Artemis 8

Robert Zubrin proposes using a modified crew Dragon and two SpaceX
launches (F9 and FH) with a rendezvous and dock in LEO with the Falcon
Heavy upper stage in order to do a crewed lunar flyby or a lunar orbital
mission this year.

The goal is to keep space alive in the public's imagination in order to
prolong the political will to do Artemis post-election regardless of the
winner.

OTOH it is hard to see, unlike with Apollo 8 and in the absence of any
follow-on hardware, where this is anything more than a publicity stunt.
In lieu of actually being able to land crew on the moon, in fact, having
to wait years more to accomplish this, might not reflect well on
Artemis. Compared to the Apollo Program. Which did exactly that 6 months
later.

There is also (always) the element of risk to be factored. In pressing
ahead to do this quickly.

We are at this strange stage in crewed space however. With some
acceptance of risk (and not that much more than that we faced with
Apollo) we actually have now IN HAND the ability to access cis-lunar
space with very little additional hardware or difficulty.

Its strange to be in a place where we no longer have to ask how only why?

Dave

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3980/1

On Jul/18/2020 at 10:35, David Spain wrote :
Robert Zubrin proposes using a modified crew Dragon and two SpaceX
launches (F9 and FH) with a rendezvous and dock in LEO with the Falcon
Heavy upper stage in order to do a crewed lunar flyby or a lunar orbital
mission this year.

The goal is to keep space alive in the public's imagination in order to
prolong the political will to do Artemis post-election regardless of the
winner.

OTOH it is hard to see, unlike with Apollo 8 and in the absence of any
follow-on hardware, where this is anything more than a publicity stunt.
In lieu of actually being able to land crew on the moon, in fact, having
to wait years more to accomplish this, might not reflect well on
Artemis. Compared to the Apollo Program. Which did exactly that 6 months
later.

There is also (always) the element of risk to be factored. In pressing
ahead to do this quickly.

We are at this strange stage in crewed space however. With some
acceptance of risk (and not that much more than that we faced with
Apollo) we actually have now IN HAND the ability to access cis-lunar
space with very little additional hardware or difficulty.

Its strange to be in a place where we no longer have to ask how only why?

Dave

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3980/1

Personally, I don't see the point. I'm waiting for Starship and New
Armstrong to fly. Once those rockets are flying (at least one of them),
making plans for Lunar missions will be much easier. If those rockets
work as expected, it seems to me that someone somewhere will obviously
decide to plan a mission, if not to the moon, then to Mars, probably both.


Alain Fournier

On 2020-07-18 11:56 AM, Alain Fournier wrote:
Personally, I don't see the point. I'm waiting for Starship and New
Armstrong to fly. Once those rockets are flying (at least one of them),
making plans for Lunar missions will be much easier. If those rockets
work as expected, it seems to me that someone somewhere will obviously
decide to plan a mission, if not to the moon, then to Mars, probably both.

While I largely agree, I credit Dr. Zubrin for often pointing out the
path not taken. (Mars Direct, Moon Direct, etc.). I used to be a critic
of the Zubrin approach, esp. one-way crewed missions to Mars. Still not
a particular fan of that idea, but I have to give credit to Dr. Zubrin
for making a whole lot more from a whole lot less.

We actually have largely in hand the infrastructure needed to go back to
the Moon. In Falcon and Dragon. Modifications would be needed but not
necessarily massive changes. Instead we wait for better solutions,
whether it be SLS/Orion/EUS/Artemis-lander or Starship or New Armstrong.

SLS/Orion/... being the worst examples in my opinion.

I am convinced we could be back on the Moon within a few years time had
the money spent on SLS/Orion etc. instead been used to evolve Falcon and
Crew Dragon. I don't see the compelling reason to wait for Starship.
It'll be grand once it is there, but NASA didn't need to wait for it but
could have invested in what SpaceX already has at hand today. If only.

Dave

On 2020-07-18 4:37 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2020-07-18 10:35, David Spain wrote:

OTOH it is hard to see, unlike with Apollo 8 and in the absence of any
follow-on hardware, where this is anything more than a publicity stunt.

Forgetting propulsion, can the Dragon capsule actually do this trip
around the Moon and back?

It has the endurance. There would need to be more consumables provided
for a two-person crew.

Shields for Radiation?

In the comments section to the original article there is someone who
keeps bringing this up vis-a-vis the fact the Orion has been rad
hardened for precisely this reason and this kind of trip whereas Crew
Dragon has not. However this person provides no hard data or cites to
back up his claims Crew Dragon. Even if true, there are materials
abundantly available that can surely be added to Crew Dragon to meet the
need and likely match Orion. It isn't a structural issue, might be a
mass issue but I doubt it for a two-crew mission.

Heat Shields for Re-Entry? (Article states Dragon done to re-enter from
Mars, is that true?)

I believe that is true.

Would G-Forces during re-entry be comparable to re-entry from ISS?

No higher, obviously.

I assume ECLSS is able to sustain crew for a week.
Are the sylish SpaceX launch-entry suits usable on a Lunar
spin-around-the moon trip? Or would they need actual EVA suits?

Can Dragon support an EVA? Wondering about all all the electronics on
board will be cooled in vacuum.

Huh? Why is that relevant?


Artemis. Compared to the Apollo Program. Which did exactly that 6 months
later.

I think the point of such an endeavour would be to point out that SLS is
just not working out. If Musk can assemble a Moon expedition in a few
months while SLS is years and years late, it points to failure of SLS.

More importantly, consider that should SpaceX be able to organize a
sightseeing trip to the Moon before February 2021, its position would be
greatly strenghtened for bids to get the NASA contract to land on the
Moon. (especially if SpaceX pulls off the LEO manoeuver to join/refuel
whyatever was launched from Falcon9 with wahtever was launched witgh
Falcon Heavy.

SpaceX has so far shown zero interest in using Crew Dragon for private
purposes. It seems happy to have this technology be captive to NASA.

Dave

The 400lb guerilla in the room is the fact that to even consider
mounting such a mission requires two active launch pads. One for Falcon
9 and one for the Falcon Heavy. It has been posited that too much
oxidizer would be lost from the upper FH stage if it was launched first
awaiting the turnover of LC-1 to a crewed F9. If the missions were
reversed it would still require a quick turnaround in order to get to
the orbiting Crew Dragon with enough endurance to complete the mission.
We don't really know what that number is. (Well I don't anyway).

There has been talk of upgrading SLC-40 to handle Falcon Heavy I
believe. Maybe after that has been done?

Dave

On Jul/18/2020 at 16:35, David Spain wrote :
On 2020-07-18 11:56 AM, Alain Fournier wrote:
Personally, I don't see the point. I'm waiting for Starship and New
Armstrong to fly. Once those rockets are flying (at least one of
them), making plans for Lunar missions will be much easier. If those
rockets work as expected, it seems to me that someone somewhere will
obviously decide to plan a mission, if not to the moon, then to Mars,
probably both.

While I largely agree, I credit Dr. Zubrin for often pointing out the
path not taken. (Mars Direct, Moon Direct, etc.). I used to be a critic
of the Zubrin approach, esp. one-way crewed missions to Mars. Still not
a particular fan of that idea, but I have to give credit to Dr. Zubrin
for making a whole lot more from a whole lot less.

I very much like Mars Direct and Dr Zubrin (I'm not sure of the details
of Moon Direct). It is only this Artemis 8 that I am complaining about.
Mars Direct is a bold plan to do great things. Artemis 8 is a hastily
elaborated plan to redo something that was done more than 50 years ago.

We actually have largely in hand the infrastructure needed to go back to
the Moon. In Falcon and Dragon. Modifications would be needed but not
necessarily massive changes. Instead we wait for better solutions,
whether it be SLS/Orion/EUS/Artemis-lander or Starship or New Armstrong.

SLS/Orion/... being the worst examples in my opinion.

I am convinced we could be back on the Moon within a few years time had
the money spent on SLS/Orion etc. instead been used to evolve Falcon and
Crew Dragon. I don't see the compelling reason to wait for Starship.
It'll be grand once it is there, but NASA didn't need to wait for it but
could have invested in what SpaceX already has at hand today. If only.

Yes but I don't see the point in going in lunar orbit using rockets that
most likely won't be used to put people on the moon. If I thought that
Artemis 8 would help prepare future lunar missions using Starship it
might make sense to do this. But I really don't think that an Artemis 8
mission would help in anyway. The astronauts flying Artemis 8 would
probably enjoy the ride very much, but I don't see what the mission
would give other than that pleasure for its crew.


Alain Fournier

On 2020-07-18 7:18 PM, David Spain wrote:
awaiting the turnover of LC-1 to a crewed F9. If the missions were

Er. I meant LC-39A.

Dave