A Dragon 2 launches on a Falcon Heavy (SpaceX).
Early this week, SpaceX held a conference call to announce that two private individuals have paid their firm a “significant deposit” to be flown around the Moon next year. Although details are sketchy to nonexistent, it would appear that the mission profile is to circumnavigate the Moon before coming back to Earth in a free-return trajectory. The as-yet-unknown crew would fly in the as-yet-unflown Dragon 2 spacecraft – launched to the Moon by the as-yet-unflown Falcon Heavy launch vehicle. One thing portrayed as certain was the date – “late next year,” meaning presumably November or December of 2018 – by sheer coincidence no doubt, the 50th anniversary of the flight of Apollo 8, the first human mission to circumnavigate the Moon.
Although accustomed to hearing periodic, grand pronouncements by various New Space companies, skepticism continues to grow over their follow-through, as actual accomplishment is sporadic and less certain. What we do know for certain is that SpaceX’s one operational launch vehicle (Falcon 9) has had a few issues, the most troubling being an explosion of the vehicle on the pad last September. Although the Falcon 9 successfully sent a Dragon cargo shipment to the ISS this past week, questions about the basic design of the vehicle (e.g., the immersion of a carbon composite-wrapped helium tank in the vehicle’s LOX tank) and preparation procedures (e.g., filling the LOX tank with “slush” oxygen during late stages of the countdown with crew aboard) remain unanswered.
Though promoted continuously over the last five years, we’ve yet to see even a structural test article of the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle. Still, many speak of this rocket as if it has already been in service for a decade or more. Falcon Heavy – a rocket design requiring the simultaneous and balanced operation of 27 engines during its boost phase, surely constitutes a challenging operational objective. The N-1 Soviet rocket had 30 engines in its first stage; it launched four times and exploded each time. Such a record does not automatically portend a similar outcome for the Falcon Heavy, but it does constitute food for thought. Additionally, SpaceX’s booster landing and recovery system is built into each segment of the FH first stage, complicating operations and reducing its total payload capacity.
A LEO-configured Dragon 2 would tip the scales at about 7-8 metric tones; one destined for the Moon will be at least this massive, possibly a bit more given the need for maneuvering fuel to assure putting the spacecraft on the correct return trajectory, and necessary extra consumables for the week-long journey. The Saturn V was able to put 48 metric tons in translunar injection (TLI), about 2/5 of its 120 metric ton LEO capacity. The Falcon Heavy, using lower specific impulse kerosene-LOX, should be able to send about 7-10 metric tones TLI, probably adequate for a “heavy” Dragon 2 manned circumlunar flyby.
Still, a few misleading claims have been made for the Falcon Heavy. The SpaceX web site claims that Falcon Heavy is the largest launch vehicle since Saturn V, but the Soviet Energia of the 1980s could place 100 metric tones into LEO, almost twice the capacity of Falcon Heavy. The press release announcing the lunar flyby makes the point that “At 5 million pounds of liftoff thrust, Falcon Heavy is two-thirds the thrust of Saturn V,” but this is an irrelevant metric. The measure of launch vehicle performance is the amount of mass that can be delivered to orbit. For Falcon Heavy, this figure is 54 tones, a bit less than one-half the quantity of the Saturn V (120 tones).
PR exaggeration and lingering questions about the reality of Falcon Heavy aside, there are several other serious issues about the feasibility of this mission. The Dragon 2 has never flown in space, let alone transported people there. The milestone of the first human flight on Dragon 2 has been pushed back multiple times; it is currently scheduled for sometime in 2018, close to the circumlunar tourist mission. Of course, paying passengers are assumed to have given informed consent, but would the FAA approve such a flight, given the short time and small experience base between initial LEO flights and a lunar one? A flight to the Moon occurs outside of the Earth’s Van Allen radiation belts, so solar activity must be carefully monitored to avoid flight during periods of active Sun – a large coronal mass ejection during translunar flight would mean instant death for the crew.
SpaceX has no experience in tracking, flying and operating vehicles at lunar distances. Global tracking facilities probably can be leased to monitor and control the flight, but it is unclear that the SpaceX flight teams have the knowledge and experience to conduct such a flight. A Dragon 2 on its way to the Moon has no hope of rescue, so its life support and flight control systems must function perfectly.
Perhaps the greatest challenge comes at the end of the mission. A spacecraft returning from the Moon approaches the Earth at near escape velocity, about 11 km/second, half again as fast as a LEO entry. Fifty years ago, the returning Soviet Zond spacecraft used a “skip” technique, whereby the vehicle enters Earth’s atmosphere to dissipate some energy (slow down), flies back out into space to lose excess heat (cool off), and then re-enters the atmosphere again before landing. In September 1968, the Zond 5 spacecraft lost its navigation and guidance system just before Earth return. The spacecraft landed safely, but experienced 15-20 times the force of gravity during the ballistic re-entry. The onboard crew of two turtles survived this torture, but it is not clear that a human would have.
Given all these questions and unknowns, how real is this circumlunar flight? I suggest that as with many other New Space public relations extravaganzas, this “mission” should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Like its big brother NASA and their imaginary “Journey to Mars,” New Space effectively uses the media to shape perceptions. In today’s society, press releases are covered as real accomplishments. You don’t actually have to do anything in space – you simply have to announce that you are going to do it. Increasingly, space has become the realm of the pseudo-event – a space theater reminiscent of P.T. Barnum.
Meanwhile, China continues its systematic and continuous progress toward the Moon and dominance of cislunar space.
Excellent take down of the SpaceX announcement.
Will add one more area uncertainty to the list.
You note two important points:
(1) “A LEO-configured Dragon 2 would tip the scales at about 7-8 metric tones; one destined for the Moon will be at least this massive, possibly a bit more given the need for maneuvering fuel to assure putting the spacecraft on the correct return trajectory, and necessary extra consumables for the week-long journey.”
(2) “Of course, paying passengers are assumed to have given informed consent, but would the FAA approve such a flight, given the short time and small experience base between initial LEO flights and a lunar one?”
There are (or at least should be) other differences between requirements for an LEO and BEO spacecraft.
Life support system fan failure is a good example.
SpaceX does not give any information for its designs (insert another reference to “sketchy to nonexistent” details here).
But Boeing does. The most recent publically available schematics for their commercial crew vehicle used a simple blow down system (that is they oversize the life support gas pressure tanks and in case a fan failure they simply flow gas from the extra supply).
It is likely (given mass restrictions) that SpaceX uses a similar system. That works for an LEO taxi as it is never more than hours away from landing. For a BEO vehicle that time grows to days and oversizing the tankage would add additional weight. The other possible solution is redundant fan and ducting as backup to a single point failure (that would also add weight for the additional fans, ducting and the power/cooling required to run them). Those mass increases are, of course, in addition to the cost of redesign/certification
There are other examples of increased fault tolerances that would (or at least should) add even more weight to the BEO version of any vehicle designed for LEO use.
Would the FAA approve a BEO mission for an unmodified Dragon 2 without examination/reconciliation of the fault tolerances for BEO vs. LEO missions?
The more immediate issue is the opportunity that has now opened for SpaceX to send an empty Dragon capsule around the Moon without it being seen as a dig at NASA. The two potential passengers approached SpaceX, not the other way around.
About 2 years ago there was discussion that Musk would not want to send a Falcon Heavy payload around the Moon since he supposedly did not want to embarrass NASA.
Well, now he has a good excuse for doing just that. Before a crew does a lunar-return-speed entry, the Dragon 2 capsule needs to be tested at the same entry speed and angle without passengers.
There are two ways to do it:
(1) Send the capsule to a lunar distance and let it re-enter. (Of course he could avoid the vicinity of the moon, but it would look stupid.)
(2 ) Use the upper stage, once in LEO, to accelerate the capsule to lunar entry velocity and at an angle to intersect the atmosphere at the right angle without going very high.
But #2 would not be as good a test of the capsule’s other systems.
I wonder how soon Musk will perform this test with a Dragon 2 and a Falcon Heavy?
Note that the N1 (Lenin Booster) vehicle was never tested on a test stand with all engines, as the Soviets were never given the money to build such a large test stand. This was a tragedy for their program. The Merlin engines currently in use on the Falcon are tested individually, as a group on the stage at McGregor, and finally as a short “burp” test at the launch site. Also, the ability of sensors and electronics, and the engine-out capacity of the Falcon, greatly reduces individual engine problems leading to a vehicle failure.
It is also probable that a crew of 2 is small enough so they can huddle inside a clump of stored food and water for adequate radiation protection against a solar mass ejection event.
John Strickland
“Also, the ability of sensors and electronics, and the engine-out capacity of the Falcon, greatly reduces individual engine problems leading to a vehicle failure.”
True on both counts. Information from sensors during real flights is fed back into the manufacturing process, leading to better engines. And while there’s some trade off with having more engines, I still think the engine-out feature is a net plus. Just my two cents.
Also, as far as I know, they are not planning on using the “cross-feed” technique of the two outer cores contributing propellants to the middle core. I know it’s one option of the overall design, but I thought they’d backed off a bit, at least for now, as an extra complication. Anyone know for sure?
From what SpaceX originally said if they are not using the “cross-feed” technique that would reduce the Falcon Heavy’s payload capacity from 54 metric tons to something in the range of 45 to 50 metric tons.
Of course that was before they began claiming the use of “sub-chilled” LOX. So there is no telling what they are claiming now.
” Of course that was before they began claiming the use of “sub-chilled” LOX. ”
You are pretending there is any chance they are not using sub-cooled propellants?
Since you are pretending to have a reading disability, I will try to make it simpler for you.
If a snake oil salesman like Elon Musk says the sun is shining at noon on a clear day, it is best to look up and check before accepting it as fact.
By the way, as long as we are talking about reliability, the article also notes ” the immersion of a carbon composite-wrapped helium tank in the vehicle’s LOX tank”.
Another supposed selling point for both the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy is that they will be economically reusable. That would require inspection and maintenance of key vehicle components which would have to include the structural integrity of the helium tanks.
Inspection and in particular maintenance (or replacement) of the helium tanks inside the LOX tanks is going to be a challenge likely to significantly effect costs.
Any good car mechanic could tell you that is not a good to place the car’s fuel pump inside the gas tank.
“-he supposedly did not want to embarrass NASA.”
3 billion dollars and two exploding hobby rockets later he is an embarrassment to NASA.
His greatest accomplishment is getting more mileage from a campaign contribution then anyone in history. The paltry sum he gave to Obama has yielded billions in free NASA support, tax dollars, and massive subsidies. Not to mention crippling the entire space exploration effort by placing the Moon off limits because Mars was the far more convenient always-ten-years-away goal that he would not have to even try to reach while building a satellite launch company on the taxpayers dime.
Now the space station to nowhere is dying of old age, the ice on the Moon can no longer be ignored, and the SLS is getting ready to fly. What else can he do except try and stay in the public spotlight by promising to use a 27 engine monstrosity to send a couple space clown tourists where the space agency is destined to return?
Quite right. Publicity rules, at least in the sense that “all news is good news.” Still, when the casual public move on to other topics, the remaining careful readers know that despite sharing a family name, Falcon 9 (with some variations, understood) has flown for a few years now, whereas Falcon Heavy (Ms. Shotwell et al saying “Falcon 27” was a bit over the top) has never flown.
It’s certainly possible they’ll have serious yet unforeseen problems with the plumbing of Heavy. Yet these will just be engineering issues. SLS + Orion has it’s share of unknowns too, the once-only upper stage vs. EUS, the never flown European service module, the brand new heat shield, etc. These might have problems, but even with all pieces working perfectly, SLS will still never be a serious contender, just a stunt. Ooh-aah, world’s biggest rocket. It just costs too much. Even if it did cost the same, the time has come to prohibit NASA from competing with private enterprise in the area of launch vehicles.
I hope SpaceX succeeds with their loop around the moon, but it does indeed seem the F9 and FH are really aimed at LEO and GEO, versus being true moon launchers. The numbers don’t lie, regarding your point about kerosene vs. hydrogen. It won’t help for this current direct comparison, but perhaps a longer term solution is one vehicle to get into LEO, as close to reusable as possible, then another vehicle, a true space-craft, also reusable, to go to lunar orbit, a third, a lander, to go to the surface.
Elon is often optimistic.
But Elon is honest. He is attempting these things. He is willing to risk his personal fortune.
If his customers remain interested there will come a day when Elon sends them around the moon at the agreed upon price.
That day will be in the next 10 years.
Its not important to me personally if the fastest guy in the race is delayed. He still wins the race if everyone else is delayed by more than he is.
I get the shape-shifting perception with rhetoric thingy is a human condition, not a quality, and that the show must go on, but personally I prefer the facts, just the facts (I have plenty of imagination, so probably do many others in this neck of the woods), not hyperbole. Hyperbole is like fashion, undustainsble, and it catches up with you. Actually, once you’re out of fashio you’re out, unless they let you back in. Does SpaceX really need to hype? NO, they’re already doing great, finances aside. Still running the gauntlet sounds cool. Now, where’s that SPE 50+ sunblock/ bronzing cream
Joe writes: “sketchy to nonexistent” details
I’m thinking SpaceX is a private company and like most are very secretive of their plans and problem areas, when Musk makes announcements there isn’t much of technical detail (come to think of it who does, i.e. no downloadable schematic diagrams, hardware fabrication, source code, project plans, list of parts suppliers, etc.). So much of us fill in the details with our own personal knowledge/bias. It can be a Musk is getting overambitious, none of his schedules are on-time but he is really good at getting people excited about space travel (reference Dennis Wingo’s perspective of Musk’s presentation at a recent conference).
But then Musk may have built up quite an infrastructure at SpaceX that is on verge of ramping up.
There is mention of ill-fated multi-engine N1 but probably not good analogy to the multi-engine FH as Korolev and Mishin were never given resources for extensive developmental and ground tests. I’m sure Musk is sure his people are not short changed. Also data acquisition and control technology is much better now than 50 years ago.
A lunar flyby will be exciting to watch, hope it is a beginning and not a one-off stunt.
“come to think of it who does, i.e. no downloadable schematic diagrams, hardware fabrication, source code, project plans, list of parts suppliers, etc.”
The version of the Boeing schematics I reviewed were not electronic they were on paper, but they were not secret. There was at least one news article on the subject that specifically mentioned the fan out fault tolerance that was referenced in my post.
There would be nothing proprietary about acknowledging how (if at all) the LEO version of Dragon 2 would attempt to handle a fan out anomaly, as both solutions are pretty straight forward and already known to anyone interested in the subject.
This would lead an even mildly skeptical observer to contemplate the possibility that maybe SpaceX restricts information to make it easier for them to make bold assertions without having to in anyway substantiate them. ,
“This would lead an even mildly skeptical observer to contemplate the possibility that maybe SpaceX restricts information to make it easier for them to make bold assertions without having to in anyway substantiate them.”
It’s good to be skeptical. However, that’s not the only possible explanation. It could be, as Musk said years ago, SpaceX doesn’t publish and does not patent their designs because the Chinese would steal them.
It’s a balance between keeping trade secrets, and publishing/patenting.
Have no interest in helping turn this into an endless back and forth, so will say it just one more time.
There is nothing proprietary about explaining (at the system schematic level) whether you use a blow down or redundant fan system to handle fan failure fault tolerance (as Boeing has done for their commercial crew design).
Musk’s paranoia about the US patent system not withstanding, there is simply nothing to steal.
If you can not (or will not) understand that there is nothing more to usefully discuss.
In addition to the stories you’ve provided here Dr Spudis, I’ve also seen an article that suggested that if this mission is a success, it would cause politicians to question the use of the Orion spacecraft and SLS, as it would apparently be a cheaper way to get to the Moon.
Ah, the stories the media invents.
Incidentally, I’m curious on your opinion of the proposal for EM-1 to be a manned voyage, as opposed to unmanned.
I’m curious on your opinion of the proposal for EM-1 to be a manned voyage, as opposed to unmanned.
Unnecessary — it smells like a stunt. Go ahead with the flight test program as originally planned and forget the showbiz.
But alas, that’s not the way of the agency these days. This is at least one thing that NASA and New Space have in common.
“But alas, that’s not the way of the agency these days. This is at least one thing that NASA and New Space have in common.”
Agreed, and it is a sad state of affairs.
Is it too much to hope for a change of NASA’s leadership to a more practical way of doing business?
“Is it too much to hope for a change of NASA’s leadership to a more practical way of doing business?”
I will take a shot at that (even though the question was not asked of me).
I think the answer is – unfortunately – yes.
The last administration ordered the space policy pursued and populated NASA’s top political appointee positions with people who would support and defend the policy no matter how nonsensical it may have been.
If news reports are to be believed (always a risk) the current administration requested NASA (as of now under caretaker political leadership awaiting the new appointees) to evaluate moving the first Orion crewed flight up to 2019. They could not really refuse to do the evaluation. It will be interesting to find out what the result of the evaluation will be.
For some reason the fact that the new administration was considering an accelerated schedule for a crewed lunar orbit mission using SLS/Orion really yanked Musk’s chain even though Musk had never been interested in the Moon before (had been as disparaging of lunar objectives as the previous President). That led to this hastily announced (and highly questionalbe) SpaceX lunar mission.
Sad all way around, but there it is.
Obama married the space agency to NewSpace and like half of all such arrangements what is to be expected is divorce.
In my view it is definitely a failed marriage on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. NASA went to the Moon a half a century ago and after these last five decades of wandering off that definitive path there is little choice but to return to that which never should have been abandoned. The ice on the Moon should have inspired correction but instead NewSpace became the worst wrong turn in a series of bad moves.
In my view it is now crystal clear that a state sponsored public works project featuring 8 to 10 Super Heavy Lift Vehicle launches to the Moon a year is the only logical and worthwhile course.
LEO space stations and the public relations gimmick that is the “horizon goal of Mars” need to be dumped in the trash can along with the NewSpace business plan.
Apollo 8 sent three of our best on a risky mission to be the first to travel Beyond Earth Orbit- before the Godless communists did it. We spent a tremendous fortune in tax dollars on a state-sponsored project and succeeded in making history. And then…..we took our eyes off the prize and the space agency made wrong turn after wrong turn until now we find ourselves in the present circumstances.
That SpaceX was the worst wrong turn of all is obvious to anyone with any knowledge of spaceflight technology and not a Musk groupie. This is just another attempt to promote the fantastical notion that NASA is not really necessary and Ayn-Rand-in-Space libertarian state-hating wackos can do it all on the cheap- if we just hand it all over to Musk and let him conjure up the magic of entrepreneurship.
The SLS is SpaceX’s worst nightmare and the Tony Stark/Howard Roark/John Galt demigod of NewSpace is once again trying to burn into the public consciousness that only he can save us.
Such a flight would emulate Apollo 13 rather than Apollo 8 since the two man crew would be swinging around the Moon rather than going into orbit as they did during the Apollo 8 mission.
But I don’t think its going to happen as early as 2018. But I could see it happening for Space X by 2020– once they understand the nature and reliability of the new Falcon Heavy.
Hopefully, the Space X announcement will put an end to the Trump administration’s idea of wasting time and tax payer money sending a crewed Orion around the Moon with the interim upper stage before the end of the decade.
NASA needs to focus on launching the unmanned SLS mission next year and then focus on getting the– real SLS (105 tonnes of cargo capability to LEO) up and running with its EUS (Exploratory Upper Stage) and with new RS-25 engines finally in production.
NASA and private industry are really going to need to aggressively put the SLS to good use in the 2020s. And there’s no logical reason why they shouldn’t, IMO.
Marcel
Such a flight would emulate Apollo 13 rather than Apollo 8 since the two man crew would be swinging around the Moon rather than going into orbit as they did during the Apollo 8 mission.
Of course, although Apollo 13 was not a planned lunar flyby, but a spacecraft in abort mode. But given SpaceX’s design decision to put the potential disaster of a COPV He tank inside the LOX tanks of their vehicles, perhaps the analogy is closer than one might think.
Musk’s timetable for this stunt (end of 2018) is pie in the sky, to say the least. For one thing, FAA approval (as Joe notes) for an unproven spacecraft atop an unproven launch vehicle is a big question mark in itself, even if the hardware were available. And that’s a very big ‘IF.’ The cost of such a mission would be astronomical (no pun intended), especially when you add tracking and communications to the expense list. What is the ticket price for the two passengers? Who could afford it? Would a millionaire/billionaire be allowed to take such a risky voyage (i.e., would his/her family or his/her board of directors approve it)? Who would sell them flight insurance?
Let’s look at a more realistic timetable for a lunar flyby … October 2019. That would mark the 70th Anniversary of Mao’s 1940 Revolution. I would not be surprised to see China send a pair of taikonauts on a lunar flyby mission to celebrate that anniversary using a modified Shenzhou launched atop the new Long March 5 (CZ-5) rocket. Should that happen, perhaps the Chinese will start offering commercial trips around the Moon to wealthy Westerners in competition with SpaceX. My guess is that their ticket price would come in well below Musk’s.
Fantasyland? Probably. China’s very real interest in cislunar space has nothing to do with space tourism. But how would Chinese commercial flights around the Moon be any more flights of fancy than Musk’s forthcoming Mars colonies and 2018 commercial lunar flybys?
The amazing thing is that so many people (including many science writers who should know better) accept and praise Musk’s wild pronouncements as if they were totally realistic.
Meanwhile, as Dr. Spudis notes, China progresses steadily forward with its lunar goals and ambitions. Their efforts are largely ignored or downplayed by the Western media. Yet, China is already flying their taikonauts to Chinese-made space laboratories aboard Chinese-made spacecraft atop Chinese-made rockets. They have a real space program. But despite all of Musk’s rhetoric and promises, the U.S. is still paying the Russians to send our astronauts into space. Who could have imagined such a situation in December 1968 or July 1969? Or, for that matter, in April 1981.
As Apollo 17 Astronaut (and former U.S. Senator) Harrison H. Schmitt put it, “How the mighty have fallen.”
Well, the Obama administration cancelled the Bush moon program (the Vision for Space Exploration) because it was too expensive. In exchange, they decided to go to mars!! So, don’t think that NASA policy needs to make sense. Now we have a new administration, and we shall see what they decide. Musk has been steadily progressing space-flight as per his vision of making space more affordable by making his rockets re-usable. He has done more than anyone else ever, so there is that. And, although Paul Spudis points to China as making steady, definable achievements in “cis-lunar space”, I think SpaceX is also doing that, in steady, definable achievements, that will benefit all of us.
Although I disagreed with the Orion/Ares I component of the Constellation architecture, I don’t think there was any evidence that the Constellation program was unaffordable for NASA.
At the beginning of the Obama administration, funding for the Constellation program was approximately $3.4 a year which is pretty close to current levels of SLS/Orion funding.
Additional funding for the Constellation program was supposed to come from the termination of the $3 billion a year Space Shuttle program and the $2 billion a year ISS program. $8.4 billion a year would have been plenty of money for NASA to return to the Moon before the end of the decade even with an architecture as bad as the Ares I/Ares V.
But there were plenty of cheaper alternatives for a lunar return.
But President Obama simply thought it was a waste of tax payer money to return to the Moon. And he was wrong!
“Well, the Obama administration cancelled the Bush moon program (the Vision for Space Exploration) because it was too expensive.”
According to at least one of the members of the Augustine Commission that is factually incorrect. The Commission members were told that a lunar program was a non starter with the Obama Administration – not because it was “too expensive” – but because it was Bush’s plan.
“Musk has been steadily progressing space-flight as per his vision of making space more affordable by making his rockets re-usable. He has done more than anyone else ever, so there is that.”
Making a blanket statement like ” He has done more than anyone else ever” is never a good idea. More than Von Braun et. al., really. It makes you sound like a Musk groupie.
Given that SpaceX own pronouncements (made separately of course) have acknowledged that (if they succeed in) reusing the Falcon 9 will reduce payload by 30% while reducing cost by 10%. That does not sound like “making space more affordable”.
“And, although Paul Spudis points to China as making steady, definable achievements in “cis-lunar space”, I think SpaceX is also doing that, in steady, definable achievements, that will benefit all of us.”
Beyond developing a possibly reusable Falcon 9 first stage (that will by SpaceX own pronouncements – reduce payload by 30% while reducing cost only 10%),please list SpaceX’s “steady, definable achievements, that will benefit all of us”
Another interesting development in the situation from the Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/02/an-exclusive-look-at-jeff-bezos-plan-to-set-up-amazon-like-delivery-for-future-human-settlement-of-the-moon/?postshare=8431488495576862&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.ce85df1c3685
Here are some samples from the article:
– The latest to offer a proposal is Jeffrey P. Bezos, whose space company Blue Origin has been circulating a seven-page white paper to NASA leadership and President Trump’s transition team about the company’s interest in developing a lunar spacecraft with a lander that would touch down near a crater at the south pole where there is water and nearly continuous sunlight for solar energy.
– Blue Origin’s proposal, dated Jan. 4, doesn’t involve flying humans, but rather is focused on a series of cargo missions. Those could deliver the equipment necessary to help establish a human colony on the moon — unlike the Apollo missions, in which the astronauts left “flags and footprints” and then came home.
– Blue Origin could perform the first lunar mission as early as July 2020, Bezos wrote, but stressed that it could “only be done in partnership with NASA. Our liquid hydrogen expertise and experience with precision vertical landing offer the fastest path to a lunar lander mission. I’m excited about this and am ready to invest my own money alongside NASA to make it happen.”
– The company said it plans to land its Blue Moon lunar lander at Shackleton Crater on the moon’s south pole. The site has nearly continuous sunlight to provide power through the spacecraft’s solar arrays. The company also chose to land there because of the “water ice in the perpetual shadow of the crater’s deep crevices.”
No way at this point to evaluated the practicality of the specific proposal, but it sure sounds like somebody read “The Value of the Moon.”
There is no reason for them not to undertake this as a paid service, and there is no reason at this time to have any particular fear for the lives of the willing customers.
” questions … remain unanswered. ” <– No, no known questions remain unanswered. Unknowns are why the risk cannot be made zero. It's SpaceX's and the customer's call.
" we’ve yet to see even a structural test article of the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle. " <– Emphatically not the case. There are pictures of FH exclusive hardware available on the web. Google, " Falcon Heavy interstage ".
" The N-1 Soviet rocket had 30 engines in its first stage; it launched four times and exploded each time. " <– Which is known to have nothing to do with the number of engines, but with poor Soviet software and hardware quality control–which was absent from the Soviet effort.
" Additionally, SpaceX’s booster landing and recovery system is built into each segment of the FH first stage, complicating operations and reducing its total payload capacity. " <– Not true, when a booster is not to be recovered, they leave out heavy chunks of recovery related hardware. Also not true that there is any "complication" to recovering a booster which necessarily makes the ascent problematic, and also not true it is not worth it for a booster to be recovered in a largely refuel/refly condition. You can say that's a judgement call, and you can say I have no good judgement–but nothing worthwhile towards off Earth settlement will take place at inflation constant dollars of many thousands of dollars a pound. The cost must fall dramatically, only SpaceX has an operational plan which is operating, which can make that happen.
" A LEO-configured Dragon 2 … the week-long journey. " <– Actually not clear at all that reducing crew from 7 to 2 doesn't largely take care of that.
" Still, a few … of Falcon Heavy. " Almost a distinction without a difference, Buran flew once as a stunt.
" For Falcon Heavy, this figure is 54 tones, a bit less than one-half the quantity of the Saturn V (120 tones). " <– Almost meaningless, considering the FH can fly the amount into orbit the Sat V could for about 1/4 the total price.
" The Dragon 2 has never flown in space, let alone transported people there. " <– A non-sequitor. What concrete reasons do you have to doubt it will? Name one unsolvable problem.
" a large coronal mass ejection during translunar flight would mean instant death for the crew. " <– No more true now than for Apollo 8.
" but it is unclear that the SpaceX flight teams have the knowledge and experience to conduct such a flight. " <– It is not clear this is problematic, especially since hardware has become far more reliable and lighter for like function since Apollo. It is not clear keying a mic is more challenging when the receiver is farther away.
" A Dragon 2 on … must function perfectly. " <– The perfection required of its function is not much greater than that needed for it's intended operational use.
" Perhaps the greatest … human would have. " <– It is 100% certain the Dragon capsule's heat shield will be fine with re-entry, neither have there been any hints of problems with it's maneuvering jets, or with the computer that run them.
" Given all these … of cislunar space. " <– Anything might go wrong with both efforts. You are drastically exaggerating the unknown and known risks for SpaceX and not acknowledging them on the part of the Chinese.
There is no reason for them not to undertake this as a paid service, and there is no reason at this time to have any particular fear for the lives of the willing customers.
I do not “fear” the loss of life of someone dumb enough to ride on this monstrosity. My concern is that carnival freak shows like this make a sustained and permanent lunar return less likely because brainless media and SpaceX fanboy enthusiasm for this pronouncement can fool the unsuspecting public into thinking that “we ARE going to the Moon.”
“Given that SpaceX own pronouncements (made separately of course) have acknowledged that (if they succeed in) reusing the Falcon 9 will reduce payload by 30% while reducing cost by 10%. That does not sound like ‘making space more affordable.'”
Excellent point, Joe! And with the Falcon Heavy, THREE 1st-stage vehicles will all be making vertical landings back on terra firma. How much extra fuel must be carried to return each of those stages? And how do the economics work in terms of the trade-off between fuel and payload? As an old airliner salesman (I used to work for Fokker Aircraft), I have yet to see any good answers to these questions.
The best way to look at this is to think about the AV-8B Harrier II V/STOL or the F-35B STOVL aircraft. Or any other vertical lift aircraft that has ever flown. The fuel burn that is required to ride on a vertical column of thrust is tremendous. The original GR.1 and AV-8A Harriers had very little range or payload if they took off vertically because so much fuel was burned just getting off the geound. That is why the Royal Navy employed short take-off runs and adopted ski jump decks for their Sea Harriers. And that is why the RAF and the USMC usually employed short take-off runs (where the wings provided some lift) for normal operations. The F-35B uses a forward lift fan connected by a shaft to the aircraft’s engine. That fan takes up space and adds weight, reducing range and/or payload. Which is why the F-35B is a STOVL aircraft (not V/STOL).
From an economics point of view, military operators aren’t all that worried about fuel burn with the Harrier and F-35B. Their bottomline is hitting a target, not making money. But commercial operators have different requirements, which is why Hawker Siddeley’s HS.141 was never built.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_HS.141
I remember this proposal at the time. The aircraft was designed to fly in and out of city centre landing pads much like the heliports employed by New York Airways atop the Pan Am Building back in the ’60s. Except they would have served short, intercity routes. Apart from making too much noise with its multiple lift engines, the HS.141 would have made too little (if any) money because of the range/payload penalties that resulted from vertical take offs and landings. The project was abandoned in favor of the more conventional HS.146, which was produced as the BAe 146.
I have yet to see SpaceX demonstrate the cost effectiveness of Falcon’s vertical landings. I’ll grant you that it’s quite an achievement. But is it really the great economic achievement that they claim it is?