SpaceX Crewed Dragon Circumlunar Mission

[Tuts36]

SpaceX is a commercial enterprise, and rest assured that their decision to agree this mission is rooted in pragmatism, and survival.

There will come a day when NASA no longer requires cargo to be shipped to the ISS, because the ISS will be judged too old & decrepit to continue operating.  SpaceX is wise to explore ALL possible sources of future revenue, even if tourists / stunt missions are considered frivolous in some circles.

[Danderman]

Nothing wrong with space tourism, just don't expect SpaceX to be launching them to the Moon next year.

[Lee Jay]

It honestly never even crossed my mind that this group would be against planetary protection. Heck, it was even a major part of Star Trek.

[Robotbeat]

It honestly never even crossed my mind that this group would be against planetary protection. Heck, it was even a major part of Star Trek.

If understood by the most extreme position, it makes any crewed mission to the surface of Mars impossible. You really never thought that a bunch of space geeks wouldn't like that?

[jongoff]

SpaceX has been pretty explicit that they're not doing any of the "other stuff" for colonization. They figure if you can get people there the rest will follow.

Also, anyone mention Space Adventures on this thread yet? I saw some public information on Twitter that fits with what I've heard from them privately for years, so I guess their involvement is official now? Or still not quite?

I have heard rumors, but no solid confirmation. But it does make a lot of sense if they are involved.

~Jon

[Req]

It honestly never even crossed my mind that this group would be against planetary protection. Heck, it was even a major part of Star Trek.

If understood by the most extreme position, it makes any crewed mission to the surface of Mars impossible. You really never thought that a bunch of space geeks wouldn't like that?

Regardless of what any of us may think, you only need to take a look at our track record for respecting the macroscopic life that we know exists right here on Earth for cues as to how we will prioritize the bacteria and whatnot that may or may not exist on Mars once we have the capability to send humans there.  We destroy life that hasn't been characterized yet all the time, uncaring as to what scientific breakthroughs it may hold, as a matter of course, for nothing more than to clear land or sell wood.

[maitri982]

SpaceX has been pretty explicit that they're not doing any of the "other stuff" for colonization. They figure if you can get people there the rest will follow.

Really?  How do they plan to verify that Mars is likely devoid of existing life *after* they've already colonized it, and what would they do about NOT going there in the first place if indigenous life is found there later?

This sounds exactly like the discussions that go on in reviews for certain USG projects that I've done... people continually pointing out why things cannot be done (and sending the people actually doing work off on inane scavenger hunts) instead of working to figure out how to pool talents assembled to overcome the obstacles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection

"Planetary protection is a guiding principle in the design of an interplanetary mission, aiming to prevent biological contamination of both the target celestial body and the Earth in the case of sample-return missions. Planetary protection reflects both the unknown nature of the space environment and the desire of the scientific community to preserve the pristine nature of celestial bodies until they can be studied in detail."

So, when is this detailed studying going to be done sufficiently to lift planetary protection guidelines for Mars, who is going to do that studying, how will they do it, and how will we know that what they've done is sufficient?

Just like we have done with earth?

[DanielW]

It honestly never even crossed my mind that this group would be against planetary protection. Heck, it was even a major part of Star Trek.

If understood by the most extreme position, it makes any crewed mission to the surface of Mars impossible. You really never thought that a bunch of space geeks wouldn't like that?

Regardless of what any of us may think, you only need to take a look at our track record for respecting the macroscopic life that we know exists right here on Earth for cues as to how we will prioritize the bacteria and whatnot that may or may not exist on Mars once we have the capability to send humans there.

I honestly have no idea how to take that. We have both poachers and massive international efforts to save various species. Well maybe massive is not the right word but certainly earnest.

The way I look at it there isn't any potential life on Mars that is worth delaying colonization over. Not because any possible life is worthless, but because proving a negative is nigh on impossible and the effort needed to study and catalog the whole planet is going to take a colony to do anyway. If anything is found appropriate measures can be taken to see that it survives us.

I think I can guarantee, however, that this circumnavigation of the moon will in no way endanger any possible life forms on Mars.

[Lars-J]

It honestly never even crossed my mind that this group would be against planetary protection. Heck, it was even a major part of Star Trek.

First, a significant portion of star trek fans don't like the prime directive.

Planetary protection taken to an absurd degree is nothing I support. (i.e. we can never land on Mars until ... what?)

Reasonable planetary protection, however, is something else. If alien life is there, it needs to be protected and studied. Something best done be actual scientist on the ground. Odds are IMO decent that martian life - if present - would not be discovered until we actually have boots on the ground.

[Req]

I honestly have no idea how to take that. We have both poachers and massive international efforts to save various species. Well maybe massive is not the right word but certainly earnest.

This is basically my point by bringing up our track record.  These earnest efforts are more or less completely meaningless.  We're currently in the midst of a new mass extinction as a direct result of motivations that have historically far outweighed any mitigating factors, despite that fact that the likely consequences are known and shouted from on high constantly.  The mitigation crowd just isn't able to make a value proposition that outweighs that of the status quo.

[Lee Jay]

Planetary protection taken to an absurd degree is nothing I support. (i.e. we can never land on Mars until ... what?)

Until we learn enough to answer that question.

[Lee Jay]

This is basically my point by bringing up our track record.  These earnest efforts are more or less completely meaningless. 

Not true.  Many species formerly near extinction were saved with such efforts.  The most famous is the bald eagle, of course.

[Surfdaddy]

So, when is this detailed studying going to be done sufficiently to lift planetary protection guidelines for Mars, who is going to do that studying, how will they do it, and how will we know that what they've done is sufficient?

We will NEVER know for sure. The alternative is to never go.

[Comga]

SpaceX has been pretty explicit that they're not doing any of the "other stuff" for colonization. They figure if you can get people there the rest will follow.

Also, anyone mention Space Adventures on this thread yet? I saw some public information on Twitter that fits with what I've heard from them privately for years, so I guess their involvement is official now? Or still not quite?

Yes.  FutureSpaceTourist posted a tweet from Alan Boyle saying
".@SpaceAdventures has an intriguing comment on @SpaceX's circumlunar mission, saying it can't comment on its clients' plans prematurely." 
It seems to be trying to leave the impression that they have brokered the deal, or at least had some part in it.

[Coastal Ron]

Planetary protection taken to an absurd degree is nothing I support. (i.e. we can never land on Mars until ... what?)

Until we learn enough to answer that question.

I think the problem today is that we don't know what "enough" is.  A standard would help, but we're dealing with the first time that humans are trying to land on a planet with some semblance of an atmosphere.

There are places on Earth that we haven't yet explored, and we keep finding new forms of life, so is Mars off limits until we've surveyed every square inch, and down hundreds of feet?

Speaking of which, 12 humans spent time on our Moon, so I would imagine that we're not as concerned about extra-terrestrial contamination of airless locations in space?

[Comga]

"Having another customer for Dragon 2 besides CC is very important as a business."

I agree. There is a place where tourists could go in the near future, called "LEO". There is probably enough LEO tourism market to support SpaceX for a long time to come.

Agree.

However, and trust me on this, they are quite different categories of "customers", and the impact of this difference cannot be understated.

It puts certain countries into a bind. Like again take China - there are 4 I *personally know* that will easily do it, but the Chinese govt would want to have Chinese taikonauts on Chinese vehicles do it first.

Do you understand the strange situation this puts them into? And there are five other cases from other nationalities ... like this.

Extend this back to NASA.

Imagine it's one year from now, March 2018.  SpaceX has flow the Heavy, sent Dragon2 to the ISS robotically, performed the in-flight abort.  Maybe they fly a couple of cargo missions with D2.  However, NASA keeps pushing out the date for sending up the first crew to the ISS as they tweak the requirements and request more reviews and repetitions of previous tests.  (They's already had SpaceX add a fourth parachute and change from land to ocean landings.)

A scheduled flight around the moon would act somewhat as a limiter.  If NASA were to keep fussing with the plan, they risk having SpaceX fly the first "crewed" mission on their own. That would look pretty silly, being upstaged not just by Falcon Heavy vs SLS, but then with the commercial use of the NASA funded D2.  How will it look with great nations trailing a guy who started 15 years earlier with a couple of hundred million dollars?

edit: Hey guys, Aren't Mars and planetary protection a bit off-topic for a thread on a circumlunar mission?

[Lars-J]

Planetary protection taken to an absurd degree is nothing I support. (i.e. we can never land on Mars until ... what?)

Until we learn enough to answer that question.

Then we will never answer that question, because an argument could always be made that there is some kind of life that we have not yet detected, because we are looking in the wrong spot or looking for the wrong thing.

If that is what you mean, then you never want humans on Mars. Then you should just be honest and state it.

But this is going waaay off topic, this was about a lunar flyby, not a Mars landing/colonization. I'm happy to argue this elsewhere, if a better thread exist.

[jpo234]

It honestly never even crossed my mind that this group would be against planetary protection. Heck, it was even a major part of Star Trek.

Look up manifest destiny. These arguments are its revival. For the record: I think that settling the solar system is humanities manifest destiny.

[jpo234]

Article with some new bits

However, in recent comments provided to AmericaSpace, SpaceX revealed that its plans for the lunar voyage have been under consideration for at least the past two years. More intriguingly, “additional requests” for other private flights were also made, with Monday’s announced mission “and at least one more” having emerged relatively recently.

[Rocket Science]

Planetary protection taken to an absurd degree is nothing I support. (i.e. we can never land on Mars until ... what?)

Until we learn enough to answer that question.

Then we will never answer that question, because an argument could always be made that there is some kind of life that we have not yet detected, because we are looking in the wrong spot or looking for the wrong thing.

If that is what you mean, then you never want humans on Mars. Then you should just be honest and state it.

But this is going waaay off topic, this was about a lunar flyby, not a Mars landing/colonization. I'm happy to argue this elsewhere, if a better thread exist.

Agreed Lars way OT, that's why I offered the thread I had started about Mars a page back so that we can continue that important scientific discussion there to express opinions that would leave us in a quandary...