If SpaceX's Falcon Heavy Was Used For a Lunar Mission - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Crowlspace looked at what the new Spacex Falcon Heavy could do for a lunar mission. [IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dUaR-JNbe6s/TasCmksryiI/AAAAAAAALG4/g9V7ToEtv7E/s1600/falconheavy.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]With a slight modification a Falcon Heavy can orbit ~55 tons of propellant. Then a fully loaded Dragon Capsule can dock with it and use it to launch into a Lunar, or Halo, Orbit. A landing vehicle, preplaced in Low Lunar Orbit, or the Earth-Moon L-1 Point, can then finish the journey. All without using a gargantuan booster. At ~$100 million per launcher, plus another $100 million for the lander, and a Moon mission can be done for ~$500 million. A steal compared to the multi-billions of the Ares V program that the USA had committed to under GWB. A properly designed lander can then be kept at the ready for repeat missions, tanked up as required.[/QUOTE] [URL=http://crowlspace.com/?p=1070]A Falcon Heavy Tanker can then be mated to various payloads and send them to the Moon, via the Earth-Moon Lagrange-1 (EML-1) point.[/URL] [QUOTE]But how much payload? Assuming the vacuum version of the Merlin rocket engine being used in the Falcon 9 and FH, and its vacuum Isp of 342 seconds, that allows reasonable delta-vees for decent payloads. If we assume the total fuelled mass of the FH Tanker is 56 tonnes, and 53 tonnes of that is fuel, then 22.5 tonnes of payload can be delivered to EML-1. However the FH Tanker arrives empty. While it might be cannibalised for its large pressure volume, cluttering up the EML-1 is probably short-sighted. Also SpaceX is committed to making mostly reusable rockets, so we might have to return the FH Tanker to LEO. That requires it to arrive at EML-1 with 6.232 tonnes of propellant still in its tank, reducing the payload to just 13.25 tonnes. Tweaking the mass of the FH Tanker means we might manage it for ~2.5 tonnes dry mass and ~15 tonnes can then be delivered. Interesting the Project Apollo’s Lunar Excursion Module, which successfully landed 12 men on the Moon over 6 missions, massed just 15 tonnes. It used a lower performing fuel combination and thus a modified version using the LOX/RP-1 of the Merlin might deliver an LEM to the Moon and back with more payload allowing weeks of stay-time. Alternatively a larger lander could touch down using 22.5 tonnes of propellant delivered by an FH Tanker. The first option requires two launches, one an FH Tanker and the other to deliver the Lunar Lander to LEO. Alternatively two FH Tankers might combine in LEO to push a larger load to the EML-1, requiring 3 launches in total. Assuming a linear scaling, a bigger LEM with 6 passengers might mass ~45 tonnes, requiring two full payload deliveries to EML-1 and four launches to LEO. All this could cost ~$1 billion ($1 Gigadollars or $1G) – four FHs at $0.125G each and $0.5G for the Heavy LEM. That’s half the “Apollo” programme’s achievement delivered to the Moon for a tiny fraction of its $30G budget (in 1969$.) What’s more with modern inflatable space-habitat technology we’re talking about a relatively large Base being landed, not a mere two-man “sky-car”. With touch-down near one of the Lunar Cold-traps and access to the ice there, plus solar-power, then the 6-person crew could conceivably stay for months, setting up a semi-permanent Base. For a full $30G budget – worth roughly ~1/5 of what it was in 1969 – some 180 people can visit the Moon, stay six-months each and thus spend ~90 person-years exploring and expanding the Base.[/QUOTE] [MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTwRxtmQ9IY&feature=player_embedded[/MEDIA] [/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/if-spacex-falcon-heavy-was-used-for.html[/url]

They should totally do it.

Fucking do it. Nobody else seems bloody willing to do so. The technology exists, I have no doubt the capital can be raised: [b]Fucking. Do. It.[/b]

[QUOTE=sltungle;29243555]Fucking do it. Nobody else seems bloody willing to do so. The technology exists, I have no doubt the capital can be raised: [b]Fucking. Do. It.[/b][/QUOTE] Fucking yes. Do it and don't look back. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] This isn't about the United States anymore. This is about colonizing another orbital body in our Solar System for the benefit of HUMANKIND itself.

I'd donate to something like this, regardless if it's a for-profit cause or not.

[QUOTE=Smoot;29243958] This isn't about the United States anymore.[/QUOTE] ...and that's why there isn't any drive to do it. The moon landings would have never happened without the cold war. It's also why there's a fifty year gap in attempts.

Do it faggot.

This all sounds really, really good, except for two problems: NASA doesn't have a lunar program and probably never will. Even if SpaceX could handle the launching, NASA doesn't have anything to launch. All of this depends on SpaceX's quoted figure of $100-$125 million a launch. If that all turns out to be PR bullshit, the entire plan falls apart. The Shuttle was supposed to herald in a new era of cheap spaceflight, and turned out being the single most expensive way to launch payload.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;29245675]All of this depends on SpaceX's quoted figure of $100-$125 million a launch. If that all turns out to be PR bullshit, the entire plan falls apart. The Shuttle was supposed to herald in a new era of cheap spaceflight, and turned out being the single most expensive way to launch payload.[/QUOTE] Yeah well, if that happens, I'll be pissed.

I don't get it why billionaires don't fund stuff like this, if I could pull billions out of my ass I'd totally do it. I guess we just have to wait for an excentric billionaire with some love for space to do it :(

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;29245675]This all sounds really, really good, except for two problems: NASA doesn't have a lunar program and probably never will. Even if SpaceX could handle the launching, NASA doesn't have anything to launch. All of this depends on SpaceX's quoted figure of $100-$125 million a launch. If that all turns out to be PR bullshit, the entire plan falls apart. The Shuttle was supposed to herald in a new era of cheap spaceflight, and turned out being the single most expensive way to launch payload.[/QUOTE] SpaceX have the rockets, the pads, and are working on the money to do it. NASA is now obsolete in the whole launching and flying department, they're only good for R&D now.

[QUOTE=bravehat;29245856]SpaceX have the rockets, the pads, and are working on the money to do it. NASA is now obsolete in the whole launching and flying department, they're only good for R&D now.[/QUOTE] SpaceX doesn't have a lunar lander, which is the big unresolved point here. To the best of my knowledge, they also don't have a restartable Earth Departure Stage or the ability to transfer propellent on-orbit. All of that is necessary, plus they need somebody to pay for it all.

Investors, and research. They've built the rockets and shit, what's to say they don't wanna start building lunar landers and shit. Besides isn't their mission to effectively be a space courier of sorts.

[QUOTE=bravehat;29246098]Investors, and research. They've built the rockets and shit, what's to say they don't wanna start building lunar landers and shit. Besides isn't their mission to effectively be a space courier of sorts.[/QUOTE] Their current mission is to fulfill an ISS delivery contract with NASA and to launch satellites for Iridium or other private customers. This is great, but it's a long way from landing on the Moon. They haven't even really started development on the manned Dragon yet.

Y'know, maybe SpaceX doesn't have to JUST work with NASA. Last I recall, the Russians also have a lunar lander...

They don't have a right not to do it

[QUOTE=ewitwins;29248275]Y'know, maybe SpaceX doesn't have to JUST work with NASA. Last I recall, the Russians also have a lunar lander...[/QUOTE] The Russian government paying an American company for launches. Right.

I'm pretty sure the US government paid Russia for launches.

[QUOTE=Robber;29250476]I'm pretty sure the US government paid Russia for launches.[/QUOTE] That doesn't in any way guarantee they will too.

Space is going commercial. Moon is a tourist trap. Matter of time, guys.

Is it just me or does it look like a giant space cock?

[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;29245837]I don't get it why billionaires don't fund stuff like this, if I could pull billions out of my ass I'd totally do it. I guess we just have to wait for an excentric billionaire with some love for space to do it :([/QUOTE] Funny story, SpaceX started with major losses, and only made it to where it is today because the CEO of Paypal was the guy who made it out of his own pocket, not to mention Virgin taking a massive loss to create both a spaceport and a fleet of orbiters. Pretty much all modern billionaires either fund global charities or push new industries, like space travel.

[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;29245837]I don't get it why billionaires don't fund stuff like this, if I could pull billions out of my ass I'd totally do it. I guess we just have to wait for an excentric billionaire with some love for space to do it :([/QUOTE] [img]http://ragulan.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/richard-branson.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;29249277]The Russian government paying an American company for launches. Right.[/QUOTE] SpaceX could use some investors, and the US can't forbid business with Russia anymore so why not?

[QUOTE=sltungle;29243555]Fucking do it. Nobody else seems bloody willing to do so. The technology exists, I have no doubt the capital can be raised: [b]Fucking. Do. It.[/b][/QUOTE] Honestly if I had the money I'd put it all into this company. They know their shit.

[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;29250886]Is it just me or does it look like a giant space cock?[/QUOTE] It's just you

spacex should make its own nation on the moon

[QUOTE=sltungle;29243555]Fucking do it. Nobody else seems bloody willing to do so. The technology exists, I have no doubt the capital can be raised: [b]Fucking. Do. It.[/b][/QUOTE] nike should spearhead the publicity campaign

[QUOTE=Mon;29260657]spacex should make its own nation on the moon[/QUOTE] spacex should make its own moon

I've never heard anyone refer to billions of dollars as gigadollars.