Elon Musk’s Bold Lunar Gambit: Dueling Moon Missions & a Shrinking Pie
Elon Musk (Credit: SpaceX)
I’ve been puzzling for the last few days over the timing of Musk’s moon mission announcement, which was curious for several reasons.
First, it came soon after NASA announced its own study about whether to put astronauts on the first SLS/Orion test in 2019. Why would Musk risk undercuting his biggest customer, a space agency that has provided so much of SpaceX’s development and contract funding?
Second, Musk’s unveiling of the plan seemed to be a rushed, improvised affair. He tweeted about it the day before — a Sunday — and then held a press briefing for a small group of media that lasted all of about five minutes. The contrast with the carefully choreographed unveiling of his Mars transportation architecture last year in Mexico couldn’t be greater.
Third, Musk has never really shown much interest in the moon. Yes, SpaceX might have been doing some planning for a human mission there in private. But, that still doesn’t explain the timing.
The moon is three days away. A circum-lunar flight can be done at any time. There are not the kind of constraints that exist with launch windows to Mars.
Why suddenly announce it now with many other SpaceX programs — Crew Dragon to the International Space Station (ISS), Falcon Heavy, a large launch manifest — running so far behind schedule?
Until two weeks ago, Musk’s plan was to send a modified Dragon capsule directly to the martian surface in 2018, not two tourists around the moon.That first Red Dragon flight would be followed up by two additional Dragon missions during launch windows that open every two years.
Meanwhile, SpaceX would be focused on building an enormous rocket and spacecraft capable of carrying 100 passengers to Mars at a time. The first flight of the interplanetary transport system would carry the first dozen astronauts to the martian surface in 2024.
Musk’s Mars schedule has already slipped two years to 2020 due to the need for SpaceX to focus on the Falcon Heavy booster and finish development of Crew Dragon for ISS flights. So, why risk disrupting all this work for a human moon flight that could be launched at any time?
According to a credible theory I heard last night, the answer is money. And not just the cash two billionaires are willing to fork over to fly around the moon.
Trump’s budget plan calls for a sharp boost in military spending and corresponding cuts in discretionary domestic spending at agencies like NASA. So, the space agency will already have less money to spend over the next four to eight years.
Meanwhile, putting a crew on the first SLS/Orion flight would require substantial additional funding over the next two years to have any chance of succeeding. That would take a big chunk out of the agency’s already shrinking budget pie.
The result? Less money for NASA to send SpaceX’s way. Less money for buying additional Dragon cargo and crew flights. Less funding for NASA to support Musk’s Mars ambitions. Less money for anything else SpaceX might propose to the space agency.
Musk has made very clear that he needs a public-private partnership for his Mars plan to succeed. NASA is only major space agency that has shown any serious interest in sending astronauts to the Red Planet. In this case, competition from NASA is bad.
Musk has essentially presented an alternative plan that he and his backers can put forward to argue against any increase in the SLS/Orion budget in the near term that would enable the space agency to mount its own mission by 2019. It would be a cheaper mission that could be done privately.
It also would mean that Musk, rather than NASA, could present Trump with the sort of space spectacular the president has been looking for to prove he’s “made America great again” when he runs for re-election in 2020. For that, Trump would be very grateful — providing the flight didn’t end in disaster.
And who knows? If SpaceX can pull off this mission, perhaps NASA’s expensive program will be canceled. Then the space agency would turn to Musk for its deep-space booster and spacecraft needs. NewSpace advocates would certainly cheer that on.
Musk’s lunar plan has been hailed by his supporters as a bold step forward in commercial space. A privately-funded trip around the moon would certainly qualify. It would show what was possible.
However, if Musk’s moon plan is just a loop around the moon without any plan for a follow up — bases in orbit or on the surface, mining operations, something more substantial than the ultimate road trip for joy-riding billionaires — then its impact could be quite limited.
Advancing commercial space might not be the main purpose of the lunar mission. Instead, it might be a way for Musk to protect his Mars plan, which is much harder to justify in terms of a commercial return on investment.
85 responses to “Elon Musk’s Bold Lunar Gambit: Dueling Moon Missions & a Shrinking Pie”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
this is pretty good…but the timing is not that much of a mystery
nothing in the commercial world concerning human spaceflight HAPPENS unless there is some sort of public/private partnership that develops between NASA, which has money and the folks like Musk or Bigelow who have things that they want to sell concerning human flight…but really no buyers
Musk and others have to pull the money at NASA aaway from projects that are in the old Apollo mode; ie SLS and Orion which have almost ground to a halt anyway…there is a substantial amount of money nearly 4 billion a year being spent on those projects…they have to see that money channeled into more programs like the Commercial transport and crew change out
this adventure trip does it. if it works it demonstrates that Dragon/Falcon9 can do just about what SLS/Orion can and for a lot cheaper…and do it now…instead of well when is SLS likely to be in some near final config? 2027 or something…
Musk has to cut the legs out from under SLS (and so does Bigelow etc) RGO
I don’t see this as Elon Musk cutting the legs out from SLS. To quote “TheDude” from a post on spacenews:
“How I envision these projects came about:
Congress: “Here is a fancy new rocket for you!”
NASA: “but we don’t have any missions planned or funded to use it, WTH are we going to do with it?”
Congress: “I don’t know, send some meat bags around the moon. We got a huge PR boost last time we did that.”
NASA: “what is the point of that? There is no new science to mine in that.”
Congress: “hahaha like we care about science”
Vs
RichDude: “That is a fancy new rocket you got there, can it send meat bags around the moon?”
Musk: “Sure, but what is the point? It’s been done and there isn’t much new science to do on that front.”
RichDude: “I’ll pay you.”
Musk: “Sold!”
Please try to come up with your own explanations. I don’t think it’s proper to simply cut and paste posts by other people from other web sites.
Doug, I think you are reading too much in it. Musk has always stated that Space X would be willing to perform a lunar mission if someone else would pay for it. While NASA’s budget may shrink, they have already purchased crew and cargo flights. The shrinkage would only affect things further into the future and Musk can also sell to the DOD.
Musk isn’t undercutting NASA. It is just that he and whoever wants to pay for it is not willing to wait. The whole idea that LEO should be for commercial and BEO just for NASA is not well thought out. Space is space. I find it strange that we rely on Commercial Companies(ULA) to launch billion-dollar space probes to distant planets yet when man enters the equation Commercial Space can’t go to deep space.
I don’t think this will delay anything. Some of the work on this capsule is probably applicable to Red Dragon and I suspect it isn’t much work from a standard Dragon 2 to a lunar one.
This is what commercial spaceflight is supposed to enable. The cost of a flyby has been lowered by the existence (or near existence) of FH and Dragon. The tourists could not have purchased a flight of SLS but can purchase something else. The Russians had been offering a similar mission but have not made any progress towards it.
A lunar mission would advance commercial space quite a bit. Many technologies started as catering to the rich(Rail, Commercial Aviation) and expanded past that. Musk can’t focus on everything lunar(bases in orbit, on the surface ect…) but he can provide some services like launch, cargo and crew to the moon and do so with a cost and frequency that SLS could never hope to achieve.
pathfinder_01 wrote: “Musk isn’t undercutting NASA. It is just that he and whoever wants to pay for it is not willing to wait.”
It is not even a question of waiting for NASA. Even if NASA does manage to finally fly the SLS orion with crew, it is not like anyone can buy a ride on it. So there isn’t a reason to wait because NASA will never serve a commercial market.
I honestly prefer a funny quote over some nonsensical pro or contra rant by some of the usual suspects that roam in the realm of space news sites.
While I can appreciate your not wanting others to steal , he does correctly attribute to ‘the dude’.
And compared to kapitalust and Tom ( who cares ), this is better.
as long as SLS and Orion live there is no money to do anything else
I don’t think that’s true at all.
I know it is
No money from NASA, yes. No money from anywhere, no. There is a lot of capital on this planet, a minute fraction of which dwarfs NASAs budget if the owners of it see a reason to invest.
I would love to see it step up…but so far…
But so far they haven’t, except for Musk, Bezos, Allen, Carmack, and several dozen more I could think of, and several thousand other individuals that I don’t know. Investment intensity before a tipping point is very different than that after. The buzzword for many is Netscape Moment.
A couple of people willing to pay for a circumlunar flight may be an indicator of change in perception, and is definitely a change in availability. Sooner or later there will be a change in the funding source as people find reasons to do something that there is a capability to do. When the funding source changes, the methods and tempo of operations and development will follow.
well…the problem is that none of these folks you mention can ‘get there from here” at least concerning human spaceflight.
Musk is going somewhere due to two reasons. First there is a market for uncrewed satellilte launches at a price point well above what Musk is claiming (and I have no reason to dispute it) that he can provide the same launch service for…so clearly there is a market at a lower price point…and that is right now the bulk of Musk “business”…and that includes Dragon flying to the space station
second there is a market, limited right now to NASA for human spaceflight services to the space station.
Now Musk seems to have found at least a limited funding sources for a “spin off” of that crewed service. Assuming it works there is a price point that “some market” (no clue how large it is) will pay for a tourist flight.
problem particularly say “private space stations” its unclear that there is a price point where say Bigelow can build a BA330 station and get enough customers to keep it running and in the “black” financially
if that is not accurate…then we should hear any day now that Bigelow is announcing the start date of his BA330 efforts.
I am not holding my breath.
” Sooner or later there will be a change in the funding source as people
find reasons to do something that there is a capability to do”
I hope you are correct…I am not holding my breath
(but to be clear…this annoncement of the tourist flight caught me off guard and surprises me…so??????)
Robert
There’s a qualitative difference between ground taxi and rotate. You can’t infer one from the other.
What are the capital trends? In which direction? When President Reagan had the NASA mandate changed to include:
“(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.”
and signed The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 there wasn’t a single dedicated investment group for space.
By the time President Clinton signed The Commercial Space Act of 1998 there were a couple. It didn’t take long for capital to start forming and we started seeing things like the Ansari X prize and President Bush’s “The Vision for Space Exploration” calling for commercial cargo and commercial crew.
By the time President Obama brought in commercial crew and signed the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 we have literally seen an EXPLOSION of capital flooding in.
“VCs Invested More in Space Startups Last Year Than in the Previous 15 Years Combined”
http://fortune.com/2016/02/…
SpaceX building and built factories and new launch and testing facilities.
Blue Origin building factories and launch and testing facilities
Bigelow Aerospace building new factories and testing facilities.
We now even have capital moving towards asteroid mining with Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries investing in technology.
You need look no further than https://www.newspaceglobal….
New Space Global, a website that would have had no reason to exist before but now because there is so many new companies and so much capital coming in that is lists about a dozen angel investment and Venture Capitalists that specialize in space.
So Robert.. I look at the trends. and I see we have reached the tipping point. We will VERY VERY soon have the three legs of the stool in place. Commercial cargo, commercial crew and a commercial destination. We are witnessing the paradigm shift in human space flight.
So Robert.. I look at the trends. and I see we have reached the tipping
point. We will VERY VERY soon have the three legs of the stool in place.
Commercial cargo, commercial crew and a commercial destination. We are
witnessing the paradigm shift in human space flight.
I am more optimistic today then a week ago but lets see what happens
Actually, need more than 1 commercial destination to support crew/cargo. And I doubt that there is enough reason to support multiple stations for years, without us having something like the moon.
First off, BA has announced that they believe there is enough money for a private space station. And then proves it by building a factory devoted to it. That is a lot more expensive than launching 1 of these up there.
However, it is worthless putting these up in space unless connected to the iss, or there are several.HSF systems. And neither is available at this time.
Bigelow announced months ago that he intends to put up a pair of B330 missions on Atlas V’s in 2020. It was in all the papers. You could look it up.
I agree with the reasoning that if Musk can pull this off, it will greatly increase the chances that SLS/Orion will be killed as part of reducing NASA’s budget.
Increase but by no means assure its demise. SLS exists for very powerful political reasons, with the cherry on top that it promises to (expensively) provide a very heavy lift capacity that even FH can’t quite provide.
True… SX and BO will have to demonstrate real progress in their super heavy lift commercial alternatives before Congress’ arguments for keeping SLS weaken enough to cancel the program. Most of the components to SLS are already built or proven, whereas SX and BO are still hammering out the long-pole-in-the-tent problems.
Not true.
First off, SLS is at 70 tonnes at 1-2B / launch. Minimum.
FH is at 54 tonnes using F9 block 3. Block 5 is supposed to add some 20-30 % over block 3. As such, FH will be around 65-70 tonnes at less than 150M / launch.
Secondly, if congress keeps developing SLS to 130 tonnes, that will still be another 5 years with 2-3 B yearly.
That is not worth it. In 5 years, BFR will likely by flying at 300+ tonnes for under 500 M.
Yes… a minimum of 70mT for 1-2B is technically correct, but it ignores the fact that 1B has a higher minimum of 105mT and block 2 has a minimum of 130mT.
Until they announce updated metrics, this is all speculation.
I agree it isn’t worth it if we knew BFR/ITS would fly in 5 years with absolute certainty. Even if we did have such certainty, it would be better to fund both ITS and NG to reduce risk and maintain competition further into the future. We don’t want to put all the eggs into one basket.
Unless we have a base on the moon, further development on SLS is just not worth it.
And if we do start a base, far better to turn SLS over to its builders and then do a COTS of say 2B / SHLV for development times 2, and require less than .5 b / launch.
Is that 5 real years or 5 Elon years (< 10 real yrs.)?
U tell me.
He now has multiple companies devoted to manufacturing, one of which is for space. Tesla appears on track for M3, and is his first car to not follow musk time. Then I have noticed that both Tesla’s and solar city’s gigafactory are on time, not musk time.
Now, he has indicated less than 5 years for BFR ( doesn’t say anything about bfs ), has raptor most of the way tested out, and is actually developing lox and methane tanks for his first version of BFR.
Musk may finally be moving off musk time and getting a handle on real time.
Otherwise, ya, 7-10 years 🙂
While true, with the discretionary budget cuts likely to come from this administration to pay for expanded military and infrastructure spending, NASA’s budget is quite likely to be cut significantly. So, if SLS is kept, there quite likely will be no money for any actual missions for the thing.
As many have been saying since its inception, SLS is a “launcher to nowhere”. Without significant funding for meaningful payloads there really can’t be any meaningful missions (e.g. a HAB module, airlock module, lunar lander, and etc.)
There you go with that practical logic again….
It’s going to be like the early years of the space shuttle program. With no space station to assemble or visit, the program had a lot of “make work” types of flights. I’d expect SLS will end up being the same. But it will take many years until we get to that point. I read somewhere else after EM-1 there will be a large gap (3 years?) until EM-2 partly due to all of the ground infrastructure rework necessary to support the SLS upper stage (e.g. launch/access tower rework on its Mobile Launch Platform).
At best. We were not 19 trilion in the hole in the 80s.
True, but when you look at a graph of US public debt as a percentage of GDP, debt was on a steep increase during the 1980’s. Yes, it’s much higher today that it was then, but we still have less debt than during the 1940s.
But, if we go on another round of tax cuts plus increases in defense spending (not fully offset by cuts elsewhere), we’re going to repeat the increases of the 1980’s for sure.
Can’t we don’t have an export economy that can support such a high debt load. Even our domestic tax base can’t maintain our current spending.
You can’t get there from here.
Only, if we continue to develop SLS. It really does not make sense to develop it unless it can be flown at least monthly.
Perhaps Elon was just really excited and couldn’t stop himself from sharing the news? Perhaps the two customers are more like patrons in that they are providing enough capital that SpaceX can use push FH development and a “Deep space” Dragon, irregardless to what NASA (or you or I) thinks?
I’d say look to see if there is a big hiring/expansion/outsourcing surge by SX soon.
It’s just a media distraction strategy. If you can get WSJ writer to spend a day to write about a moon shot story, then there is one less person to write about the falling Tesla stocks and its downgrade that day.
This reminds me of how critics of space flight/space research in general (but especially manned), is a ‘distraction’ from whatever their favorite ‘more important’ project or cause is.
You both seriously discount the number,or multitasking ability of journalists.
Not just multitasking, there is the limited space on a newspaper or webpage.
Newspaper yes, webpage no
Webpages as well. Valuable digital properties with their landing pages are as cautiously planned as newspapers.
Yeah, that falling stock has nothing to do with stock manipulation by kock Bros, Detroit, oil companies, or the fact that it is currently overvalued by a good 50-75.
If Musk is to be believed he stated that there were other customers as well.
The way Space Frontier Foundation always pitched commercial space is that NASA outsources Earth orbit work to the private sector and takes on the harder, less commercial work beyond LEO. Being as competitive as he is, Elon seems to want it all. Getting SLS and Orion killed would be pretty devastating to Boeing and Lockheed Martin and the other companies building those systems.
Hardly devastating. At least from a corporate boardroom perspective. Some like Huntsville and Michoud no doubt would be. SLS is a fat juicy contract no doubt. But it pales in comparison to their other space systems biz, not to mention the much bigger defense and commercial aircraft work.
Perhaps what we have witnessed wasn’t some kind of sneaky politico-corporate move, but actually a seismic one of the entire landscape. Lunar flybys at least, are no longer the domain of bold exploratory programs. Its just another market niche.
But fear not. Remember the SLS was originally conceived as a vehicle to lift heavy tonnage to build Lunar (and someday Mars) landers and facilities. When feeling less cynical, I like to think that is how space proponents have managed to keep “Constellation” alive thru the Obama years.
“However, if Musk’s moon plan is just a loop around the moon without any plan for a follow up — bases in orbit or on the surface, mining operations, something more substantial than the ultimate road trip for joy-riding billionaires — then its impact could be quite limited”
I’m guessing that Musk has at least ten follow up plans…mostly because he loves thinking about this kinda stuff. (Another great piece, by the way. You’re a pretty interesting thinker yourself.)
Plans. Perhaps. Money to do them. I’m not sure.
Thank you for the compliment. I can’t take full credit for this one. Largely the view of a friend I can’t quote. Wish I could.
Doug, nice article mate, thanks.
FH is ready to go – the delays seem more to do with F9 core development than the cost of the software work to make three cores play nice together. Dragon 2 was always intended as a deep space craft to “land on any solid or liquid surface in the solar system”. Pushing Boeing and LM away from the launch business, might be a welcome bonus from a gov launch contracts perspective, but his commercial competitors are Europe, China, India and Russia. So, the idea that this is largely a play for limited NASA funds is the most compelling argument, especially given the timing. Demonstrating that SLS/Orion are not necessary, at least not at 10 times the cost, would certainly be a good bargaining ploy.
Of course, it could just be that a couple of people approached SpaceX willing to pay $100 million each to go round the Moon, and we’re all a bunch of conspiracy theorists.
I don’t think that the Falcon Heavy will fly before pad LC-40 is back on line.
Just so that SpaceX have one operational pad on the East coast in the unlikely chance of mishap with the inaufural Falcon Heavy static fire & launch.
SpaceX got a manifest backlog to pared down. You couldn’t do that without an East coast pad.
Nothing like a Space X circumlunar mission to make people forget about the ITS tank rupture.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sp…
One of the better comments:
“I am going to interpret this as being a bad result for the test, since it failed in longitudinal stress, rather than hoop stress. A hoop stress failure will typically indicate that the vessel was efficiently designed, since longitudinal stresses are usually lower than hoop stresses. This is applicable to metallic pressure vessels, which is what my experience is in. It is also possible it was intended to fail a long the seam, but usually, a good seam/weld will be designed to be a little stronger than the bulk material.”
I support SLS myself. It uses hydrogen–and will allow larger shroud diameters. Falcon Heavy is really just EELV +
Now, I can see Falcon as a replacement for Ares I for a 1.5 architecture mission–with SLS launching an Altair type lander/insertion stage.
ULA’s cis-lunar infrastructure is just a way to sell EELVs and Vulcans by the score. It has neither the volumetric efficiency of SLS, nor the low cost of Falcon.
Musk needs to kick composites to the curb–and go for Sea Dragon:
https://thehighfrontier.blo…
The steam rocket Truax made for the Snake River jump has been vindicated:
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
We saw on the finale of the Mythbuster search just what pressure-fed metals can do.
Musk needs to have Shelby as a friend too.
Alabama has a shipyard
https://www.google.com/maps…
Alabama has steel, and Airbus
http://www.al.com/business/…
http://www.airbus.com/compa…
SLS launches Mars ships–and Sea Dragon only propellant and tankage–the big dumb payload approach.
You seem to regard the “ITS tank rupture” as some sort of egregious failure. Rupturing the test article tank was the point of the whole exercise. That’s why it was done on a barge at sea, so errant shrapnel wouldn’t ding anything.
Let’s look at this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/sp…
One of the better comments
“Looks like it separated right along the seam.”
“I am going to interpret this as being a bad result for the test, since it failed in longitudinal stress, rather than hoop stress. A hoop stress failure will typically indicate that the vessel was efficiently designed, since longitudinal stresses are usually lower than hoop stresses. This is applicable to metallic pressure vessels, which is what my experience is in. It is also possible it was intended to fail along the seam, but usually, a good seam/weld will be designed to be a little stronger than the bulk material.”
Yeah, I read that too. The commenter might be right, but he could just as easily be dead wrong. Given that the tank wreckage in the picture is piled up and obscured by other stuff on the dock, I’m damned if I can see on what basis the commenter is so certain of the test tank’s actual failure mode. The only thing certain is that SpaceX had announced in advance that they intended to pressure test the prototype ITS tank to destruction, would do so on a barge at sea for safety reasons, and that they have carried through on their announced plans.
I wonder if there is a way to inflate a bladder and keep wrapping–so there is no one seam.
BTW I seem to remember that Beal had the larget fimament winding machine on the planet. Did Musk get that? I might have asked this before but my memory is dim.
It’s a good argument and fits in with the limitations imposed by the cash needs of SLS and the BFR. But Space X has already really won. The Falcon program fits the needs of a $20 billion a year NASA like a glove. SLS requires the current development budget to operate it, let alone develop and operate payloads for it. SLS assumes a $25 billion a year NASA to keep it flying payloads and operate them. Space X can wait SLS out. But maybe the haste says Space X needs the cash now. The SLS wreck is only 2 to 3 years away, and 4 years away from being a launch vehicle with no payloads. That time will be soaked up getting the Falcon and Dragon programs calmed down. Presumably that money is in sight, but maybe not.
We’ve been told yet again that Falcon Heavy will launch this year. I certainly hope so. To the best of my knowledge, there is no announced payload for the FH’s first mission but this announcement opens the opportunity for some speculation. They could try launching a “gently used” cargo Dragon capsule (or a Dragon 2, should one be far enough along in development) on an unmanned version of this mission. It would allow them to test their heat shield, avionics, and other technology on a deep space mission profile. The odds this would actually happen are admittedly quite low but it’d certainly be more interesting than a dead mass payload simulator.
Don’t they have a commercial payload for FH already? I thought they did… Yeah. Intelsat.
http://www.space.com/15915-…
(first link I came too).
But yes I would be nice of them to fling a “Moon Dragon” configuration out and back before putting that top-shelf spam in the can for their ride. Actually send a “Dragon Lab” and sell experiment space on board. They should also give all the GLXP entries a free ride on the test flight. If they can get their contraptions built in time…
I do not believe they could sell much space IF they try and stay inside this 22 month timeline. Unless there is some off the shelf experiment packages that could fly?
The first mission (prob. in July) is only a test flight. It may include some modest payload, at customer’s risk. Otherwise: two other FH flights are scheduled before the notional date of this lunar mission – one for DoD, one for ArabSat.
Whether they’d try something like what you’re suggesting with a Dragon – not impossible, but there’s been no hint of that from SpaceX.
Of course, we don’t know if NASA will be exempt from the 10% cut in discretionary spending. It’s reasonable to speculate that they’ll get the same hit everyone else does – but until that’s confirmed, we really don’t know.
I think NASA gets a partial exemption from the 10% cut. NASA is related to American greatness in a bold, visible way and Trump would love a demonstration of that greatness, especially before the next election. So, a token cut, but well smaller than 10%, with the bulk of the cut coming out of Earth Science.
Anyway, that’s my guess
NASA Earth Science provides a big chunk of work and money for ISS.
Actually, if NASA will get oco3 up there, they will get their restored or kept close.
I’m not saying I think they should cut Earth Science, I’m saying I think they WILL cut Earth Science (regardless of whether I think that’s a good idea or not)
With theil and musk on the advisory boards? I seriously doubt it.
Here is a way to go to the moon on the crumbs of the pie.
get ULA and SpaceX to joint venture lunar tourism.
http://selenianboondocks.co…
Add BA and you have it.
I think he announced now simply because he just finalized a deal for a big exciting new mission for his new big rocket and new manned capsule AND
1) this is the interim period where Trump is formulating his first budget
2) Trump has at least some demonstrated interest in SpaceX and Tesla (as shown by his invites to and meetings with Musk)
3) business, American manufacturing and public-private partnerships are things Trump focused on in his campaign (his big infrastructure initiative relies on public-private partnerships, for example)
4) he’ll want to demonstrate American greatness before his reelection campaign
5) Senators from his party and some of his advisors are pushing hurrying SLS and Orion on him as THE way to demonstrate greatness
6) budget realities and NASA’s culture and bureaucracy will make 5) problematic
7) everything is in the balance as not only the budget but an official space policy and a new NASA administrator have yet to be determined
So, now is simply the time to present a bold alternative for demonstrating greatness that can be done on a much smaller budget.
Heck, enough spectacular progress by SpaceX could possibly even get the government to buy into SpaceX’s Mars vision…
Gee, what could possibly go wrong with putting two space tourists on a robot spaceship and flying them around the Moon? “SpaceX, we have a problem.” I mean, SpaceX surely has decades of experience with manned spacecraft.
No but NASA does and I doubt they’ll sit on the sidelines. SpaceX and NASA have excellent working relationship so there’ll definitely be assistance from NASA.
Also, Elon stated that NASA has first bite at the cherry if they want to send their people first.
Cheers
NASA would (rightly) want control of all aspects of the mission that affect human safety. They would demand redundancy on top of redundancy and TESTED systems with a clear track record of working under all anticipated conditions. They aren’t going to give control to Musk whose rockets are not human rated and whose spacecraft has no legacy. At least Apollo 8 had systems that had been tested and proven during Mercury and Gemini. Even systems completely redesigned after the Apollo 1 tragedy had been tested in unmanned missions and on Apollo 7. SpaceX has far too many irons in the fire already to undertake another major project on a short time frame.
I did not realize that NASA had decades of experience when they did Apollo 1 and then 13.
They certainly had more than SpaceX. I’m not saying that the mission can’t be flown but there is a learning curve for each step outward from the firmament. Right now SpaceX is near the bottom of the curve’s upslope. You don’t have to be an engineer to know that entrepreneurial zeal is no substitute for experience. Landing a booster means nothing when the real question is how do you safeguard the lives of two non-astronauts returning to Earth at 25,000 miles an hour?
I think the “moon project” comes from the customers, not SpaceX. I mean, two billonaires ask SpaceX for a fly by to moon and SpaceX says “Why not?”
They’re going to control anything that they’re associated with. If Musk wants to kill a couple of billionaires with his untested spacecraft and helium bottle – cursed Falcon rocket without NASA’s help, that their business. If he want’s the government’s money, he’ll take their direction. It’s that simple.
You do realize that NASA has said that they would help to foster a commercial space sector. They also said that the companies who will own the crew vehicles (Boeing and SpaceX) were free to seek other customers for their vehicles. This would help to reduce the price of manned access to LEO & BLEO. So, I’m sure that SpaceX has NASA’s official blessing. Now, there may be some old school managers at NASA who doesn’t want commercial companies to have private manned access to BLEO. I’m sure Bigelow will be following this pretty closely so he can determine which orbit he wants to put a B-330 in to take advantage of Lunar flyby tourists.
There are lots of ways to help that besides signing on to a risky stunt with an untested spacecraft and a vehicle that hasn’t flown much less qualified for “man rating.” I’m all for them helping to foster a private space industry. Private enterprise can supply the money. NASA can supply the expertise and infrastructure.
Sure, but none of the other ones are available for reasonable prices. So, we will see in 2019 if the Crew Dragon and the FH are still untested.
No, we will see in 1 year. Musk wants to fly in 2018. Eventually, both Crew Dragon and FH will be ready. The point is that they are not ready now and at SpaceX’s current rate of progress, it is doubtful that they will have the expertise to pull this off by then. SLS and Orion are even farther behind (but at least the Orion capsule has flown.) A venture like this using that system would be unadvisable but I have more faith in NASA’s experience and the training of their astronauts than I have in SpaceX and a couple of rich space tourists.
The end of 2018 is 2019. Hence, 2019-2020. Of course there have always been wealthy tourists throughout the history of the human race.
I don’t see NASA’s budget getting reduced, like the military it is some that President Trump could use to project America’s greatness to the world. But not the way NASA is moving on SLS/Orion.
The way I see it the purpose of this is two fold. First, to give SpaceX credibility in its Mars plans. The second is to show that SLS/Orion in a poor light so they will be dumped. The report NASA will return on the feasibility of sending humans to lunar orbit during this Administration will make or break it.
With it out of the way President Trump would then be free to have NASA fund Elon Musk’s Mars Colonial Transporter system, or whatever the current name is, so humans could reach the Mars system late in President Trump’s second term or at least by the 250th anniversary of America so he may say his vision “of footprints on distant worlds” by then came true.
Yes, technically he would have to make it a NASA goal and then hold a RFP for two providers to achieve it with COTS like program – Mars COTS.
In doing so he would serve two of his campaign goals. Draining the Swamp (killing SLS/Orion…) and making America great – Americans on Mars.
Perhaps I am in error and they aren’t taking payment for products and services rendered. I had no idea that they were that altruistic. “Earned” vs. “taken.” You are playing with words – and doing it badly.
No article on the “leaked” BO lunar report to nasa?
Not seeing the logic in the second line.
Musk delayed a Mars mission in order to focus on FH and Dragon-crew, so why would he now risk his focus on FH and Dragon-crew by suddenly focusing on a mission for FH and Dragon-crew…? Uh… What?
Mars is a planet that is too far from the Sun to be relatively warm and too close to Sol to be safe from solar-flare radiation Mars has no magnetosphere). It also has a higher escape velocity than Luna. There are fewer natural resources near the surface of Mars, that can be used on Earth, than on Luna (Helium 3). A rescue mission from Earth to lunar orbit, could arrive. to a stranded spacecraft, in as little as 96 hours.
Elon seems to have come to his senses. Dump Mars!