SpaceX Crewed Dragon Circumlunar Mission

[jarnu]

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...

Done! Thanks for that thread. (I hope bringing that old one up with new info will help the discussion here): https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28499.msg1649637#msg1649637

something very recent and on topic, somehow:

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/836937305201885186

https://twitter.com/RobertTBigelow/status/836938597181726720 

CisLunar 1000: Bigelow: it can be ready by the end of 2020 (the year, not the decade). Well, I hope everybody will join the train because it seems to be ready (at least the demand for such a 'train').

Edit (see below): My apologies, thanks for the links.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Yes, the CISLunar1000 material is being discussed on the CISLunar1000 thread.

Bigelow has released some nice graphics of ACES propolling a lunar outpost, which are posted on the above thread here.

Please let's keep this thread just on SpaceX's lunar mission.

[JamesH65]

Ill take this bet! SpaceX will send people at least to lunar distance by the end of 2020. Deal?

2020 is much more likely than 2018.

Also "people" <> "tourists".

Nope. Tourists are people.

Anyone who ever sets foot in a Dragon and takes off is a person, they are also by some people definitions, tourist, or commuters. Because Dragon is autonomous, they are not pilots. They are using Dragon to get somewhere, it's just a transport mechanism.

For a circumlunar trip, it's really not relevant who is on board, because the amount of work they can do is the amount of work they can do, who ever they are. It's not as is they are going to be doing major scientific work - that much better done by computers/sensors suites anyway.

So, who do you send when it really doesn't matter who , what or how qualified they are?

I'd send the one who pays more towards the trip. Because money does not grow on trees.


Of course, there are rather sad arguments above that it's all a complete waste and the time should be better spent on something else. Well, the Dragon needs to be tested BEO (that could be done autonomously of course), so any trip like this is going to produce results of some description. Just like every space probe ever has returned information.

So, do you send it off empty, or with someone on board who has contributed a large amount of cash to the trip.

To me, the answer is blatantly obvious.

Take the money.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

It's also just really inspiring to see people travelling beyond LEO again. Most people alive today have never seen it.

Personally I'm also heartened by non-specialists without years of training being able to go. Ok, right now you have to be really wealthy but so it was with aviation or automobiles (as they then were!). We know it will get cheaper. Much better it starts than not at all.

[Jim]

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.

Yes, and there is something wrong with people openly dismissing it.  It is just plain wrong.

[Comga]

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.

Yes, and there is something wrong with people openly dismissing it.  It is just plain wrong.

But planetary protection is completely irrelevant for a "crewed circumlunar mission" which is the subject of this thread.
Please take this stuff elsewhere.

--

(Edit: Chris note: - As above. Any more and they will be removed to keep this thread on topic. We have other threads).

[pikawaka]

So on the topic of secondary payloads, could this be related to any of the Lunar X Prize competitors that have booked launches with SpaceX? Have secondary payloads ever been deployed from Dragon, or Falcon S2 on a Dragon launch? If rideshare is possible here, I'd think there are a lot of people who would pay to get a cubesat or the like on this flight.

[rsdavis9]

So on the topic of secondary payloads, could this be related to any of the Lunar X Prize competitors that have booked launches with SpaceX? Have secondary payloads ever been deployed from Dragon, or Falcon S2 on a Dragon launch? If rideshare is possible here, I'd think there are a lot of people who would pay to get a cubesat or the like on this flight.

The partial failure of crs? was a ride share that didn't get deployed because of 1 merlin engine failed.

[bob the martian]

I don't have a problem with this flight at all.  I don't have a problem with it being a couple of rich dudes with cash to burn - at least they're using their cash on this instead of hookers and blow.  Once upon a time, only rich people could afford cars, now practically anyone can.  I don't expect space flight to ever become quite so democratized as automotive transportation, but this is how new technology reaches the unwashed masses. 

So these guys may not be The Right Stuff; neither am I, nor I suspect most of the people reading this thread.  Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to fly if the opportunity presented itself? 

I don't expect it to happen in 2018, because SpaceX never met a deadline it didn't miss.  But I expect it to happen eventually (2020, potentially).  If SpaceX didn't have so many successful flights under their belt, I'd dismiss it as nothing more than an empty PR stunt, but by now they've proven they're in this business for real.  They routinely overpromise on dates, but they've delivered on the technology so far. 

Re: safety - I feel confident that both the passengers and SpaceX will be signing a warehouse's worth of contracts and waivers so that everybody understands exactly who's liable for what in case things go pear-shaped.   The passengers will receive what SpaceX considers sufficient training for this flight, and no doubt there will be a very specific list of thou shalt nots to minimize risks, and get an army of lawyers to sign off on everything.  This is going to be new territory for SpaceX so the chance of failure is not low.  But they have enough experience under their belts that I'm confident they know what most of the risks are and will do their best to mitigate them.  ECLSS and power are the open questions right now.  If they can't answer them by 2018, then they won't fly. 

I don't expect it to advance the cause of colonization, which I think is a pipe dream anyway.  But if it spurs advancements in HSF exploration, hey, now we're talking.  I've long been critical of the manned side of NASA because it's clear that our national HSF program has no purpose other than to perpetuate itself, and because you don't need to send people to do basic exploration, and because the cost for sending people has traditionally been so huge.  But if SpaceX can start sending people around the freaking Moon for a fraction of what it would take a national program to do?  Then it's not so much of a problem anymore.  If it takes tourism to pave the road for more "serious" endeavors, then yay tourism. 

[toruonu]

Seriously, I'm surprised what kind of pessimism is here. I think the biggest flaw NASA ever did was make risk aversion the prime goal. Space exploration is frontier exploration. Death is a natural part of that. Kamikaze missions are probably something to frown upon, but even they may have merit in some cases and we've got 7+B people here, sending a few who understand the outcome and volunteer shouldn't really be a point at all.

FFS, people die because they fell out of their chair etc, death is a natural part and I would much rather die in a space exploration mission than because some drunk driver T-boned my car. Safety is an aspect and yes, it's somewhat an important one, but it's not a goal in and of itself. It's like trying to design a perfectly secure computer network. The only one is a turned off computer that is in a faraday box enclosed in an artificial diamond and has no outside connectivity. Yet it's also totally useless.

If private citizens who are aware of the risks choose to go on a mission and are paying a premium mission price for it that also has R&D merit for SpaceX future goals, then I'd say smack them on the booster and light the candle. I'd even approve of this being the actual FH demo mission, but probably NASA would stain its pants and withdraw CC plans or smth like that so it's not commercially right now the best choice.

Seriously, people need to re-find the adventure component in their life and understand that stuff moves along way faster if it fails along the way (it means you test the boundary conditions actually) and we tend to learn more from failures than we do from successes. I think Gwynne said at some point that she was surprised nothing had blown up yet (that was about a year before CRS-7) and that it meant they weren't pushing hard enough. THAT is the right attitude.

We have a massive overpopulation issue here so humans are actually an expendable resource AS LONG as they agree to it and understand that this is a realistic outcome. I fully support FAA etc looking out for the general public who do not make the call about taking a risk of a rocket falling on their head etc, but if someone volunteered to fly on the very first flight of a booster and it's not a guaranteed suicide run, then go. I can also fully understand that a public body like NASA has to explain why they would be risking funded missions that have a high risk of failure and death as they are publicly funded, but a private company and a private customer with their own funds shouldn't face this scrutiny at all. Heck, there might even be a market for one-way splash trips to moon when you feel like you've had enough of this life and have the money.

And while the rant is on, the whole planetary protection we could just agree to leave to other solar systems for now. We're pretty sure there is no intelligent life happening in this one (not even sure about Earth right now) so we just need to have a couple of backup copies and if some microbes have a problem with that, then tough luck, research possibilities will be much better once we're on-site and can dig up more stuff and once someone gets infected by a space bug. If anything, the only actual planetary protection should be applied to Earth from returning vehicles ("Andromeda strain anyone?"). But that's off-topic for this mission.

At least from my point of view, this is an excellent mission and I hope they will branch it to a full service regular flights allowing to fund their other endeavours and reducing fixed costs per flight therefore bringing down the generic cost to space for other missions (including full science and exploration).

[Danderman]

Although NASA may seem risk adverse, they are the ones who put people on the first ever STS launch.

In the NASA world, risk has a political context, so that proposals which are politically incorrect are often deemed "too risky", whereas programs where funding is spent in the correct political districts are allowed to proceed.  So, risk is in the eye of the beholder at times.

However, putting humans on FH and Dragon 2 within the next 18 months for a lunar mission is crazy risky. So much so that it won't actually happen.

But, the proposal will create some FUD at NASA concerning the future of SLS.

[rpapo]

Although NASA may seem risk adverse, they are the ones who put people on the first ever STS launch.

That was NASA in 1981, years before Challenger, decades before Columbia, and not all that long after Apollo.  The general attitude of NASA as an institution was far less risk-averse in those days.  People (and Congress) didn't seem too worried that NASA would make a serious mistake, in spite of Apollo 1, the near disaster of Apollo 13 and the problems with Skylab.

[added later] For that matter, American society in general was far less risk averse in those days than what it has become since, though from where I sit, that has been a continuous and fairly steady progression (or regression) since around the close of World War II.

[toruonu]

Although NASA may seem risk adverse, they are the ones who put people on the first ever STS launch.

Not that fluent in shuttle capabilities, would the shuttle even have been able to do a solo mission?

In the NASA world, risk has a political context, so that proposals which are politically incorrect are often deemed "too risky", whereas programs where funding is spent in the correct political districts are allowed to proceed.  So, risk is in the eye of the beholder at times.

True, and I agree that part of NASA risk aversion is politics. But bureaucracy and trying to make everything super safe ground the whole space exploration down. At least that's what we from across the pond see it... Exploration is about risk. If at least a third of the people going up don't die, then you're probably not pushing hard enough. That's at least my stance on this.

However, putting humans on FH and Dragon 2 within the next 18 months for a lunar mission is crazy risky. So much so that it won't actually happen.

As I said, I'd happily see crew on FH demo flight assuming they volunteer to be there and there is a reasonable chance of success (SpaceX wouldn't launch if there weren't a reasonable chance of success as who wants to throw away perfectly good hardware). Why waste a mission with mass simulators if you can have fun too.

But, the proposal will create some FUD at NASA concerning the future of SLS.

Considering the cost and that this is a social project, not really a serious effort with concrete plans and missions I'd say good riddance if it does end up killing SLS...

[Negan]

However, putting humans on FH and Dragon 2 within the next 18 months for a lunar mission is crazy risky. So much so that it won't actually happen.

So let's put the 2018 date aside. Are you saying that if Dragon flies crew twice to the ISS successfully and FH flies twice successfully, the lunar mission still can't happen?

[Brovane]

Speaking about risk aversion.

When test pilots get killed in a aircraft crash, it is just treated as the price of aerospace progress and life moves on.  Astronaut(s) die in a spacecraft incident and everybody thinks that is the end of the world and progress should come to a halt because somebody might die.   

Let's get this out of the way right now, as Commercial space flight becomes a reality and we start private Commercial space flights into space, people are going to die.  Pushing Aerospace hardware to the limits is a risky business.  Sending two humans on a Circumlunar mission using a Dragon spacecraft and an FH is pushing Aerospace hardware to the limits. 

[joek]

SpaceX entire reason for being requires successfully overcoming risks far greater than this one.  And loss of life is I believe expected by everyone.  The greatest risk (launch) already has the abort mitigation which is believed to have been able to successfully handle AMOS6.  When ready to do so, they've got bigger problems if they can't throw some billionaires around the moon without something worse than a successful abort during ascent.

It's a very reasonable shakeout test and paid for to boot at the sole cost of the delta bad-publicity risk from losing civilians or going earlier than they otherwise would.

Unfortunately--or maybe fortunately, depending on your POV--it's not entirely up to SpaceX and those billionaire passengers.  Still lots of hoops they are going to have to jump through to make this happen; the technical parts may be the least of their challenges.[1]

[1] I count somewhere between "more than two hands" and a "butt-load" worth of regulations or interpretations of regulations or we-gotta-write-new-regulations-because-there-aren't-any-that-cover-this that they are going to have to thread or nail for this happen.

[Space Ghost 1962]

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.

Matches what/when I heard it too. And a Founders Fund guy once blabbed at a bar much earlier about this. One never takes these kind of things seriously until a company actually publicly releases information. Two times earlier had heard such would be released ... and then it wasn't.

Also, it really isn't the best optics to do a release with FH/D2 not yet flying. As many of you probably know/guess.

But these are peculiar times. Have no doubt they can bring it off. But ... 

[Danderman]

However, putting humans on FH and Dragon 2 within the next 18 months for a lunar mission is crazy risky. So much so that it won't actually happen.

So let's put the 2018 date aside. Are you saying that if Dragon flies crew twice to the ISS successfully and FH flies twice successfully, the lunar mission still can't happen?

Clearly, there would be a much better chance of mission success by the time that 4 test missions had flown.

However, my feeling is that in the time it would take to mount those missions, the desire to simply fly tourists around the Moon would transmogrify into something else, perhaps a serious effort to pursue LEO space tourism.

[Danderman]

Speaking about risk aversion.

When test pilots get killed in a aircraft crash, it is just treated as the price of aerospace progress and life moves on.  Astronaut(s) die in a spacecraft incident and everybody thinks that is the end of the world and progress should come to a halt because somebody might die.   

Let's get this out of the way right now, as Commercial space flight becomes a reality and we start private Commercial space flights into space, people are going to die.  Pushing Aerospace hardware to the limits is a risky business.  Sending two humans on a Circumlunar mission using a Dragon spacecraft and an FH is pushing Aerospace hardware to the limits. 

This is written several years after a crash of SpaceShip Two basically stopped that company dead in its tracks for a while.

[Brovane]

SpaceX entire reason for being requires successfully overcoming risks far greater than this one.  And loss of life is I believe expected by everyone.  The greatest risk (launch) already has the abort mitigation which is believed to have been able to successfully handle AMOS6.  When ready to do so, they've got bigger problems if they can't throw some billionaires around the moon without something worse than a successful abort during ascent.

It's a very reasonable shakeout test and paid for to boot at the sole cost of the delta bad-publicity risk from losing civilians or going earlier than they otherwise would.

Unfortunately--or maybe fortunately, depending on your POV--it's not entirely up to SpaceX and those billionaire passengers.  Still lots of hoops they are going to have to jump through to make this happen; the technical parts may be the least of their challenges.[1]

[1] I count somewhere between "more than two hands" and a "butt-load" worth of regulations or interpretations of regulations or we-gotta-write-new-regulations-because-there-aren't-any-that-cover-this that they are going to have to thread or nail for this happen.

The regulations already exist for Private Human space flight.  Why do you think the FAA will need to write new regulations? 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-12-15/pdf/E6-21193.pdf