enter and leave lunar orbit.

SpaceX stated:

Once operational Crew Dragon missions are underway for NASA, SpaceX will launch the private mission on a journey to circumnavigate the moon and return to Earth.

This mission is gated by operational crew missions to the ISS. So the Dragon 2 will have had an in flight abort and at least 3 orbital flights at that point, two of those with crew. You can argue it will lack BEO experience if you assume that the crewed cislunar flight is the first time Dragon is sent cislunar.  But I think it's hard to argue the Dragon 2 will be untested at that time.

[Proponent]

Exactly what are the hard facts that we have about SpaceX's announcement?  Is a recording of the phone conference available anywhere?

For the most part, I'm going on this article in Florida Today:

* Launch from LC-39A (obviously);
* 2 people;
* 300,000-400,000 miles, i.e., 480,000-640,000 km (presumably, distance from Earth);
* Those aboard will travel "will travel faster and farther into the solar system than any before them";
* Week-long trip;
* Not a one-time thing

To aid in speculation about flight paths, I attach a figure from the paper attached to this post, which shows flight times as a function of periselenum radius (recall that that moon's equatorial radius is about 1738 km) for in-plane free-return trajectories.  I'm sure it's the circum-lunar curve for co-rotating injection (SpaceX can't launch West from LC-39A!) that applies: the "cis-lunar" trajectories are those that pass in front of the moon rather than behind it, even though their apogees lie beyond the moon's orbit.

[DnA915]

So stupid curiosity time:
Do the buyers of this trip get to keep the Dragon 2 that they fly in? I can't tell you how amazing it would be to me to have a Dragon capsule in my Great room. When people come over I can casually mention that "Oh yeah, the wife and I flew around the moon on that last year"

[jpo234]

It will probably look like this:

wonderful. Could you explain the graphic? Does each step of the animation represent a constant time? If so, how much? The lunar fly by will be extremely quick compared to the whole trip, I knew that, but I did not know it would be *that* small, just 3-4 hours maybe?

What program did you use for that, do you have the source code? Thank you

Sorry, I can't take credit for this. It's from Circumlunar Free Return Trajectory by Robert A. Braeunig . I will modify the original post to make sure that this is correctly credited.

[rsdavis9]

It will probably look like this:

wonderful. Could you explain the graphic? Does each step of the animation represent a constant time? If so, how much? The lunar fly by will be extremely quick compared to the whole trip, I knew that, but I did not know it would be *that* small, just 3-4 hours maybe?

What program did you use for that, do you have the source code? Thank you

Sorry, I can't take credit for this. It's from Circumlunar Free Return Trajectory by Robert A. Braeunig . I will modify the original post to make sure that this is correctly credited.

The only thing the animation is missing is probable couple of LEO orbits before TLI to check out equipment.

[virnin]

Sorry, can't support your crowd funding for your trip around the Moon. Still working on getting mine started!

Pretty sure PowerBall is my only option!  And no, that is NOT my retirement plan too.

[bad_astra]

Secondly, Dragon 2 will not be fully tested in 2018, there will be flight modes yet undiscovered that could cause problems.

So why is NASA not requiring more test flights before allowing crew on board?

What NASA is planning to do is a topic for another thread.  Remember, it is the same NASA that put live crew on the first shuttle.

And it worked. And NASA got things done, back then.


The problem with spaceflight is not that we run the risk of losing lives. This sounds crass but we should have lost MANY more by now.

Dragon 2 will have had a test flight by then. So will Falcon Heavy. The life support for this mission need be no more complicated than a minisub with extra fans. We're talking about two people in a capsule built for 7.

[jpo234]

It will probably look like this:

wonderful. Could you explain the graphic? Does each step of the animation represent a constant time? If so, how much? The lunar fly by will be extremely quick compared to the whole trip, I knew that, but I did not know it would be *that* small, just 3-4 hours maybe?

What program did you use for that, do you have the source code? Thank you

Sorry, I can't take credit for this. It's from Circumlunar Free Return Trajectory by Robert A. Braeunig . I will modify the original post to make sure that this is correctly credited.

The only thing the animation is missing is probable couple of LEO orbits before TLI to check out equipment.

Translunar Injection, or TLI, is a propulsive maneuver used to set a spacecraft on a trajectory that will arrive at the Moon. Prior to TLI the spacecraft is in a low circular parking orbit around Earth. In this example, we have assumed a parking orbit altitude of 185 kilometers and a TLI delta-v of 3,150 m/s.

So, the LEO orbits are there, just not part of the simulation.

[Lee Jay]

What is more interplanetary than ITS?

What I described in the link posted upthread.

Do you really think it'll only fly to Mars?

I really think it won't fly at all.  At least, not in any configuration even remotely like the video they provided.

[philw1776]

I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.

So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.

Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.

The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.

Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.

In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....

If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!

But there is context.  This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi. 

I don't like their Mars plans either.  They're focued on colinization  which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program.  We're on about step three.

So you don't like the Mars plan since it is too far-reaching, and you don't like this plan since it is too near sighted.

Hard man to please.

What is it that you want them to aim at?

Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.

Not tourism and colonization.

Your goals are congruent with much of what NASA aims for and does and ESA.  They're doing well from my view.

If that does not suffice "Be Like Musk" and start your own spaceflight company embracing your goals.

Musk is spending his daily life and personal wealth to achieve his dream, not yours.

[Rocket Science]

Put Dragon under a fairing on FH and get two tests for the price of one...

[manoweb]

Sorry, I can't take credit for this.

Oh wait I was not asking about credits, just if you had a model that was possible to tweak. However the page you linked specifies each time slot is four hours. So it seems correct to think the lunar fly by will only last about 4 hours, taking only one slot of the total 38 that I counted in the animation (for a total of around 6 days)

[meberbs]

That trimmed portion is really, truly not relevant. It can be summarized as: SpaceX found that launching a Falcon Heavy is a bit more complicated than just strapping boosters together, which combined with the lack of reason to prioritize it (few launches, and other priorities) has led to it being pushed back a few years, with unrelated issues (launch failures) being major drivers of the most recent delays.

Let me prequote you from a few years from now:

"SpaceX found that flying beyond Earth orbit" was a bit more complicated than just pushing an object deeper into space".

Note that I am not saying that SpaceX won't do all sorts of great things in the future (fingers crossed), I am saying that this particular announcement is not likely to result in a flown mission anywhere close to 2018, or that the mission as announced is likely to morph into something else as time passes.

For Falcon Heavy they had to increase structural strength for the core, and build a pad capable of supporting it.

To send a spacecraft to the moon that was originally designed with BEO in mind, after said spacecraft has been tested in LEO they will have to....? without an explanation, you are just handwaving and spreading FUD.

Also, I don't think you understand how your post sounds to me (and presumably others), so let me paraphrase you:

Let me prequote you 2 and a half years from now: "They were six months late, how dare anyone consider this a success. This proves they can't do anything right"

Or preferably within a few posts from now: "I'm sorry for being rude, I'll stop spreading FUD now. Here is a timeline of probable events that shows how I think this mission will be delayed until (insert reasoned date, or an explanation of what this mission could morph to)." 

Edit: 1 and a half -> 2 and a half, because I can't do simple math

[dror]

Put Dragon under a fairing on FH and get two tests for the price of one...

Dragon in a fairing is not a good idea.  Too much one off work would have to be done

[jcliving]

I'm honestly very surprised at the level of risk-aversion and negativity to this idea.

I have no problem with the risk, worst case scenario we lose a couple of nonessential billionaires. SpaceX would most likely weather the storm.  Negativity is relative, more like dismay at turning a tool in to a toy.

Matthew

I agree with you.  The same billionaires could die free climbing a vertices face.  Climbing without a rope is dangerous.  As long as the customers truly understand the risk, I am fine with anything that happens.  People need to stop being a nanny to consenting adults!!

[Rocket Science]

Put Dragon under a fairing on FH and get two tests for the price of one...

Dragon in a fairing is not a good idea.  Too much one off work would have to be done

Thanks, I was playing "catch-up" and must have missed Jim's comment...

[jcliving]

I've been sick and out-of-the-loop the last couple of days, but reading this made me a bit depressed.

So I went back and started reading the thread from the beginning.

Looks like I'm not the only one, but pretty darned close.

The more I see of this sort of thing the more disenfranchised I feel about where spaceflight is actually heading versus where I'd like it to be heading.

Sure, I'll watch the mission carefully, and even be excited doing so (I'm a techno-geek), but this sort of thing - and SpaceX's Mars plans in general - are not where I'd like us to be going in spaceflight, especially human spaceflight.

In a way, I completely agree, and then in another way, disagree....

If there was no context to this, and all you'd be telling me is about a company that built the minimal infrastructure required to fly around the moon, for tourism purposes, I'd be with you - puke. Neil Armstrong, for this?!

But there is context.  This is a company focused on the real thing - beyond exploration even - actually forming a spacefaring civilization. Sacred words, pretty much, straight out of childhood's sci-fi. 

I don't like their Mars plans either.  They're focued on colinization  which is folly and about the fifteenth major step in a human Mars program.  We're on about step three.

So you don't like the Mars plan since it is too far-reaching, and you don't like this plan since it is too near sighted.

Hard man to please.

What is it that you want them to aim at?

Interplanetary spacecraft and scientific exploration.

Not tourism and colonization.

The problem is that only governments and very affluent companies can fund true science without a commercial return.  Tourism can be funded by the public.  Currently, it is limited to very affluent members of the public.  This mission will fund progress toward Red Dragon and other scientific mission accelerating projects.  Since it is not government funded, it is not an either or proposition.  You should be cheering them on with a silly grin on your face.