Launch News SpaceX to send privately crewed Dragon spacecraft around the Moon in 2018

[K_Jameson]

My biggest beef with this announcement is the timeline. I have long learned to take these with a large grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism. I have no doubt that they'll eventually run this mission... just, not when they say they're planning to. I'd add, oh, five years, minimum, to that and consider it to be a valid target date.

5+ years seems a long timespan. Let's say from 2020 onwards...
My problem is that this is a pretty pointless mission. Except for the pockets of Elon Musk (if successful). And my real hope is that in this frenzy to be at the center of the attention, Musk not end up to kill someone.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

5+ years seems a long timespan. Let's say from 2020 onwards...

And how far behind schedule is the first flight of FH? 4 years? Seems that 5 years would be a reasonable delay for something like this... because if it goes wrong, it'll be the end of SpaceX.

My problem is that this is a pretty pointless mission. Except for the pockets of Elon Musk (if successful). And my real hope is that in this frenzy to be at the center of the attention, Musk not end up to kill someone.

From a practical, engineering, and scientific standpoint, it does serve three purposes: It proves their life support systems in an environment beyond LEO, it proves the high-speed entry capabilities of their TPS, and it proves their ability to safely navigate a spacecraft beyond GEO. But all of these could be demonstrated on other missions that aren't as high-profile or as risky.

 

[K_Jameson]

From a practical, engineering, and scientific standpoint, it does serve three purposes: It proves their life support systems in an environment beyond LEO, it proves the high-speed entry capabilities of their TPS, and it proves their ability to safely navigate a spacecraft beyond GEO. But all of these could be demonstrated on other missions that aren't as high-profile or as risky.

Someone says Zond 5.

 

[Pipcard]

I'm in the team that has realized this video and the Orbiter addons shown here. The "venus flyby" was only a demo flight for the capability of our addons. Our real goal was the Moon exploration.

The Dragon lunar fly-by will be just that, a manned demo flight to show capability.

 

[K_Jameson]

Well, except that we did not risked any life :hmm:

(Oh and that mission profile is pretty obsolete... If we were to repeat it today, various things should be modified in order to improve realism).

 

[barrygolden]

In 10 years NASA not only learn to build the Saturn 5 and fly it to the Moon. That was a remarkable feet even with the unlimited funding. Then they threw away the blue prints for Saturn 5 and 40 years later they tell us that it will take 10 years and millions of dollars to rebuild the J2 engine that it sitting outside JSC rusting away. for years NASA had missed placed the man rated Apollo 19 CM. We found it to was outside rusting away near the J 2 engine. Yes Space X has had failures as had every one who has tried to build and fly rockets.
I work with Space X But I think NASA should have used the money that is given to the commercial crew program and use it on Orion. Had the done that as we speak Orion could be used to resupply and crew operations For the ISS and launch it on Delta 4 heavy or build the Aries 1. Orion is built to be reusable and a fleet of 4 or 5 were planned. Maybe another look at the Delta core with SRB's could work to have them recovered.
I think a manned flight around the moon next year might be a tough goal to reach but so was JFK's goal of landing a man on the moon in 9 1/2 years
Why don't we here in orbiter develop a program in 2016 for the SLS program. MPCV is flying and JWST is close but we need a deep space com satellite, Altair and cargo lander , gateway station, icy moon orbiter , a lander for Enceldeus and a Mars rover and Manned lander for Mars

 

[Urwumpe]

Then they threw away the blue prints for Saturn 5

They did not.

 

[MikeB]

Jason Davis at the Planetary Society is a journalist, and has issues with the lack of transparency of SpaceX's public relations operation. He has a relevant article about why SpaceX won't deliver on this announced flight schedule: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170302-spacex-tourists-2018.html. He says the relevant comparison is not with Apollo 8 (i.e., lunar orbit and return), but with Apollo 13 (without the explosion). He mentions a NASA-ese concept called the Joint Confidence Level (JCL), which (supposedly) has to exceed 70% before NASA approves a project. I hadn't heard that before.

As long as I'm writing, here's my take on the proposal. Some folks here clearly have negative attitudes toward SpaceX's approach or Musk's personality. I don't think that's helpful in analyzing a proposal like this. Anything new starts with a vision and has to be expressed as a goal. Once a goal is defined, the hard work of project planning, cost estimation, and scheduling can start. Project planning proceeds by identifying tasks that will lead to the goal, and subtasks that will lead to the tasks, subdivided as far as necessary until they are small enough to manage. Only then is it possible to allocate resources, and estimate schedules and detailed costs for the steps in the project.

SpaceX has announced a goal. They know (even better than we do) the major tasks to reach the goal, and clearly have some confidence that the major dependencies (booster, spacecraft, procedures, testing, training, etc.) will be completed and demonstrated before they attempt the flight. Note that their announced timeframe ("in 2018") is part of the goal, not necessarily a result of detailed planning. The uncertainties in aerospace projects are so great that nobody should ever take seriously a projection like this. Delay is inevitable, but ambitious goals serve can help to motivate an organization's members. If anyone wants to bet real money on SpaceX achieving their goal by 2018, I doubt they will find any optimists on Orbiter Forum.

I am skeptical on the schedule, but optimistic on the technical objective. Musk has a track record of achieving technical goals, even though his goal timeframes are over-optimistic. I can set aside his personality, as I do most entrepreneurs'; they seem to be (nearly) all jerks*. We don't have to like them (or work for them); but think of the benefits we all have received from the accomplishments of jerks.

* I could have used a stronger word, but this is a family-friendly post.

 

[Urwumpe]

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/724371main_76646-Risk_Analysis_Brochure-Final6.pdf

The funny thing is: The JCL would fail on both SpaceX and SLS/Orion. :rofl: It is based on a classic waterfall-like project management.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CEH_Appj.pdf

And yes, it is a new bureaucratic nightmare, from 2012.

 

[Donamy]

It's all in the funding !!

 

[gattispilot]

Why don't we here in orbiter develop a program in 2016 for the SLS program. MPCV is flying and JWST is close but we need a deep space com satellite, Altair and cargo lander , gateway station, icy moon orbiter , a lander for Enceldeus and a Mars rover and Manned lander for Mars

We have 2 rovers LER and the other MMSEV one. Both kinda work in 2016. Kinda meaning about the touchdown points.

But no Ummu yet

 

[Linguofreak]

I am skeptical on the schedule, but optimistic on the technical objective.

I'm optimistic that *if* they can meet schedule on the first crewed Dragon flight, they can meet schedule on the lunar flight.

Recall that Apollo 8 was only two months after the first manned Apollo flight, and was the second mission overall. Space programs can proceed quite quickly if the people who set the goals can provide sufficient funding.

 

[K_Jameson]

Well, they can also kill the crew as quickly as Apollo 1.
This is definitely reachable in the given schedule.

Recall that Apollo 8 was only two months after the first manned Apollo flight, and was the second mission overall.

Apollo 8 was the third mission overall (of a Saturn V). Why underestimate the value and importance of unmanned test flights?

 

[Fabri91]

This is why I can't believe the timeline regarding this mission, i.e. that it will be flown next year.

It won't be the first flight of Falcon Heavy, it won't be the first manned flight of CrewDragon, and surely it won't be all these things combined.

Falcon Heavy will have to fly at the very least a couple of times, and the capsule will first have to do unmanned LEO flights, manned LEO flights and the same for high orbit in order to at least validate heat shield and comm systems.

While each of these objectives should be achievable for SpaceX at some point, no way they'll manage all these goals within the end of 2018.

 

[Urwumpe]

The capsule would only need one supersynchronous flight - Enough for verifying everything works, fast enough for certifying the heatshield and reentry systems. During such a flight, the ECLSS could be verified, the communication system and the navigation system, even if unmanned.

Most other subsystems are already verified during the ISS flights.

The first manned flight could then go straight to the moon. So, instead of launching a commercial payload on the first FH flight, it would need to launch a lunar Dragon.

One audacious test flight before the manned show. That is possible. Slightly risky. But possible.

 

[K_Jameson]

You're more confident on SpaceX than I thought.
The level of risk accepted in the Sixties is far less easily accepted today.

 

[Urwumpe]

You're more confident on SpaceX than I thought.

Well, I just meditate on what I would do in that situation.

Not sure if this makes me confident in SpaceX, but at least I am confident in my superhuman abilities in project management...errrrr... well, lets say, I hope I will be a very lucky person. :lol:

 

[Andy44]

You're more confident on SpaceX than I thought.
The level of risk accepted in the Sixties is far less easily accepted today.

What Urwumpe stated was risky but technically possible. Proving the heat shield out is important.

SpaceX and other space industry entities also have access to the data from Apollo and other earlier programs, so they're not starting from scratch completely.

 

[K_Jameson]

OK, I know that in theory this mission is technically feasible.
I don't question this (but testing the heat shield is not important, is basilar.)

I only say that a too rushed approach can lead to disaster in a surprisingly efficient manner.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Well the first falcon heavy flight article has already been built and was scheduled to fly in the spring of 2017 before the AMOS-6 mishap. First flight of FH before the end of the year doesn't seem like all that much of a stretch.

And frankly, given their history, I'd place more trust in SpaceX's judgment on matters of safety than I would NASA's.