SpaceX to Fly Passengers On Private Trip Around the Moon in 2018

[Homer J Simpson]

http://www.space.com/35844-elon-musk-spacex-announcement-today.html

[james_s]

While it's kinda cool, it's going to be high end tourism for the super rich, not really any more accessible to the average person than going through the traditional process to become an astronaut. Unfortunately physics demands that leaving earth requires a tremendous amount of fuel and expensive equipment.

[CatalinaWOW]

The following paragraph from the press release convinces me that the schedule will not be achieved.

"The Falcon Heavy rocket consists of a Falcon 9 rocket with two additional first stage boosters strapped on. The integrated Falcon Heavy and Dragon crew capsule will undergo an FAA evaluation process for the moon flight, Musk said."

[StillTrying]

"This would be a long loop around the moon … It would skim the surface of the moon, go quite a bit further out into deep space and then loop back to Earth," Musk said during the teleconference.

What could possibly go wrong.

[Bud]

Lets bookmark the thread and reconvene in December 2018 to see if the guy knew what he was talking about.

[CatalinaWOW]

I'm good with that.  If SpaceX controlled their own destiny on this I wouldn't bet against them.  But they have at least one government agency in their path to success.  Therein lies my pessimism.

[EEVblog]

I didn't see the press conference.
I assume there will be at least several test flights around the moon first?, maybe with Probes The Monkey?
Otherwise this would be an Apollo 8 level shot with humans.
Of course they'll miss the deadline.
Dragon crew capsule is completely untested, as is a Falcon Heavy capable of a moon shot.

[brucehoult]

While it's kinda cool, it's going to be high end tourism for the super rich, not really any more accessible to the average person than going through the traditional process to become an astronaut. Unfortunately physics demands that leaving earth requires a tremendous amount of fuel and expensive equipment.

The fuel isn't as much as most people assume. Elon has said it's about $200,000 cost for fuel & oxidiser for Falcon 9. F9H will be several times more of course, but I'd think still under a million dollars.

The expensive equipment is where almost all the cost is. Traditionally it's all been destroyed after one use. As we know, SpaceX has got a workable plan for getting most of it back in one piece and using it again after hopefully minor maintenance. They've got eight F9 first stages back successfully so far, and plan to fly a reused on for the first time in April. They haven't said how much work has had to be done on them. No doubt they'll be spending a lot of time and money on inspection and testing until there's a decent amount of history of successful reuse.

[EEVblog]

The dragon carries 7 crew, but that's cozy for a multi day hike to the moon and back, so let's say 5 people.
Even if it cost $10M a shot, that's $2M per person. Some people pay that for a fancy car.
They's have no shortage of takers to the moon at a few million a pop.

NASA and the new US administration are missing a huge opportunity. Just throw money and NASA resources at Space-X and they could go back to the moon within the 4 year political term, even landing if you really fast tracked it. For what, the cost of a couple of F35's?

[Dago]

The dragon carries 7 crew, but that's cozy for a multi day hike to the moon and back, so let's say 5 people.
Even if it cost $10M a shot, that's $2M per person. Some people pay that for a fancy car.
They's have no shortage of takers to the moon at a few million a pop.

NASA and the new US administration are missing a huge opportunity. Just throw money and NASA resources at Space-X and they could go back to the moon within the 4 year political term, even landing if you really fast tracked it. For what, the cost of a couple of F35's?

You won't even get a single 50kg satellite to low-earth orbit for 2 million in a ride share launch with tens of satellites so I'm pretty sure launching people around the moon is orders of magnitude more expensive.

[Brumby]

The price tag has been mentioned in tonight's news - $45 million per seat.


Just give me a sec while I check down the back of the lounge.....

[EEVblog]

The dragon carries 7 crew, but that's cozy for a multi day hike to the moon and back, so let's say 5 people.
Even if it cost $10M a shot, that's $2M per person. Some people pay that for a fancy car.
They's have no shortage of takers to the moon at a few million a pop.

NASA and the new US administration are missing a huge opportunity. Just throw money and NASA resources at Space-X and they could go back to the moon within the 4 year political term, even landing if you really fast tracked it. For what, the cost of a couple of F35's?

You won't even get a single 50kg satellite to low-earth orbit for 2 million in a ride share launch with tens of satellites so I'm pretty sure launching people around the moon is orders of magnitude more expensive.

The first ones, yeah. But I'm going by Elon's $200k in fuel statemet. Let's say it's $500k in fuel. Add in amortisation cost of the reusable components etc, and then divide by 5 people and a few million per person is surely a target price that wouldn't be that far into the future?
In theory the only difference between a satellite launch and a moon shot is the fuel and extra (resuable) rockets, right?

[digsys]

  ... In theory the only difference between a satellite launch and a moon shot is the fuel and extra (resuable) rockets, right?

But satellites won't set your project back 10yrs if you loose a few :-) .. they're a LOT more expendable, many lost ones have only managed 30 secs news !

[austnais]

The dragon carries 7 crew, but that's cozy for a multi day hike to the moon and back, so let's say 5 people.
Even if it cost $10M a shot, that's $2M per person. Some people pay that for a fancy car.
They's have no shortage of takers to the moon at a few million a pop.

NASA and the new US administration are missing a huge opportunity. Just throw money and NASA resources at Space-X and they could go back to the moon within the 4 year political term, even landing if you really fast tracked it. For what, the cost of a couple of F35's?

You won't even get a single 50kg satellite to low-earth orbit for 2 million in a ride share launch with tens of satellites so I'm pretty sure launching people around the moon is orders of magnitude more expensive.

The first ones, yeah. But I'm going by Elon's $200k in fuel statemet. Let's say it's $500k in fuel. Add in amortisation cost of the reusable components etc, and then divide by 5 people and a few million per person is surely a target price that wouldn't be that far into the future?
In theory the only difference between a satellite launch and a moon shot is the fuel and extra (resuable) rockets, right?

Elon's $200k was for F9, not F9H. So I guess a lot more than even $500k would be needed.

I also don't think they're really comparable. A satellite can easily fail, no worries. A moon shot is much more complex in terms of equipment. Food, sanity, air etc. you name it. All of these would need to be vaildated and approved prior to releasing a human inside. Imagine this thing failing. The impact would be devastating for the industry.

[ElektroQuark]

Another source of cash for the project. There are MANY people out there with tons of money.
I don't know about the deadline for the project, thought.

[EEVblog]

Elon's $200k was for F9, not F9H. So I guess a lot more than even $500k would be needed.

Does it use 10 times the fuel of the F9?
5 times?
Even at 10 times the fuel that's only $2M in fuel, $400k per person.

I also don't think they're really comparable. A satellite can easily fail, no worries. A moon shot is much more complex in terms of equipment. Food, sanity, air etc. you name it. All of these would need to be vaildated and approved prior to releasing a human inside. Imagine this thing failing. The impact would be devastating for the industry.

Sure, but I'm imagining the scenario (as is Elon) when these things are fairly proven, the rockets are reusable a dozen times without too much loss etc, and all the development is amortised. And in theory that shouldn't be too many years off. The initial high paying customers will help amortise costs, all Space-X have to do is make the tech work and be reusable as promised.
Insurance isn't even an issue, no $100M satellite that needs to insured, just a feshy human who is so rich they don't need insurance.
Elon would not be in this business if it's going to cost $20M a person medium to long term.
7 people have already ponied up greater than $20M to travel into space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism
An accident setting back the program is not the discussion here.

[donotdespisethesnake]

The big cost of space flight is really nothing to do with the fuel, although the fuel cost is not nothing. The big cost is the sheer complexity of the whole operation, mainly due to the fact there is very little margin for error between getting to orbit and failing catastrophically.

Space tourism may seem like a trivial use of space flight but actually makes sense, given you can get millions for transporting a few kg of people. Any other use like space solar, mining asteroids etc, requires a massive infrastructure cost.

Musk is maybe slightly crazy, but also has a rare combination of ideological drive, technical ability and business acumen, so if anyone can pull it off, he might actually do it. Certainly, waiting for the govt to pay for missions like established players do (Boeing et al) won't get us far. Don't believe the timescales though, not that it really matters when. Colonizing the galaxy is pretty long term plan.

[NivagSwerdna]

I remember, whilst at school, back in the 1980s, at a conference/presentation thing, that commercial fusion reactors were only a decade away.
It's was a highly optimistic presentation as far as I remember... certainly stoked up my enthusiasm for science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

Wot no fusion?

(I bet you the moon trip will be VERY late)

[james_s]

Fusion reactors have been a decade away my entire life. I'd love to see them succeed, I mean we know it can work because there's a giant one up in the sky, but containing a sustained fusion reaction here on earth is easier said than done.

[CraigHB]

I remember reading about the Tokamak experiment some forty years ago.  Things haven't moved much past that.  I thought for sure sustained fusion reactions would be possible by now, let alone an actual reactor capable of powering space flight. 

In any case the risk of failure is high for any kind of space flight.  Can a reasonable level of risk be guaranteed for passengers on a sightseeing tour around the Moon?  A single failure resulting in loss of life would probably spell the end of the program.

[CatalinaWOW]

I first read about the near future appearance of fusion reactors in the late 50s.  Of course back then they were talking about using nuclear bombs to dig harbors and canals, and to activate oil fields.  To a believer there are no obstacles, only an occasional speed bump.

[MarkS]

What could possibly go wrong.

Plenty. Should we just give up on space travel?

[james_s]

Give up? Probably not, although I personally have no interest in spending huge sums of money on a risky pleasure jaunt around the moon. The Concorde was mothballed because it was not profitable and space tourism is orders of magnitude more expensive and arguably less useful. I'm not saying it will never work, but call me skeptical.

[SeanB]

I remember reading about the Tokamak experiment some forty years ago.  Things haven't moved much past that.  I thought for sure sustained fusion reactions would be possible by now, let alone an actual reactor capable of powering space flight. 

In any case the risk of failure is high for any kind of space flight.  Can a reasonable level of risk be guaranteed for passengers on a sightseeing tour around the Moon?  A single failure resulting in loss of life would probably spell the end of the program.

The late Dr Robert Bussard actually got fusion out of his devices, and with a shoestring budget as well.  He had it basically solved, just needed a little more funding to build a larger version to see how much energy you could get out of it realistically.

His most popular quote that the Tokamak was a Russian device guaranteed to never work at anything other than sink money into an endless pit. Bussard did it with no massive magnets, nothing other than some smaller magnets and hairy ( but not as bad as making a perfect doughnut magnet that needed to have 3K on one side and 2 million on the other side, along with a horrid brew of radiation) coils to drive the sytem. Put in Hydrogen, a bit of Tritium as a wick and you got a lot of neutrons and helium out of it, plus it was controllable as well, and no massive power needed to run magnets, just a capacitor bank to pulse them.

[james_s]

Can anyone verify this? It sounds an awful lot like the countless stories of perpetual motion machines and 100 mpg carburetors.