This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

SpaceX Might Beat NASA Back To The Moon

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 27, 2017
Filed under
SpaceX Might Beat NASA Back To The Moon

SpaceX To Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond The Moon Next Year, SpaceX
“We are excited to announce that SpaceX has been approached to fly two private citizens on a trip around the moon late next year. They have already paid a significant deposit to do a moon mission. Like the Apollo astronauts before them, these individuals will travel into space carrying the hopes and dreams of all humankind, driven by the universal human spirit of exploration. We expect to conduct health and fitness tests, as well as begin initial training later this year. Other flight teams have also expressed strong interest and we expect more to follow. Additional information will be released about the flight teams, contingent upon their approval and confirmation of the health and fitness test results.”
NASA Statement About SpaceX Private Moon Venture Announcement, NASA
“We will work closely with SpaceX to ensure it safely meets the contractual obligations to return the launch of astronauts to U.S. soil and continue to successfully deliver supplies to the International Space Station. “For more than a decade, NASA has invested in private industry to develop capabilities for the American people and seed commercial innovation to advance humanity’s future in space. “NASA is changing the way it does business through its commercial partnerships to help build a strong American space economy and free the agency to focus on developing the next-generation rocket, spacecraft and systems to go beyond the moon and sustain deep space exploration.”

Keith’s note: It is rather strange that NASA would issue a press release about this private commercial venture since this mission does not involve NASA in any way – other than using the launch pad that they rent from NASA and a self-purchased version of the spacecraft they let NASA use. This strikes me as a “well, we need to say something – don’t we?” sort of press release from NASA. I guess NASA wants to remind people that they still have big rockets – even if their version of a lunar mission with 2 people will cost many times what SpaceX will charge, will take years longer to accomplish (if the White House says so), and will likely not be repeated i.e. a one-off stunt. Oh yes: notice the the #JourneyToMars thing is no longer automatically put into every NASA press release.
#BackToTheMoon anyone?

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

81 responses to “SpaceX Might Beat NASA Back To The Moon”

  1. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    This explains why NASA is studying putting astronauts on EM-1. I could not for the life of me understand where this strange desire to put people in the first Orion flight with a service module on top of the first SLS launch, with a currently non-man rated interim upper stage. Well there you go…

    • MarcNBarrett says:
      0
      0

      Please understand that the proposal to put a crew on EM-1 did not originate with NASA, but was somewhat forced on NASA by the new administration.

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        I thought it was more a request to study if it is feasible for NASA to do what SpaceX is planning rather than a proposal “forced” on NASA. I don’t recall hearing that NASA has said they are planning to put a crew on the first SLS flight. Could be used to scale back or cut SLS if it’s not competitive.

        • muomega0 says:
          0
          0

          The fake competition between HLVs is about retaining the base and special interests. NASA requires <20 mT LV and goal of reuse.

          Congress, with public studies like 1) 2005 ESAS 2) 2003 EELV spiral 3) 2010 depot centric 4) 1970s shuttle vs Titan III would have cancelled SLS/Orion. 9B vs 300M? for a flyoff.

          SLS/Orion cannot meet the 1:1000 LOC. The study will conclude that SLS needs flights and will fly inflatables. The EM1-2 gap was meant for payloads, but no funding was allocated.

          HLV/Orion missed their 2009 Gap closing and their Dec 31, 2016. Garver said SLS should not be built. SLS/Orion and shuttle have compromised all paths forward.

          Given all the rhetoric, SLS/Orion are the gifts that keep on giving. http://alternativefacts.com
          http://www.spaceref.com/new

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        I’m well aware. But anyone who can add could foresee that a Falcon Heavy plus a Dragon V2 equals a lunar flyby. SpaceX has said from the very beginning of Dragon development that Dragon’s heat shield is more than up to the task.

    • Gaspipe says:
      0
      0

      It’s good to know that NASA has a plan to do something. It’s a refreshing sign.

      • Mark Friedenbach says:
        0
        0

        How did you interpret this as NASA having a plan? I’m not being snarky, but genuinely curious as I don’t see any plan here.

        • Gaspipe says:
          0
          0

          I thought that comment would bring out more than one similar “What Plan?”
          I agree with your comment. NASA is pretty much clueless as to what a plan might look like.

        • Gaspipe says:
          0
          0

          NASA has a plan to be administrative which gets in the way of generating a plan. The commercial guys have a plan ….get something done in less time and using less money. A Good Plan

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          It’s a plan to decide whether or not they should develop a plan.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        They have a plan to study putting astronauts on EM-1. I’m guessing there will be considerable push-back to putting a crew in a non-spaceflight tested Orion with service module on top of a non-spaceflight tested launch vehicle with an “interim upper stage” that was never intended to be “man-rated”.

    • MichaelAndTheArgonauts says:
      0
      0

      NASA was requested to do a feasibility study for putting crew on EM-1 by the new administration.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        Yes they were. But it’s interesting to note that Musk has had several meetings with the new administration. We don’t really know what was said behind closed doors, but I would bet Musk touted both commercial cargo and commercial crew as being far more cost and schedule efficient than a NASA program to do the same. SLS/Orion is the obvious program to compare them to.

  2. Chris says:
    0
    0

    Heck they don’t even have to send a crewed mission just a few times around the moon and land then back up again. History made.

  3. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    Before we think it is SpaceX vs. NASA, note the mention, “Most importantly, we would like to thank NASA, without whom this would not be possible.”

    I’m pleased to read SpaceX taking interest in the Moon. So… who’ll do it first? I sure hope nobody focuses so much on go fever they become blinded to major malfunctions. “Late next year” does this mean earthrise video on Christmas eve on 50th anniversary of Apollo 8? Tell this is not deliberate.

  4. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    Well I am happy to see this. It means there is a potential market for BEO space transportation.

    I wonder how many other customers there are that would be willing to do this?

    • Spacenut says:
      0
      0

      Not huge numbers I would guess, at least 99.99 percent of people would not have or wish to part with the sums of money involved, however that 0.01% who would could potentially serve Space-X plans very well indeed.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        It will really depend if commercial interests can have a commercial destination out there and give a reason for cargo flights.

    • Donald Barker says:
      0
      0

      And who is going to fix the toilet when it breaks? Rich “e-ticket” customers?

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      A related question is how many people would be willing to do it twice? Paris isn’t a major tourist destination just because of one-time visitors; lots of people go there many times. But if low Earth orbit is a tourist destination simply because people want to brag about having been there, you’ll only sell one ticket per person and get no repeat customers.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Charles Simonyi already flew twice. It really depends on if we can bring prices down to the point Billionaires will pay to fly others as well.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          That’s a good point. I travel to Europe on business a few times a year, and I have a cousin in her twenties who has always wanted to go there. If I could afford it, I’d buy another ticket and take her along. I guess that idea is part of the space tourism equation: I’ve been there, but I want to share the experience with a friend or relative, so I’ll pay for a second trip for me and a first trip for someone I care about.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            A couple of marketing studies have found the knee in the curve of demand to be at about $1M per seat to LEO. If price can be brought down to that level there will be enough demand to make the industry self-sustaining.

  5. JadedObs says:
    0
    0

    It’s interesting that SpaceX, as a private company, can offer to let two people risk their lives so easily while NASA has to do all kinds of due diligence and have independent safety reviews. I won’t say they will meet this ambitious schedule or that the crew will survive or even that the “deposit” will be followed up with enough money to pay for the flight but this is indeed a bold if surreptitious effort to undermine SLS and Orion’s support even while praising NASA.

  6. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    I can see this happening sometime in the next decade but not next year.

  7. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    And the 3rd shoe drops…

  8. Tally-ho says:
    0
    0

    Finally, a real space race!

  9. Oscar_Femur says:
    0
    0

    I think you meant, SpaceX *plans* to beat NASA back to the moon.

  10. Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
    0
    0

    They probably won’t be using diapers and scuba tanks to pull this off.

  11. Steve Pemberton says:
    0
    0

    “and they will travel faster and further into the Solar System than any before them.”

    So I guess this means they are planning to fly at lunar apogee and beat the Apollo 13 record of 248,655 miles?

    • Tally-ho says:
      0
      0

      With a PICA (-X) heatshield no less. Their capsule must be light.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      My reading of the press release is that this wasn’t a reference to the trans-Lunar flight but a reference to the ICT missions to Mars and, possibly, the outer planets.

      In fact, some reports use the term ‘skim the surface of the Moon’ which makes me think that the transfer orbit’s perilune may be similar to Apollo 8’s 70 statue miles.

      • Steve Pemberton says:
        0
        0

        The statement about faster and further is made in the paragraph about the the tourist flight, and it uses the term “they” when it says “they will travel faster and further” so it is clearly referring to the tourists. The statements about deep space and Mars are in the subsequent paragraph.

  12. djschultz3 says:
    0
    0

    I must have missed something… When was the Dragon capsule certified for reentry at lunar return velocity? Are they planning to fly an unmanned lunar mission before the two billionaires get to fly, or are they going to trust that it will just work fine and not burn up?

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      It was always designed for lunar re-entry – Martian too, if I recall.

      • djschultz3 says:
        0
        0

        Designed for lunar re-entry is one thing, but if it was my body on the line I would want to see it demonstrated in flight at least once before I climb onboard.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        My understanding is that it was designed for well over a reentry from LEO. But I don’t think I’ve seen actual numbers, and, as a physicist, I like numbers. Has anyone seen actual numbers on the rated reentry speed of a Dragon 2? I’d be interested in that.

    • JJMach says:
      0
      0

      The claim is that the heat shield was over-designed for reuse and “can even withstand the much higher heat of a moon or Mars velocity reentry.” I know PICA could theoretically do the trick, but I don’t have enough data on the thickness, etc. Since PICA is an ablator, you normally only want to put enough heat shield on your vehicle to get you through entry safely to save on weight.

      I’ve also considered that they may want to make use of the SuperDraco retro-thruster system. It was designed to be used as the launch-abort system, or throttled-down, as a propulsive landing system. If there is the slightest issue with the SuperDracos, it has a backup parachute system for a water landing. So, repurposing the thrusters isn’t out of the question.

      It may require a mod to the fuel tanks, but then I doubt you want to leave the Van-Allen belts in a stock Dragon V2 anyway. Then again, it might just be cheaper to put a thicker PICA-X shield on it.

      I’m sure SpaceX engineers are already running the numbers.

  13. tutiger87 says:
    0
    0

    Good for them. NASA went 49 years ago. A private company going should be the next evolution. We can argue about the political & bureaucratic issues some other time.

  14. Eric Reynolds says:
    0
    0

    Guarded on the timeline for sure – but you could say the same for SLS/Orion… they have spent over $30B of the public’s money and still haven’t flown a thing yet – already years behind schedule. Their safety record on flying people isn’t too good either – when you consider the over $100B tax-payers put into shuttle! You cannot compare a private company’s efforts to Uncle Sam – and yet… here we are.

  15. Odyssey2020 says:
    0
    0

    It’s very possible SpaceX would barely survive if they lost a crew. That’s why I think they are going to have dozens of unmanned test flights with Falcon Heavy and Dragon 2 before attempting any launch with humans aboard.

    I do not foresee a crewed Dragon until next decade.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      I would expect at least 1 manned LEO Dragon 2 missions and at least 1 unmanned lunar mission prior to taking passengers on a lunar flight. My questions would be how well does Dragon 2 perform for several weeks, how well does it perform above the Van Allen radiation belts exposed to higher radiation and constant sunlight, how well sensitive is it to Single Even Upsets, and how well does the navigation system perform.

      • Odyssey2020 says:
        0
        0

        We just can’t take everything Elon Musk says as gospel. Is he really going to send humans around the moon(I won’t even mention his plans for Mars) in 2018? or even 2028?

        Unfortunately Elon is stepping into the old “new space” trap. You know, making all sorts of promises that really can’t be delivered upon. To send humans around the moon and/or mars is an enormous endeavor. It’s just not going to happen anytime soon.

        The honest truth is SpaceX has an enormous challenge in just getting humans a few hundred miles above our heads to the ISS. And that’s not going to happen anytime soon either.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Which is the old “old space” trap. Using the old line, “space is hard,” to justify doing nothing and going nowhere. The post-launch environment is actually much easier to design for or deal with than the launch itself. The Dragon works. If the Falcon Heavy can give it enough velocity, then getting the Dragon to the Moon isn’t a huge step. It might seem that way, but the big steps are really the launch and building a capsule which will work in space for a week. Where it goes and what it does during that week is, in terms of technical challenges, a less significant detail.

          • Odyssey2020 says:
            0
            0

            Getting an unmanned Dragon to the moon would be a very significant, if not daunting, step. Furthermore, getting a manned Dragon to the Moon is a HUGE step of historical proportions.

            Sometimes we have to take what Elon says with a grain of salt. He knows more than anybody that SpaceX is a long, long way from sending humans around the moon.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            It’s very significant and historical, but not all that daunting. As I said, the launch (on a vehicle still in development) and the flight duration are the only real challenges. The launch vehicle has high heritage from one in current use. Building a spacecraft and life support system which will work for a week isn’t hard. In fact, a stock Dragon 2 is designed to take up to seven people to ISS. That’s going to be a couple of person-weeks of consumables. Two or three people for a week might be a very minor change.

            Other than that? The rocket firing aren’t anything new or terribly difficult. Navigation is easy. For communications, a friend at JPL said, “You can close that link with a coat hanger,” about a much more challenging problem. Reentry is within design tolerances, although I’d like to see that tested.

            I don’t think it is correct to assume something is extremely difficult simply because a government agency would have trouble doing it.

  16. dd75 says:
    0
    0

    This is a one-upmanship game.
    Next NASA will announce that they will land humans on the moon on July 10 2019.
    And then SpaceX will announce that they will land in 2018.
    And then NASA will announce that they will land humans on MARS in 2019.
    And then SpaceX will announce that they will land on Mars in 2018.
    And then NASA will announce that they will land on moon and mars in 2019.
    And…

  17. Ray Gedaly says:
    0
    0

    I can imagine that the paying passengers would prefer to be on the first circumlunar Dragon flight, and want to make the flight in time for the 50th anniversary of Apollo 8. But I don’t believe that Elon would put lives — and perhaps his company — at risk by foregoing an uncrewed test. And even an uncrewed circumlunar flight would be a huge first for a private company.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      They could do it both ways. Going to the Moon isn’t critical to the relevant tests. The key elements are independent operation of the Dragon 2 for a week or so, and reentry at velocities of a trans-lunar trajectory. They could do an unmanned test of that by putting a Dragon 2 into a high Earth orbit (going nowhere near the Moon) and at the end of a week, firing the Super-Draco’s dry to increase the reentry velocity. That’s more-or-less what the unmanned Apollo 6 was supposed to be, although it didn’t quite end up in the planned orbit and they had to improvise a little to meet the test objectives.

  18. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    Regarding NASA’s interest, this may all feed into the possibility of a ‘MoonLab’ station at EML-2 for various bits of crewed exo-magnetosphere research. If Falcon Heavy/Dragon can prove this mission profile, then NASA have a CRS provider lined up and ready to go to support the program. So, it is at least in their best interests to cooperate and encourage.

    If SpaceX can rig up an MPS for the Dragon (maybe a Kestrel knock-off), it might even be useful as a crew transfer vehicle for cis-Lunar space, enabling NASA to concentrate SLS on throwing large cargos (including Boeing’s proposed ultra-simple lander) to the Moon or cis-Lunar space. As crewed Falcon Heavy will launch from LC-39A (and any NASA supporting mission will probably have NASA decals on the spacecraft), NASA will be able to claim with a straight face that it is a ‘NASA vehicle and mission’.

    It would be kind of ironic if the oft-derided CLV/CaLV launch profile happens after all, just with Falcon-9/-Heavy as CLV and SLS as CaLV instead (Yes, I’m suggesting that Falcon-9 could launch a Lunar Dragon to LEO to meet up with the lunar lander and EUS).

    • Skinny_Lu says:
      0
      0

      Good post. But, I believe Crew Dragon launches on a Falcon 9 single stick. Falcon Heavy is not required for crew but could launch from LC-40 with a lander/rover. These can launch within days of each other. This is our Apollo Remake, 21st Century. With hardware and technology SpaceX already has. We all know there are people around who would gladly ride these machines to space and beyond, knowing they could very well die in the process.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        F9 to orbit, but FH beyond.

        • Skinny_Lu says:
          0
          0

          Agree. After reading my post again, I came to the same realization. I was thinking about a SpaceX spokesperson who mentioned F9 single stick for CCP…. but I stand corrected. FH & Dragon 2 around the moon.

      • Ben Russell-Gough says:
        0
        0

        Any lunar landing mission using Falcon Heavy would (excepting the fictional propellant depot) probably be three launches: First, the lander and then the Earth Departure Stage (both launched by Falcon Heavy). These would then rendezvous with the lander using some variant of the Dragon GNC system. Finally, the crewed Dragon launched by Falcon 9.

        2 x Falcon Heavy could also launch a totally robotic lunar cargo precursor.

  19. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    Let’s put this in perspective. The first Saturn V launch, Apollo 4, was on November 9, 1967. Apollo 6 was a partial success. The first manned Saturn V launch, Apollo 8, was launched on December 21, 1968. That was just 13 months after the first Saturn V launch, and they went all the way to the Moon.

    Apollo 7, in October, 1968, was the first manned flight of an Apollo Command and Service Module. There were three unmanned flights of a CSM, in one development version or another, prior to Apollo 7.

    In contrast, the SpaceX timeline doesn’t look too ambitions (well, more properly, it doesn’t look as wildly rushed.) The Falcon Heavy has more heritage from the Falcon 9 than the Saturn V had from anything, and the Dragon 2 has seen many successful flights of an earlier, unmanned version.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      If anything, based on previous SpaceX delays, I would expect a 1 to 2 year slip in their schedule.

      • TheBrett says:
        0
        0

        It depends on whether Falcon Heavy is finally ready for use by the end of this year. It was originally supposed to be ready by 2012, but they’ve delayed and modified it heavily since then.

        Plus they’d need to file for a license with the FAA to do this.

  20. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    NASA’s statement to me was a bit of a reminder to SpaceX that they have existing contracts for ISS supply and crew missions. If this moon mission were to delay the contracted crew flights more than they already are, NASA wouldn’t be happy.

  21. Donald Barker says:
    0
    0

    Going down the path of “stunts’ or “e-ticiket” rides is historically dangerous and completely unsustainable. Their is the highest likelihood that in the best case scenario that there might be a few good flights, but the distraction will take large sums to continue to pull off that could have gone to a sustainable goal and architecture. Worst cast, people will die and the whole endeavor will be tainted and shut down. The middle area would be just a delayed case of both end points. Go for it is you like and I would even buy a ticket if I was a 1%’er, but I don’t believe it will further human colonization off Earth (again everything is probability).

    • logansfun says:
      0
      0

      The goal might not be Musk’s priority either. But to quote a Mamet character: Everybody needs money, that’s why they call it money.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      What you describe sounds like the first two decades of aviation (call it 1903-1923.) Lots of stunts, lots of giving people thrill rides, lots of accidents and lots of fatal accidents. Despite that, aviation ended up being a major industry with real commercial value.

  22. Joe From Houston says:
    0
    0

    First rocket company to the moon wins! Let me rephrase that, first one to just get people off of the ground and into space wins. Winner takes all.
    You know, the Wright brothers, the Mercury-7, Gemini, and Apollo astronauts are who changed the course of history. Elon and SpaceX fits that category; bold and brilliant.
    I am curious to know who has signed up for the trip around the moon; aren’t you? I just hope it is not people who are not qualified to fly complicated vehicles.

  23. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    How much control would you have to give the two tourists aboard the ship? Could it be flown entirely through remote control from mission control back on Earth plus automation? It’s a pretty straight-forward free return trajectory mission.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      Personally, I wouldn’t fly the mission without control-qualified crew aboard, just for safety during critical phases like the TLI and re-entry when the GNC going loopy could be lethal.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        That’s an interesting point, and I wonder about the FAA’s position on this. They do have to approve, and in another context, they have rules about the crew-to-passenger ratio. In civil aviation, the flight attendants aren’t on the airplane to serve food and drinks. They are there to make sure the passengers can get out safely in case of emergency during takeoff or landing, don’t break any bones during severe turbulence, and otherwise don’t hurt themselves doing something stupid. There are regulations about the number of crew per passenger required for that job. I wonder if the FAA has thought about this in the context of space tourism.

  24. AstroInMI says:
    0
    0

    I see no problem in NASA — and we as taxpayers — taking some credit for this. We paid for most of the funding for Dragon 2. SpaceX says this themselves in the press release. Could SpaceX have done this all on their own? Who knows, but they didn’t. To me, this is a NASA success story in that they recognized commercial opportunities, fought for it, and this is the result.

  25. Jackalope3000 says:
    0
    0

    For years we’ve been wringing our hands over how to get back to glory days of the Space Race. And presto, now we have one!

  26. Robert van de Walle says:
    0
    0

    Oh my goodness. You are all facing the wrong direction on this. The controversy is not NASA vs SpaceX HVL and return to the moon, it is:

    Who are these two people and will they be having space sex?

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Nice hat!

    • Jeff Havens says:
      0
      0

      Chances are, no space sex, unless they want a witness. I looked over the announcement carefully, and in no way does it limit the trip to just the two people who paid for their seats. Unless either or both of the paid passengers are qualified to pilot and/or command the overall mission, I think it is reasonable to think that SpaceX will include (at least) a trained pilot to go with the passengers. As is, Dragon 2 is designed for 7 to LEO.. it can take more than 2 to the moon and back.

      • Skinny_Lu says:
        0
        0

        It also struck me as a bit bold to send two tourists alone, on a self driving spacecraft around the moon. I wondered the same thing. Why only two? That aside, the need for human pilots (on just about any mode of transportation) are less every day. Of course, human pilots will always want to have override authority to take over if the computer screen turns blue…. C:\_

    • Skinny_Lu says:
      0
      0

      So, let’s go TMZ.
      Who could afford $35M/seat? I’m thinking Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Ron Howard… They could bring their wife/girlfriend along… Not to leave the ladies out, Beyonce, Taylor Swift and Jennifer Lawrence have the correct change too. They can bring along whoever they want. On board cameras can be covered or disabled. Cell phone selfies? I want to know who’s paid a deposit already.

    • Chris Holmes says:
      0
      0

      So, now the company would be known as Space(se)X?

  27. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    Sure. There are lots of differences, both in resources and pressure over deadlines. I was simply pointing out that the announced schedule isn’t unprecedented or insane. It strikes me as unlikely, but not absurd.

  28. taurusII says:
    0
    0

    Yes, lets consider that Space X has designed, produced and launched going on 2 dozen Falcon 9 rockets and 10 Dragon capsules in the last 7 years. While their manned vehicle has some differences, it is based on the existing spacecraft and launch system.

    In addition to experience with launches and orbiting vehicles that makes Space X one of the most experienced human space flight organizations, Space X is also leading the way with the practical experience of successfully returning vehicles to the land softly.

    By comparison, NASA has not launched anyone into space since 2011. They have been working for 10 years to build and fly a new rocket and spacecraft-both so far untested and unproven. So Mr. Cessna, it is great to have goals, but so far Space X has experience and NASA has essentially none at all amongst the personnel now being counted upon.