Discussion Falcon 9 Heavy Circumlunar flight

[dman]

2015 is year that Falcon 9 Heavy configuration is supposed to launch

Thinking that if SPACE X really wants to make a splash will launch a manned
Dragon capsule on a circumlunar mission - say with 5 astronauts including
1 or 2 women

What do you think...........

 

[C3PO]

What do you think...........

Nope. :dry:

 

[fsci123]

I doubt they would do a circumlunar mission that soon. However, if any organization could perform a moonshot, it would be either china or spaceX... But it wouldn't happen before 2017.

 

[MattBaker]

Dragon won't even be ready for manned flights until 2016, maybe even '17. Also you don't have the first launch of a new launch vehicle being manned. Just all around something that's not going to happen.

---------- Post added at 12:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 AM ----------

However, if any organization could perform a moonshot, it would be either china or spaceX... But it wouldn't happen before 2017.

Orion's Exploration Mission 1 is an unmanned circumlunar flight. In 2018. Depending on your definition that is a moonshot, possibly even before SpaceX goes into regular operation with crew flights or China gets crew to Tiangong-2.

 

[Urwumpe]

2015 is year that Falcon 9 Heavy configuration is supposed to launch

Thinking that if SPACE X really wants to make a splash will launch a manned
Dragon capsule on a circumlunar mission - say with 5 astronauts including
1 or 2 women

What do you think...........

No manned capsule yet. No manned testflight yet. No unmanned testflight yet. No orbital maneuvering testflight yet.

Sorry, but real engineers don't play Kerbal Space Program with human lives.

 

[Andy44]

Also you don't have the first launch of a new launch vehicle being manned.

Well, not usually, anyway...

 

[dman]

Wasn't thinking of manned first flight......

Thinking if early test(s) goes well could go for it

Saturn V launched Apoolo 8 to moon on 3rd flight , that was after partial failure
on 2nd flight where experienced shutdowns on 2 engines in 2 nd stage and failed restart in 3rd stage

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Certainly not manned, but I could see an unmanned circumlunar mission for Falcon 9H, perhaps even an automated landing and return attempt, on the first go, in the spirit of the "all-up" concept of Apollo 4. They don't have LEM development and the other moving parts like Apollo, just the Dragon 2 (though Dragon 2 is a very sophisticated system, and there does not appear to be a lifeboat option).

If you're going to test the system, test the whole system. If you meet all the test objectives, great. If the thing blows up halfway through, well, you still have a lot of data. And you're testing everything under actual conditions.

 

[orbitingpluto]

SpaceX has a large manifest to move, and I'd rather see them delivering those satellites than pulling stunts. They seem to be having trouble getting regular Falcon 9s to the pad in shape for launch, and adding two more first stages to check out will likely make delays worse.

I know sensible people don't start space launch companies, but it would be rather sensible to work out the kinks and get more Falcon 9s thundering off the pads, and making some bucks, before going all Buck Rodgers and spending money on fantastic space missions.

I know the above sounds a bit down on SpaceX, but they aren't going to lower actual costs for payload to orbit without actually making deliveries. I'd like to see them succeed, but "According to Elon" and hype aren't going to make it happen- they have to do it and do it good.

 

[N_Molson]

Again, again and again, SpaceX is about commercial space activities that can with a bit of luck generate an income. Which means low-risk mission profiles and valuable payloads, which are currently commercial (communication) satellites from all around the world. The main competitors are ILS (Proton) and Arianespace (Ariane, Soyuz, Vega). Maybe we'll see a few other like Orbital Sciences come in, but the market has its limits.

US-Government contracts consisting in unmanned or eventually manned deliveries to the ISS might be bonus. Space tourism, IMHO, is going to stay a very marginal activity. The ticket is still way too expensive and the selection process (health) makes the suitable public limited.

The idea, from the start, was to relief NASA from those "housekeeping" tasks and let it focus on the risky, deep-space exploration missions relying on cutting-edge technologies. Which do not earn money, and cost a lot, but that's the story of fundamental science.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

I'd argue that SpaceX could continue the "low risk" commercial launches to LEO, but basically go big with the Falcon 9H as "R&D" over and above those activities. If they could prove a commercial technology to get us to the moon and beyond, don't you think someone might be interested in paying for that?

I think Elon Musk is enough of a dreamer to invest in a plan like this. NASA and satellite operators soon will be paying the bills for LEO services (if all goes well, fingers crossed). If LEO operations become self-supporting, this dude wants to retire on Mars, and I think he'll push for big things.

I think Elon Musk knows that he can't take his money with him when he dies. He's going to go big and either succeed or fail. I don't think he's worried about dying broke.

 

[Kyle]

I really wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX flew a Dragon/FH combo around the Moon in the 2020s. But in 2015? I'd be surprised if Falcon Heavy even flies next year.

 

[dman]

Apollo 8 was a "stunt" . The LEM was late, still undergoing design changes to fireproof it and to pare down excess weight. The Saturn V was ready despite
the problems during the April launch. Also the Russians were knocking on the
flying their ZOND spacecraft, unmanned, around the moon
It looked like would try to send a manned mission around the moon to steal
some glory from the US.

Elon Musk may just decide "go for it" .......

 

[Urwumpe]

Apollo 8 was a "stunt" .

It wasn't. If you really look into the history of the decision process, you will find that it took much longer than the few weeks that went into the final decision. Especially: The flight hardware and ground infrastructure had already been there for this mission. The Apollo 10 F-type mission was already planned and a lot of the effort for Apollo 10 went already into Apollo 8 for earlier testing.

And Elon Musk can do a lot, but remember: He also says a lot more than the poor engineers of SpaceX can deliver.

 

[Unstung]

It wasn't.

The mission was a stunt. Some of the pressure on Apollo 8 was from Russia. NASA was pressed to launch Apollo 8 before the end of 1968 due to a perceived Russian attempt although NASA's hardware was ready. The agency succeeded in its mission, completing a spectacular and highly visible performance (the definition of a stunt) before the Russians, to test the CSM in lunar orbit. The three humans that orbited another world gathered international attention as a result.

I still think both of you made some good points. Urwumpe, "risky" may have been a better word than "stunt" in your case.

Relating it to the topic, SpaceX does not have any good reasons, unlike Apollo 8, to rush into lunar orbit. Elon Musk promises the colonization of Mars in his lifetime.

 

[garyw]

Apollo 8 was a stunt, it wasn't even planned until they heard that the Russians might get there first.

 

[Urwumpe]

The mission was a stunt. Some of the pressure on Apollo 8 was from Russia. NASA was pressed to launch Apollo 8 before the end of 1968 due to a perceived Russian attempt although NASA's hardware was ready. The agency succeeded in its mission, completing a spectacular and highly visible performance (the definition of a stunt) before the Russians, to test the CSM in lunar orbit. The three humans that orbited another world gathered international attention as a result.

I would call it a stunt, if it came completely out of the thin air and was done with much higher risks than for the previous flights.

But that wasn't a case. The Russian mission added some more pressure, but ultimatively, the driving factor in the decision was the delay in the LM and the fact that the promise to land on the moon before the decade was over would be impossible to reach, if NASA simply keeps its schedule and waits for the LM.

The "only" mission firsts had been the manned Saturn V and the lunar orbit operations - but these would also have been independent firsts for Apollo 9 and Apollo 10, if Apollo 8 would have been just another orbital test flight.

So, the only really risky aspect was having a mission with two smaller mission firsts (Like Apollo 9 later also was), based on the already ready for flight hardware. Rocket, Spacecraft and ground systems had been ready. Swapping the CSM was a bit unorthodox, but that happened also well before integration in the VAB.

So nothing extreme in the end - regarding that only 1.5 years had been left to reach the goal.

 

[orbitingpluto]

I agree with Urwumpe, specifically how there wasn't a rush or any special emphasis at NASA on getting Apollo 8 out the door for accolades. They had a Saturn V that was capable of putting a CSM out to the Moon, a CSM that was capable of at least a Lunar flyby, and no real reason to use the two vehicles for a repeat of Apollo 7, or to delay the mission for a working LM(to do do an Apollo 9, in other words). Completely unlike a hypothetical Falcon 9H circumlunar flight in 2015, while it was risky(all spaceflights are) they had a LV and a spacecraft they could reasonably trust and it was more useful than the alternative mission types. I'm sure the thought of the Soviets hot on their heels worried NASA, but by and large the agency stuck to the plan of taking deliberate steps towards a lunar landing. But rather than get into a "you say this happened, I say that happened" argument, let's bring some some reference material into this:

Chariots For Apollo: A history of Manned Lunar Spacecraft
(For Apollo 8 in particular, it's this part and this part in Chapter 11, though this part earlier in the chapter before Apollo 7 provides the early look at planning for Apollo 8)

Moonport: A History Of Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations
(There's four parts about Apollo 8 here in Chapter 20:part1 part2 part3 part 4)

Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles (Unfortunately the relevant chapter isn't broken into neat little chunks, so after following this link to Chapter 12, you'll have to scroll down to the part that says "REACHING THE PINNACLE: AS-503 THROUGH AS-506" to get to the part about Apollo 8)

 

[Unstung]

I would call it a stunt, if it came completely out of the thin air and was done with much higher risks than for the previous flights.

My argument is about semantics. As I wrote, "risky" is a better word. Stunt is "any remarkable feat performed chiefly to attract attention". Launching three men on a skyscraper filled with explosive chemicals incomprehensibly far away to orbit a seemingly small target for a day is remarkable. However, reading the definition, Apollo 8 was not chiefly pushed through to attract publicity. But according to another dictionary (I'm not giving up just yet), a stunt is an "unusual or difficult feat requiring great skill or daring; especially : one performed or undertaken chiefly to gain attention or publicity". So Apollo 8 was a stunt, regardless of whether it was particularly risky or not. Spaceflight will always be daring.

 

[Urwumpe]

My argument is about semantics. As I wrote, "risky" is a better word. Stunt is "any remarkable feat performed chiefly to attract attention".

So, Apollo 11 is a stunt, too?

Important is the word "chiefly" in your definition. Has Apollo 8 been really "chiefly" done - after 6 years of development?