SpaceX Crewed Dragon Circumlunar Mission

[ciscosdad]

Spacex is a space transport company and offers space transport services,and this flight is a step in that direction
ITS is a longer term goal, and Elon clearly believes that if the service is offered, business will appear, and this flight indicates that he is correct.
Open your eyes and look at the proposals and commercial startups that require access to space. I could list them, but if you're on this site the info is a few clicks away.
One of the oil states recently indicated  plans for a city on Mars (Dubai??) Build the transport capability and the demand will appear.
We can stick our head in the sand or shout that its a bad idea if we wish, but I suspect this is the beginning of something huge.

[mme]

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.   

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

This is my main worry about this program, as well.  Whenever there is an accident involving crew, progress stops for a long time.  Empirically, it seems that a crew loss stops progress for about 2 years (Apollo, Shuttle, SpaceShip One) whereas a loss of uncrewed mission stops for about 6 months (SpaceX, recent Russian failures, etc.). So each crew loss costs about 1.5 years of progress. 
...

It seems to me that the main cause of delay for VG is that they lost their only flying vehicle and had to finish building and testing the second one.  Unlike SpaceX, VG does not have a production line and already build vehicles lying around.

[AncientU]

Spacex is a space transport company and offers space transport services,and this flight is a step in that direction
ITS is a longer term goal, and Elon clearly believes that if the service is offered, business will appear, and this flight indicates that he is correct.
Open your eyes and look at the proposals and commercial startups that require access to space. I could list them, but if you're on this site the info is a few clicks away.
One of the oil states recently indicated  plans for a city on Mars (Dubai??) Build the transport capability and the demand will appear.
We can stick our head in the sand or shout that its a bad idea if we wish, but I suspect this is the beginning of something huge.

I hope you are right.

Just doing this will demonstrate the cost and timeline it takes, using 21st century technology and a start-up business plan, to become space faring.  Others have seen the potential and are on a variety of congruent paths (as happens in the start-up environment, some will make it and most won't), and more are sure to follow if this is successful.

Look at the boom in satellite constellations and the billions flowing in there from investment community.  Venture capital funding for space start-ups has never been higher (by a large factor).  Many will find dead ends, for sure, but we could be on the verge of something huge.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Bezos is more the one aiming to do the walking to the Moon.

Excuse me. Have asked this question. He says "cost effective cargo to lunar surface". Way different. Source - his remarks in January 2017.

Politely - please help me understand where you get this. Perhaps you intuit it? If so, ask him in public q&a or reddit AMA. Might not be as you think.

Key point - he's skeptical of funding broadly HSF vehicles. Including those to the surface of other bodies.

NB hydrolox landers he wants to do are very low TRL. Very helpful for lowering logistics costs ...

Have you watched the video interview with him I posted yesterday in the Blue Origin thread, if you haven't then I recommend you do?

Just did. He's even more long winded than I am (my icon/name comes from people telling me I talk too long/much).

Talks of cargo delivery service, not HR. For human settlement. Hydrolox architecture.My point exactly.

And?

Well you have to start somewhere don't you and that's where he's starting. Is there some reason you're so determined to put a negative spin on his plans rather than welcoming another player in this field?

Nothing about spin/negativity. All of that is from yourself.

He makes no commitment to HSF beyond New Shepard at the moment. He presumes the existence or more. And you presume ... he's the supplier.

He's not another player in the field yet. We also have no clear idea of what he plans long term. When I've spoken with him/his people/partners, it's all narrowly scoped around "enabling", not "leading". And he's terrified of unscoped risk.

My gut tells me he'll only go so far, and wait for others to build upon what he does.

Nothing wrong with that. I applaud his presence. But don't presume either Musk, Bezos, or Branson is much beyond what they tell you.

Are we done here?

[Mader Levap]

this sort of thing benefits a very small number of people

You completely ignore ones that get money from that "very small number of people". SpaceX. I guess you prefer those rich guys and gals spending money on newest Rolexes, eh?

and only for a short time

Nonsense. This additional money from tourism will help and accelerate SpaceX's plans, research and development. Assuming SpaceX succeeds in their goal of significatly lowering cost to space in general, time of this benefit will be forever (as long as humanity and it's successor(s) exists).

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,

Yeah, SpaceX suddenly will say "screw it, we shouldn't do what Danderman disliked, let's give back those big fat deposits and never do something like moon flyby tourism just because". Riiight. 

perhaps a serious effort to pursue LEO space tourism.

Your mind must be pretty strange place. You apparently do not have anything against idea of space tourism itself (as you seem to not mind LEO tourism), but you call SpaceX's plans about their tourist moon flyby (nonsensically) FUD. What's the difference? I mean, both of them are tourism. Why trip around moon is so special?

You didn't presented any reason whatsoever why SpaceX would just not do it. For me it looks like "I dislike it, so SpaceX won't do it" seven year old's logic.

[su27k]

Seems to me the lack of focus on space tourism has more to do with the lack of a destination than the whole "going to Mars" thing. Would people really pay $20M+ to be cramped with 4 others in a Dragon and orbit the Earth a few times?

Will people pay $5bn to emigrate to Mars? LEO or lunar tourism will happen a long time before Mars colonization, simply because it's going to be much much cheaper. If you fly tourists to LEO every week or so the cost of an in-space module isn't that big of a factor anymore by the way.

Of course LEO or lunar tourism will happen earlier, it's self evident given this recent SpaceX announcement. But Mars is not just another business opportunity for SpaceX, they're not going to Mars to make a profit, they're making a profit so that they can go to Mars.

[su27k]

When Elon Musk offered that NASA would have first call if they want to do the loop around the moon in Dragon,

That's not what he said exactly, spaceflightnow gives the following quotes

“This will be a private mission with two paying customers, (but) NASA always has first priority,” Musk said. “If NASA decides to have the first mission of this nature to be a NASA mission, then of course NASA would take priority.”

“We’re generally encouraging of anything that advances the cause of space exploration,” Musk said. “I think an SLS/Orion mission would be exciting as well. I don’t know what they’re timetable is, and I’m not sure if we will be before or after, but I don’t think that’s really the important thing. What matters is the advancement of space exploration and exceeding the high-water mark that was set in 1969 with the Apollo program, and just having a really exciting future in space that inspires the world.

“That’s what we care about, and we think that there should more companies and organizations doing this than SpaceX. The more the better.”

Seems to me he left it ambiguous on how NASA will fly the mission, there is no passive-aggressive suggestion that NASA needs to fly on a Dragon.

[Lars-J]

Have you watched the video interview with him I posted yesterday in the Blue Origin thread, if you haven't then I recommend you do?

Just did. He's even more long winded than I am (my icon/name comes from people telling me I talk too long/much).

Talks of cargo delivery service, not HR. For human settlement. Hydrolox architecture.My point exactly.

And?

Well you have to start somewhere don't you and that's where he's starting. Is there some reason you're so determined to put a negative spin on his plans rather than welcoming another player in this field?

That's a bit rich... you accusing someone of being determined to put a negative spin on something, when that's exactly what you have been doing in this thread lately.

[TomH]

Couldn't they share the glory by putting a NASA astronaut in with the two tourists. I am sure this would be a reassuring move to both Space X & the tourists.

It is entirely possible the tourists are a couple who specified that they want the privacy of being only with each other. They may not pay otherwise.

[Robotbeat]

Couldn't they share the glory by putting a NASA astronaut in with the two tourists. I am sure this would be a reassuring move to both Space X & the tourists.

It is entirely possible the tourists are a couple who specified that they want the privacy of being only with each other. They may not pay otherwise.

This... This mission would pay for itself just in the tabloids.

[Lee Jay]

I'll watch the mission, but this sort of thing benefits a very small number of people, and only for a short time.

Yes. Sort of like Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic. Okay, a small bunch of investors got some cash out of it. Otherwise, the flight had no discernible affect on the advancement of aviation.

(Sorry, catching up, many pages behind. But this attitude just really puzzles me.)

If Lindbergh's flight occurred today, decades after the first trans-Atlantic passenger service started, what effect do you think it would have on aviation?

[enzo]

Couldn't they share the glory by putting a NASA astronaut in with the two tourists. I am sure this would be a reassuring move to both Space X & the tourists.

It is entirely possible the tourists are a couple who specified that they want the privacy of being only with each other. They may not pay otherwise.

This... This mission would pay for itself just in the tabloids.

Frankly on a serious note I think the Dragon engineers would be extremely worried by a tourist crew engaging in unauthorized activities or horseplay in the vehicle. They could spill something on the control panel or worse. I would not be surprised if the contract includes a list of specifically prohibited activities. Many billionaires are not quite intelligent.

[Nomadd]

 People have been reading fantasies about travelling to other worlds for more than a century. Apollo made it real, but was an incredible effort that took resources few can really wrap their brains around. The idea that mere mortals could do it simply by paying the price would make it real in a way that's been science fiction till now. All the panty twisted wienies in the world swooning over the notion that it's just too dangerous are irrelevant. They don't pay for, participate in or decide anything about turning points like this.

[Coastal Ron]

Frankly on a serious note I think the Dragon engineers would be extremely worried by a tourist crew engaging in unauthorized activities or horseplay in the vehicle. They could spill something on the control panel or worse. I would not be surprised if the contract includes a list of specifically prohibited activities. Many billionaires are not quite intelligent.

If tourists really were going on this flight, the first time private citizens would be traveling in a private spacecraft beyond LEO, then sure, it would be natural to worry about them doing silly things that could have fatal ramifications.  Because we know tourists, as a class of people, are ignorant and lazy, and just want to be catered to while they enjoy what they think is "adventure".  So if we assume tourists are going on this adventure, then we'd assume a low probability of success.

But these won't be tourists, and they won't be ignorant of the ramifications of their actions.  These will be adventurers, and they are likely to be very smart and capable people who will be able to learn all they need to learn to stay alive far from Earth when the unexpected happens.

I for one am not assuming that SpaceX will be sending the least competent people possible on such a historic flight - regardless how much money they have...

[savuporo]

That's a first announced flight for SpaceX to go outside the van Allen belts for significant duration. If they aren't spending this as a massive technology demonstration, validation and qualification flight, that would be a huge waste of opportunity.

Would be instrumented to hilt, if it happens.

[Star One]

Couldn't they share the glory by putting a NASA astronaut in with the two tourists. I am sure this would be a reassuring move to both Space X & the tourists.

It is entirely possible the tourists are a couple who specified that they want the privacy of being only with each other. They may not pay otherwise.

This... This mission would pay for itself just in the tabloids.

You make it sound like an episode of something like The Kardashians. Whether that's a good or bad thing I suppose your mileage may vary on that.

[bulkmail]

Does somebody have the numbers for:
- Falcon Heavy payload capacity (let's say in expendable mode, but better if values are available also for 1- and 3-cores reusable modes) to TLI, LLO, Lagrangian points Earth-Moon, Earth-Sun
- Dragon V2 weight
- Dragon V2 weight for consumables per manday

Can FH send crewed Dragon V2 in Moon orbit or to some of the other cis-lunar and flexible path locations?

Sorry for quoting myself, but allow me to narrow that question:

Why is the 2018 mission a fly-by instead of orbital?
a) FH/Dragon have not enough performance to do manned Moon orbital flight
b) FH/Dragon are capable enough, but fly-by is less complex, easier to automate, no actions needed from the tourists, less risky

So, are they capable or not?
-FH can deliver 22.2t to GTO - http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
-Dragon v1 dry weight is 4.2t - Wikipedia
-Falcon second stage dry weight is 4.7t (I assume that will be needed for orbit insertion, de-orbiting and maybe Earth injection burn?) - http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html

That leaves 13t to cover the following:
-How much less can FH deliver to Moon orbit/TLI instead of GTO? I assume the Moon Orbit and GEO values will be similar, so if somebody has calculation for GEO that will be useful.
-What is dry weight added in Dragon v2 compared to v1?
-Falcon second stage - can it operate for the period of time required, let's say 1 week (Apollo 8 )?
-how much propellant is needed for those maneuvers?
-how much consumables are needed for 2 persons for a week?
-weight of BEO-additions (communication equipment)?
-something else?

[Oli]

Seems to me the lack of focus on space tourism has more to do with the lack of a destination than the whole "going to Mars" thing. Would people really pay $20M+ to be cramped with 4 others in a Dragon and orbit the Earth a few times?

Will people pay $5bn to emigrate to Mars? LEO or lunar tourism will happen a long time before Mars colonization, simply because it's going to be much much cheaper. If you fly tourists to LEO every week or so the cost of an in-space module isn't that big of a factor anymore by the way.

Of course LEO or lunar tourism will happen earlier, it's self evident given this recent SpaceX announcement. But Mars is not just another business opportunity for SpaceX, they're not going to Mars to make a profit, they're making a profit so that they can go to Mars.

LEO tourism already happened 16 years ago. What I mean is LEO or lunar tourism in large numbers, i.e. hundreds or thousands of tourists per year.

And no, you cannot expect any company to shift its profits into an unprofitable project for a long period of time. If it does that it will lose out to competitors.

[rsdavis9]

Does somebody have the numbers for:
- Falcon Heavy payload capacity (let's say in expendable mode, but better if values are available also for 1- and 3-cores reusable modes) to TLI, LLO, Lagrangian points Earth-Moon, Earth-Sun
- Dragon V2 weight
- Dragon V2 weight for consumables per manday

Can FH send crewed Dragon V2 in Moon orbit or to some of the other cis-lunar and flexible path locations?

Sorry for quoting myself, but allow me to narrow that question:

Why is the 2018 mission a fly-by instead of orbital?
a) FH/Dragon have not enough performance to do manned Moon orbital flight
b) FH/Dragon are capable enough, but fly-by is less complex, easier to automate, no actions needed from the tourists, less risky

So, are they capable or not?
-FH can deliver 22.2t to GTO - http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
-Dragon v1 dry weight is 4.2t - Wikipedia
-Falcon second stage dry weight is 4.7t (I assume that will be needed for orbit insertion, de-orbiting and maybe Earth injection burn?) - http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html

That leaves 13t to cover the following:
-How much less can FH deliver to Moon orbit/TLI instead of GTO? I assume the Moon Orbit and GEO values will be similar, so if somebody has calculation for GEO that will be useful.
-What is dry weight added in Dragon v2 compared to v1?
-Falcon second stage - can it operate for the period of time required, let's say 1 week (Apollo 8 )?
-how much propellant is needed for those maneuvers?
-how much consumables are needed for 2 persons for a week?
-weight of BEO-additions (communication equipment)?
-something else?

well lets start from red dragon. We already know that FH can put dragon in escape trajectory and the red dragon was going to have enough hydrazine to land on mars. What we don't know is what is the delta-v required for landing on mars. I don't think S2 from the heavy will last until the moon to help with the insertion. So it really is just a dragon question.

[rpapo]

Why is the 2018 mission a fly-by instead of orbital?
a) FH/Dragon have not enough performance to do manned Moon orbital flight
b) FH/Dragon are capable enough, but fly-by is less complex, easier to automate, no actions needed from the tourists, less risky

(a) Not as far as I know.
(b) No and yes.

From what I have heard (here), there is no way you could keep the Falcon 9 second stage ready to use for three whole days, the time required to get to the moon on a free-return trajectory.  Given that, you cannot use the Falcon 9 as the source of the delta-V required for braking into lunar orbit, let alone for accelerating back out of lunar orbit and into the proper Earth return trajectory.

So, does the Dragon 2 have that much delta-V?  From the numbers bandied about on these fora, I would guess not.

So, if you don't have the power required to go into lunar orbit, as Apollo 8 did, then you really don't have much choice but use the moon's gravity to effect a quick turnaround and "free return" trajectory back to Earth.  And if the moon weren't there to turn the craft around, the orbit required to get out to the moon's orbit would probably loop back to Earth eventually, but I don't think the Dragon would have enough air/water/food for the people onboard to survive that long.

Anybody here want to provide some numbers on what that orbit would look like?