On Monday, there will be an announcement from SpaceX of moon orbiting tourist. The word is that the tourist is from Japan. The cost of the flight will probably be over $150 million.
UPDATE:
The Japanese billionaire was announced as Yusaku Maezawa. So Nextbigfuture was correct in calling him as my favorite.
The first private passenger to fly around the Moon aboard BFR is fashion innovator and globally recognized art curator Yusaku Maezawa.
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 18, 2018
Moon Orbiting mission on a BFR
The new trip is to fly around the moon, but on the SpaceX BFR rocket. There will now only be one passenger. SpaceX BFR will not be flying until 2021 and would not be ready to fly passengers until 2022-2024.
The Apollo 8 mission was a moon orbiting mission.
Possible Japanese billionaires
Elon Musk tweeted a japanese flag when asked about who the tourist is. The announcement will be made on Monday.
🇯🇵
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 14, 2018
There are only a few Japanese Billionaires. Forbes has a list of 48 japanese billionaires and two almost billionaires. There are only about fifteen people with a billion dollars or more with a suitable age. Although the list could be expanded because of people with private wealth or they could be a close relative of one of the wealthiest people. You could have a 40-55 year old son of someone who is 75-95 on the wealthiest list. Most of the space tourists who have gone to orbit have been men. I think Anousheh Ansari was the only female space tourist.
Charles Simonyi and Dennis Tito both flew to orbit when they were 61 years old.
The most likely candidates are those younger than 60 or an exceptionally healthy person up to 70 years old. The person should not have a role where if they went to space their business interests would be at risk. They should not have large shareholders or a board who would veto a trip. Although they could retire or step down between now and the trip. The flight will not happen for four to six years. This rules out even more of the older billionaires.
Yusaku Maezawa founded Japan’s largest online fashion mall, Zozotown and is worth $3 billion. He is 42 and spent $110 million on a painting.
Yusaku is rich, young and is willing to spend a lot of his money on his own interests. Yusaku is my personal top pick.
Kenji Kasahara is worth $1.5 billion and is 42. Kasahara founded social networking site Mixi in 2004; it went public in 2006. In 2013 Mixi was losing customers and investors as competitors raced ahead. Kasahara stepped down as CEO but stayed on as chairman. He refocused the business on mobile gaming, e-commerce, dating and apartment hunting. Mixi’s popular Monster Strike game has been downloaded tens of millions of times.
Masatoshi Kumagai is 55 and worth $970 million.
Yasumitsu Shigeta is worth about $5.4 billion and is 55 years old. Shigeta is CEO of Tokyo-listed Hikari Tsushin, which sells mobile phones at its HIT Shop chain of stores. The company also sells insurance and office equipment.
There are three Kobayashi Brothers. They inherited wealth in cosmetics. They are worth $4.1 billion.
Daisuke Enomoto is a 47-year-old Japanese businessman and former livedoor executive who hoped to become the fourth space tourist. He had trained at Star City, Moscow in Russia to fly with two members of Expedition 14 on board Soyuz TMA-9, which was launched on September 18, 2006. He had chronic kidney stones which caused him to not get flown to orbit. He tried to sue to recover the $21 million.
Masahiro Miki is worth $3.5 billion and is 63. He was a former amateur boxer and still seems very healthy. Miki founded ABC-Mart in the 1980s. He stepped down as chairman of the publicly-traded company in 2007.
Hiroshi Mikitani is 53 and has a net worth of $4.6 billion.
Mikitani is the founder and chairman of Rakuten, a Japanese online retailer with more than 1.2 billion users worldwide. The Tokyo-based company provides more than 70 business services, including e-commerce website Rakuten and messenger app Viber. It reported revenue of 944.5 billion yen ($8.4 billion) in 2017.
Quite rich but probably too old but do they have a relative they wanted to fund?
Tadashi Yanai is 69 and has a net worth of $26.7 billion.
Japan’s richest person is the chairman and biggest shareholder of Fast Retailing, the largest clothing retailer in Asia and parent of Uniqlo. The Tokyo-based group has about 1,000 stores and reported revenue of 1.9 trillion yen ($16.9 billion) in the year to Aug. 31, 2017. Yanai also owns two golf courses on Hawaiian island, Maui.
Masayoshi Son is 61 and is worth $17.6 billion.
Son is the founder and largest shareholder of SoftBank, a Japanese mobile phone and investment group. The Tokyo-based company owns stakes in more than 1,000 businesses, including Yahoo Japan and Alibaba. It has more than 68,000 employees and reported revenue of 9.2 trillion yen ($82.7 billion) in the year to March 31, 2018.
Masayoshi is a futurist thinker who was an internet pioneer. He is close to being young enough. However, he is so active running Softbank and Softbank Vision fund that I do not he would be allowed to fly around the moon by his investors.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
and spent $110 million on a painting” A really ugly painting, too! I’m interested in a technical question: If SpaceX fully fueled the BFR before it left orbit, could it *land* on the Moon and return?
and spent $110 million on a painting””A really ugly painting”” too!I’m interested in a technical question: If SpaceX fully fueled the BFR before it left orbit”” could it *land* on the Moon and return?”””
Just thought it would be cool if they skipped past just orbiting the Moon, to landing there.
Per wikipedia, BFS is 85 ton empty mass, 1100 ton methalox, up to 150 tons payload, and has 375 s vacuum Isp. Delta-v from LEO to Moon surface is 5.93 km/s, and Moon surface back to LEO is 2.74 km/s (with aerobraking). So total delta-v for LEO -> Moon surface -> LEO is 8.67 km/s. (LEO -> LLO -> LEO is 5.35 km/s.) The rocket equation states dV = g0*Isp*ln(m0/mf), so, using m/s: m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[8670 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~10.6 Now we need to find which payload x satisfies mf LLO -> LEO delta-v to find how much it can carry around the Moon.
That will come shortly thereafter. Doing 1 week trips to the Moon and back in a luxury spaceship will be the rage among the adventurous billionaires until the 2 week package with a week in the Lunar surface becomes available.The funny thing is NASA astronauts won’t be allowed to fly on these space cruisers. So the next human to put feet on the Moon will be probably a tourist.
Just thought it would be cool if they skipped past just orbiting the Moon to landing there.
Per wikipedia BFS is 85 ton empty mass 1100 ton methalox up to 150 tons payload and has 375 s vacuum Isp. Delta-v from LEO to Moon surface is 5.93 km/s and Moon surface back to LEO is 2.74 km/s (with aerobraking). So total delta-v for LEO -> Moon surface -> LEO is 8.67 km/s. (LEO -> LLO -> LEO is 5.35 km/s.)The rocket equation states dV = g0*Isp*ln(m0/mf) so using m/s:m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[8670 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~10.6Now we need to find which payload x satisfies mf
I don’t think that photo of Hiroshi Mikitani is correct. Doesn’t look a thing like him.
First Apollo missions didn’t land either. But based on these calculations, crew BFS won’t be able to land at all unless then can get the crew facilities + crew + supplies under 29 tons (more likely 25, to leave some safety margin). Mars looks even worse, since the delta-v from LEO to Mars surface is 10.7 km/s. But Musk and his team aren’t idiots, and they can certainly do these calculations. So we’ll see what they have up their sleeve…
My thought is- Why just go around the Moon? I mean, obviously you are testing it but the BFS should be more than capable of landing on the Moon and taking back off again. You can even charge the tourist more for that. Give them a shirt or something, too. Like as a side benefit, I guess.
Why only one tourist? The BFR is massive. What would the price be if all seats were taken??
That would be true until BFR would be certified by NASA as “safe” to carry their astronauts. But FAA would still have to approve the manned flights. Now the question in my cynical mind is how much footdragging might be done until NASA got SLS/Orion cranked up…sometime in the next decade or two? What we need to do is encourage Congress to cancel the dinosaur and hire SpaceX to take whoever around or onto the Moon. Of course, if SpaceX isn’t allowed to do its thing, will any astronauts/tourists have to apply to the PRC’s lunar embassy for visas in order to land! Sorry, I’m feeling frustrated tonight. Hope Musk can bring it off ASAP, but safely!
That will come shortly thereafter. Doing 1 week trips to the Moon and back in a luxury spaceship will be the rage among the adventurous billionaires, until the 2 week package with a week in the Lunar surface becomes available. The funny thing is NASA astronauts won’t be allowed to fly on these space cruisers. So the next human to put feet on the Moon will be probably a tourist.
Great times we live in.
I don’t think that photo of Hiroshi Mikitani is correct. Doesn’t look a thing like him.
First Apollo missions didn’t land either. But based on these calculations crew BFS won’t be able to land at all unless then can get the crew facilities + crew + supplies under 29 tons (more likely 25 to leave some safety margin). Mars looks even worse since the delta-v from LEO to Mars surface is 10.7 km/s. But Musk and his team aren’t idiots and they can certainly do these calculations. So we’ll see what they have up their sleeve…
My thought is-Why just go around the Moon? I mean obviously you are testing it but the BFS should be more than capable of landing on the Moon and taking back off again.You can even charge the tourist more for that. Give them a shirt or something too. Like as a side benefit I guess.
Why only one tourist? The BFR is massive. What would the price be if all seats were taken??
That would be true until BFR would be certified by NASA as safe”” to carry their astronauts. But FAA would still have to approve the manned flights. Now the question in my cynical mind is how much footdragging might be done until NASA got SLS/Orion cranked up…sometime in the next decade or two? What we need to do is encourage Congress to cancel the dinosaur and hire SpaceX to take whoever around or onto the Moon. Of course”” if SpaceX isn’t allowed to do its thing will any astronauts/tourists have to apply to the PRC’s lunar embassy for visas in order to land! Sorry I’m feeling frustrated tonight. Hope Musk can bring it off ASAP”” but safely!”””
What the heck is going on with this site, with comments posting, and then vanishing again? I was willing to settle for Vuukle despite its numerous shortcomings, on the basis that, at least, it was reliable. If it isn’t even that, why are we being subject to such a bare bones comment system?
That’s what I was thinking. Kind of pointless to just orbit the Moon, might as well be just orbiting the Earth, except for a few minutes of acceleration, and getting a good look at the farside. But I suppose they’d like the first landing to be unmanned, be kind of an embarrassment for your company if you crashed your first manned landing on the Moon.
I’d suggest an orbital “drop tank”. For Apollo, the trans-Lunar insertion burn was just a bit over 3kps delta V. The insertion burn doesn’t have to be high G, either, so the structural demands needn’t be high. So I’d suggest a drop tank that allows the BFR to end the insertion burn with a full tank. That would get your useful payload fraction up to about 45 tons. A fully loaded Dragon 2 capsule is about 15 tons. The Bigelow module on the ISS is under 2 tons. So, I’d say that you could get a Dragon 2 capsule with a drop tank providing enough fuel so that it could make it back to Earth on its own in an emergency, a fairly spacious habitat, a candy apple red rover, and several crew/passengers, even inside the 29 ton limit. It would be a piece of cake with 45 tons.
Great times we live in.
What the heck is going on with this site with comments posting and then vanishing again? I was willing to settle for Vuukle despite its numerous shortcomings on the basis that at least it was reliable.If it isn’t even that why are we being subject to such a bare bones comment system?
That’s what I was thinking. Kind of pointless to just orbit the Moon might as well be just orbiting the Earth except for a few minutes of acceleration and getting a good look at the farside.But I suppose they’d like the first landing to be unmanned be kind of an embarrassment for your company if you crashed your first manned landing on the Moon.
I’d suggest an orbital drop tank””. For Apollo”” the trans-Lunar insertion burn was just a bit over 3kps delta V. The insertion burn doesn’t have to be high G either so the structural demands needn’t be high.So I’d suggest a drop tank that allows the BFR to end the insertion burn with a full tank. That would get your useful payload fraction up to about 45 tons. A fully loaded Dragon 2 capsule is about 15 tons. The Bigelow module on the ISS is under 2 tons.So I’d say that you could get a Dragon 2 capsule with a drop tank providing enough fuel so that it could make it back to Earth on its own in an emergency a fairly spacious habitat a candy apple red rover and several crew/passengers”” even inside the 29 ton limit. It would be a piece of cake with 45 tons.”””
More generally, with the full 150 ton payload, a fully-fueled BFS can produce a delta-v of: dV = g0*Isp*ln(m0/mf) = 9.8 * 375 * ln[(1100 + 85 +150) / (85 +150)] = ~6.4 km/s So if they can break up the trip into segments with up to that much delta-v, and refuel in between, then they can deliver the full cargo.
Part of the reason, I guess, is that the delta-v to land and return is ~8.7 km/s, vs ~3 for TLI into a free return trajectory. Landing takes a lot of refueling, and adds too much risk for an early flight (quite possibly the first beyond LEO and/or the first manned).
It gets better once they can refuel at the Moon. Let me see if I can figure out the math: Delta-v from LEO to Moon surface is 5.93 km/s (of which ~3 is TLI, ~1.9 is landing, and the rest is probably LLO capture). Delta-v from Moon surface to LEO is 2.74 km/s (with aerobraking). For the return trip: m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[2740 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~2.1 If it returns empty, it’ll need ~94 ton of methalox. It’ll have to bring the carbon for that from Earth, which is 14.1 tons (15% of the methalox mass). Let’s round that up to 15 tons. Now we can spend all our fuel on getting to the Moon, but we need to allocate 15 tons for carbon. So for this part: m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[5930 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~5 85 + 15 + x
Very true and was thinking the same. Still- it feels like going cross country to Wally World and letting John Candy stop you at the entrance.
More generally with the full 150 ton payload a fully-fueled BFS can produce a delta-v of:dV = g0*Isp*ln(m0/mf) = 9.8 * 375 * ln[(1100 + 85 +150) / (85 +150)] = ~6.4 km/sSo if they can break up the trip into segments with up to that much delta-v and refuel in between then they can deliver the full cargo.
Part of the reason I guess is that the delta-v to land and return is ~8.7 km/s vs ~3 for TLI into a free return trajectory. Landing takes a lot of refueling and adds too much risk for an early flight (quite possibly the first beyond LEO and/or the first manned).
It gets better once they can refuel at the Moon. Let me see if I can figure out the math:Delta-v from LEO to Moon surface is 5.93 km/s (of which ~3 is TLI ~1.9 is landing and the rest is probably LLO capture). Delta-v from Moon surface to LEO is 2.74 km/s (with aerobraking). For the return trip:m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[2740 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~2.1If it returns empty it’ll need ~94 ton of methalox. It’ll have to bring the carbon for that from Earth which is 14.1 tons (15{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the methalox mass). Let’s round that up to 15 tons.Now we can spend all our fuel on getting to the Moon but we need to allocate 15 tons for carbon. So for this part:m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[5930 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~585 + 15 + x
Very true and was thinking the same.Still- it feels like going cross country to Wally World and letting John Candy stop you at the entrance.
Only one person will get killed if there is a catastrophic failure during the mission. The cost of litigating say 50 wrongful death lawsuits, filed by families of the wealthy victims, would bankrupt SpaceX.
So this means the two countries with the farthest traveling people will be the US and Japan….Excellent.
Only one person will get killed if there is a catastrophic failure during the mission. The cost of litigating say 50 wrongful death lawsuits filed by families of the wealthy victims would bankrupt SpaceX.
So this means the two countries with the farthest traveling people will be the US and Japan….Excellent.
A few more notes: To return a BFS from the Moon surface to LEO with a full payload of 150 tons would take ~260 tons of methalox. This requires ~40 tons of carbon, leaving 110 tons of other payload from LEO to the Moon surface. However, starting from full tanks in LEO, landing on the Moon leaves ~30 tons of methalox in the tanks. That saves 5 tons carbon for refueling, so you only need 10-35 tons of carbon, depending on the return payload. Which leaves 140-115 tons of payload to the Moon. In theory, a single cargo BFS could probably land all the equipment needed to make methalox on the Moon, plus the carbon it needs to refuel for the return trip. But that first refueling might take a while.
Good article. Thanks. Posted it to the Elon Musk facebook fan group. http://www.facebook.com/groups/ElonMusk Luckily it’s privately run so Elon hasn’t deleted it. http://www.BigFalconRocket.org
A few more notes:To return a BFS from the Moon surface to LEO with a full payload of 150 tons would take ~260 tons of methalox. This requires ~40 tons of carbon leaving 110 tons of other payload from LEO to the Moon surface.However starting from full tanks in LEO landing on the Moon leaves ~30 tons of methalox in the tanks. That saves 5 tons carbon for refueling so you only need 10-35 tons of carbon depending on the return payload. Which leaves 140-115 tons of payload to the Moon.In theory a single cargo BFS could probably land all the equipment needed to make methalox on the Moon plus the carbon it needs to refuel for the return trip. But that first refueling might take a while.
Good article. Thanks. Posted it to the Elon Musk facebook fan group. http://www.facebook.com/groups/ElonMusk Luckily it’s privately run so Elon hasn’t deleted it. http://www.BigFalconRocket.org
It’s taken from the Forbes site for Masahiro Miki, in the paragraph above. It is confusing, you think the link below the picture is the caption for the photo, but it’s not.
IIRC, one of the Apollo missions, a dry run for the landing, actually involved taking the lunar lander out, and getting close to landing, then returning. They told the astronauts that they’d deliberately not given the lander enough fuel to land AND get back up to the command module, just so they wouldn’t get any ideas about jumping the gun and actually landing.
It’s taken from the Forbes site for Masahiro Miki in the paragraph above. It is confusing you think the link below the picture is the caption for the photo but it’s not.
IIRC one of the Apollo missions a dry run for the landing actually involved taking the lunar lander out and getting close to landing then returning.They told the astronauts that they’d deliberately not given the lander enough fuel to land AND get back up to the command module just so they wouldn’t get any ideas about jumping the gun and actually landing.
You might as well ask why not go to Mars or Europa as long as you’re off the Earth? You need to add things one step at a time, and this is already plenty ambitious. They haven’t even flown a human to the ISS yet, and they’re talking about orbiting the moon already. Beyond that, look at the tourists lining up to go to the edge of space, but not orbit (Spaceship 1, etc). You get what you pay for. Landing would be considerably more expensive, and you’d have to wait at least a year or two more for all the additional equipment and testing that would take.
You might as well ask why not go to Mars or Europa as long as you’re off the Earth? You need to add things one step at a time and this is already plenty ambitious. They haven’t even flown a human to the ISS yet and they’re talking about orbiting the moon already. Beyond that look at the tourists lining up to go to the edge of space but not orbit (Spaceship 1 etc). You get what you pay for. Landing would be considerably more expensive and you’d have to wait at least a year or two more for all the additional equipment and testing that would take.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the mission profiles for Mars/Europa are different from Lunar orbit vs landing on the Moon. ” Landing would be considerably more expensive, ” Ok, but I wasn’t excluding a higher expense, especially since I specifically stated that could charge more for it. We also don’t know the cost difference, anyways. “have to wait at least a year or two more for all the additional equipment and testing that would take.” What additional equipment would you need to land on the Moon?
Correct me if I’m wrong but the mission profiles for Mars/Europa are different from Lunar orbit vs landing on the Moon. Landing would be considerably more expensive” “”Ok”” but I wasn’t excluding a higher expense especially since I specifically stated that could charge more for it. We also don’t know the cost difference”” anyways.””””have to wait at least a year or two more for all the additional equipment and testing that would take.””””What additional equipment would you need to land on the Moon?”””
Let me try to clear any blocked comments. I think I may have to switch out of Vuukle to correct the issues
Spot on! SpaceX just revealed that the client is Yusaku Maezawa.
Let me try to clear any blocked comments. I think I may have to switch out of Vuukle to correct the issues
Spot on! SpaceX just revealed that the client is Yusaku Maezawa.
Do us all a favor, if you do switch again, don’t go for yet another immature commenting startup. It’ll just be a repeat of the same story.
Do us all a favor if you do switch again don’t go for yet another immature commenting startup. It’ll just be a repeat of the same story.
Do us all a favor, if you do switch again, don’t go for yet another immature commenting startup. It’ll just be a repeat of the same story.
Do us all a favor if you do switch again don’t go for yet another immature commenting startup. It’ll just be a repeat of the same story.
Let me try to clear any blocked comments. I think I may have to switch out of Vuukle to correct the issues
Let me try to clear any blocked comments. I think I may have to switch out of Vuukle to correct the issues
Spot on! SpaceX just revealed that the client is Yusaku Maezawa.
Spot on! SpaceX just revealed that the client is Yusaku Maezawa.
Do us all a favor, if you do switch again, don’t go for yet another immature commenting startup. It’ll just be a repeat of the same story.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the mission profiles for Mars/Europa are different from Lunar orbit vs landing on the Moon. ” Landing would be considerably more expensive, ” Ok, but I wasn’t excluding a higher expense, especially since I specifically stated that could charge more for it. We also don’t know the cost difference, anyways. “have to wait at least a year or two more for all the additional equipment and testing that would take.” What additional equipment would you need to land on the Moon?
Correct me if I’m wrong but the mission profiles for Mars/Europa are different from Lunar orbit vs landing on the Moon. Landing would be considerably more expensive” “”Ok”” but I wasn’t excluding a higher expense especially since I specifically stated that could charge more for it. We also don’t know the cost difference”” anyways.””””have to wait at least a year or two more for all the additional equipment and testing that would take.””””What additional equipment would you need to land on the Moon?”””
You might as well ask why not go to Mars or Europa as long as you’re off the Earth? You need to add things one step at a time, and this is already plenty ambitious. They haven’t even flown a human to the ISS yet, and they’re talking about orbiting the moon already. Beyond that, look at the tourists lining up to go to the edge of space, but not orbit (Spaceship 1, etc). You get what you pay for. Landing would be considerably more expensive, and you’d have to wait at least a year or two more for all the additional equipment and testing that would take.
You might as well ask why not go to Mars or Europa as long as you’re off the Earth? You need to add things one step at a time and this is already plenty ambitious. They haven’t even flown a human to the ISS yet and they’re talking about orbiting the moon already. Beyond that look at the tourists lining up to go to the edge of space but not orbit (Spaceship 1 etc). You get what you pay for. Landing would be considerably more expensive and you’d have to wait at least a year or two more for all the additional equipment and testing that would take.
It’s taken from the Forbes site for Masahiro Miki, in the paragraph above. It is confusing, you think the link below the picture is the caption for the photo, but it’s not.
It’s taken from the Forbes site for Masahiro Miki in the paragraph above. It is confusing you think the link below the picture is the caption for the photo but it’s not.
IIRC, one of the Apollo missions, a dry run for the landing, actually involved taking the lunar lander out, and getting close to landing, then returning. They told the astronauts that they’d deliberately not given the lander enough fuel to land AND get back up to the command module, just so they wouldn’t get any ideas about jumping the gun and actually landing.
IIRC one of the Apollo missions a dry run for the landing actually involved taking the lunar lander out and getting close to landing then returning.They told the astronauts that they’d deliberately not given the lander enough fuel to land AND get back up to the command module just so they wouldn’t get any ideas about jumping the gun and actually landing.
Let me try to clear any blocked comments. I think I may have to switch out of Vuukle to correct the issues
Spot on! SpaceX just revealed that the client is Yusaku Maezawa.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the mission profiles for Mars/Europa are different from Lunar orbit vs landing on the Moon.
” Landing would be considerably more expensive, ”
Ok, but I wasn’t excluding a higher expense, especially since I specifically stated that could charge more for it. We also don’t know the cost difference, anyways.
“have to wait at least a year or two more for all the additional equipment and testing that would take.”
What additional equipment would you need to land on the Moon?
A few more notes: To return a BFS from the Moon surface to LEO with a full payload of 150 tons would take ~260 tons of methalox. This requires ~40 tons of carbon, leaving 110 tons of other payload from LEO to the Moon surface. However, starting from full tanks in LEO, landing on the Moon leaves ~30 tons of methalox in the tanks. That saves 5 tons carbon for refueling, so you only need 10-35 tons of carbon, depending on the return payload. Which leaves 140-115 tons of payload to the Moon. In theory, a single cargo BFS could probably land all the equipment needed to make methalox on the Moon, plus the carbon it needs to refuel for the return trip. But that first refueling might take a while.
A few more notes:To return a BFS from the Moon surface to LEO with a full payload of 150 tons would take ~260 tons of methalox. This requires ~40 tons of carbon leaving 110 tons of other payload from LEO to the Moon surface.However starting from full tanks in LEO landing on the Moon leaves ~30 tons of methalox in the tanks. That saves 5 tons carbon for refueling so you only need 10-35 tons of carbon depending on the return payload. Which leaves 140-115 tons of payload to the Moon.In theory a single cargo BFS could probably land all the equipment needed to make methalox on the Moon plus the carbon it needs to refuel for the return trip. But that first refueling might take a while.
Good article. Thanks. Posted it to the Elon Musk facebook fan group. http://www.facebook.com/groups/ElonMusk Luckily it’s privately run so Elon hasn’t deleted it. http://www.BigFalconRocket.org
Good article. Thanks. Posted it to the Elon Musk facebook fan group. http://www.facebook.com/groups/ElonMusk Luckily it’s privately run so Elon hasn’t deleted it. http://www.BigFalconRocket.org
You might as well ask why not go to Mars or Europa as long as you’re off the Earth? You need to add things one step at a time, and this is already plenty ambitious. They haven’t even flown a human to the ISS yet, and they’re talking about orbiting the moon already.
Beyond that, look at the tourists lining up to go to the edge of space, but not orbit (Spaceship 1, etc). You get what you pay for. Landing would be considerably more expensive, and you’d have to wait at least a year or two more for all the additional equipment and testing that would take.
It’s taken from the Forbes site for Masahiro Miki, in the paragraph above. It is confusing, you think the link below the picture is the caption for the photo, but it’s not.
IIRC, one of the Apollo missions, a dry run for the landing, actually involved taking the lunar lander out, and getting close to landing, then returning.
They told the astronauts that they’d deliberately not given the lander enough fuel to land AND get back up to the command module, just so they wouldn’t get any ideas about jumping the gun and actually landing.
Only one person will get killed if there is a catastrophic failure during the mission. The cost of litigating say 50 wrongful death lawsuits, filed by families of the wealthy victims, would bankrupt SpaceX.
Only one person will get killed if there is a catastrophic failure during the mission. The cost of litigating say 50 wrongful death lawsuits filed by families of the wealthy victims would bankrupt SpaceX.
So this means the two countries with the farthest traveling people will be the US and Japan….Excellent.
So this means the two countries with the farthest traveling people will be the US and Japan….Excellent.
More generally, with the full 150 ton payload, a fully-fueled BFS can produce a delta-v of: dV = g0*Isp*ln(m0/mf) = 9.8 * 375 * ln[(1100 + 85 +150) / (85 +150)] = ~6.4 km/s So if they can break up the trip into segments with up to that much delta-v, and refuel in between, then they can deliver the full cargo.
More generally with the full 150 ton payload a fully-fueled BFS can produce a delta-v of:dV = g0*Isp*ln(m0/mf) = 9.8 * 375 * ln[(1100 + 85 +150) / (85 +150)] = ~6.4 km/sSo if they can break up the trip into segments with up to that much delta-v and refuel in between then they can deliver the full cargo.
Part of the reason, I guess, is that the delta-v to land and return is ~8.7 km/s, vs ~3 for TLI into a free return trajectory. Landing takes a lot of refueling, and adds too much risk for an early flight (quite possibly the first beyond LEO and/or the first manned).
Part of the reason I guess is that the delta-v to land and return is ~8.7 km/s vs ~3 for TLI into a free return trajectory. Landing takes a lot of refueling and adds too much risk for an early flight (quite possibly the first beyond LEO and/or the first manned).
It gets better once they can refuel at the Moon. Let me see if I can figure out the math: Delta-v from LEO to Moon surface is 5.93 km/s (of which ~3 is TLI, ~1.9 is landing, and the rest is probably LLO capture). Delta-v from Moon surface to LEO is 2.74 km/s (with aerobraking). For the return trip: m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[2740 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~2.1 If it returns empty, it’ll need ~94 ton of methalox. It’ll have to bring the carbon for that from Earth, which is 14.1 tons (15% of the methalox mass). Let’s round that up to 15 tons. Now we can spend all our fuel on getting to the Moon, but we need to allocate 15 tons for carbon. So for this part: m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[5930 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~5 85 + 15 + x
It gets better once they can refuel at the Moon. Let me see if I can figure out the math:Delta-v from LEO to Moon surface is 5.93 km/s (of which ~3 is TLI ~1.9 is landing and the rest is probably LLO capture). Delta-v from Moon surface to LEO is 2.74 km/s (with aerobraking). For the return trip:m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[2740 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~2.1If it returns empty it’ll need ~94 ton of methalox. It’ll have to bring the carbon for that from Earth which is 14.1 tons (15{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the methalox mass). Let’s round that up to 15 tons.Now we can spend all our fuel on getting to the Moon but we need to allocate 15 tons for carbon. So for this part:m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[5930 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~585 + 15 + x
A few more notes:
To return a BFS from the Moon surface to LEO with a full payload of 150 tons would take ~260 tons of methalox. This requires ~40 tons of carbon, leaving 110 tons of other payload from LEO to the Moon surface.
However, starting from full tanks in LEO, landing on the Moon leaves ~30 tons of methalox in the tanks. That saves 5 tons carbon for refueling, so you only need 10-35 tons of carbon, depending on the return payload. Which leaves 140-115 tons of payload to the Moon.
In theory, a single cargo BFS could probably land all the equipment needed to make methalox on the Moon, plus the carbon it needs to refuel for the return trip. But that first refueling might take a while.
Good article. Thanks. Posted it to the Elon Musk facebook fan group. http://www.facebook.com/groups/ElonMusk Luckily it’s privately run so Elon hasn’t deleted it. http://www.BigFalconRocket.org
Very true and was thinking the same. Still- it feels like going cross country to Wally World and letting John Candy stop you at the entrance.
Very true and was thinking the same.Still- it feels like going cross country to Wally World and letting John Candy stop you at the entrance.
Only one person will get killed if there is a catastrophic failure during the mission. The cost of litigating say 50 wrongful death lawsuits, filed by families of the wealthy victims, would bankrupt SpaceX.
What the heck is going on with this site, with comments posting, and then vanishing again? I was willing to settle for Vuukle despite its numerous shortcomings, on the basis that, at least, it was reliable. If it isn’t even that, why are we being subject to such a bare bones comment system?
What the heck is going on with this site with comments posting and then vanishing again? I was willing to settle for Vuukle despite its numerous shortcomings on the basis that at least it was reliable.If it isn’t even that why are we being subject to such a bare bones comment system?
That’s what I was thinking. Kind of pointless to just orbit the Moon, might as well be just orbiting the Earth, except for a few minutes of acceleration, and getting a good look at the farside. But I suppose they’d like the first landing to be unmanned, be kind of an embarrassment for your company if you crashed your first manned landing on the Moon.
That’s what I was thinking. Kind of pointless to just orbit the Moon might as well be just orbiting the Earth except for a few minutes of acceleration and getting a good look at the farside.But I suppose they’d like the first landing to be unmanned be kind of an embarrassment for your company if you crashed your first manned landing on the Moon.
So this means the two countries with the farthest traveling people will be the US and Japan….Excellent.
I’d suggest an orbital “drop tank”. For Apollo, the trans-Lunar insertion burn was just a bit over 3kps delta V. The insertion burn doesn’t have to be high G, either, so the structural demands needn’t be high. So I’d suggest a drop tank that allows the BFR to end the insertion burn with a full tank. That would get your useful payload fraction up to about 45 tons. A fully loaded Dragon 2 capsule is about 15 tons. The Bigelow module on the ISS is under 2 tons. So, I’d say that you could get a Dragon 2 capsule with a drop tank providing enough fuel so that it could make it back to Earth on its own in an emergency, a fairly spacious habitat, a candy apple red rover, and several crew/passengers, even inside the 29 ton limit. It would be a piece of cake with 45 tons.
I’d suggest an orbital drop tank””. For Apollo”” the trans-Lunar insertion burn was just a bit over 3kps delta V. The insertion burn doesn’t have to be high G either so the structural demands needn’t be high.So I’d suggest a drop tank that allows the BFR to end the insertion burn with a full tank. That would get your useful payload fraction up to about 45 tons. A fully loaded Dragon 2 capsule is about 15 tons. The Bigelow module on the ISS is under 2 tons.So I’d say that you could get a Dragon 2 capsule with a drop tank providing enough fuel so that it could make it back to Earth on its own in an emergency a fairly spacious habitat a candy apple red rover and several crew/passengers”” even inside the 29 ton limit. It would be a piece of cake with 45 tons.”””
Great times we live in.
Great times we live in.
More generally, with the full 150 ton payload, a fully-fueled BFS can produce a delta-v of:
dV = g0*Isp*ln(m0/mf) = 9.8 * 375 * ln[(1100 + 85 +150) / (85 +150)] = ~6.4 km/s
So if they can break up the trip into segments with up to that much delta-v, and refuel in between, then they can deliver the full cargo.
Part of the reason, I guess, is that the delta-v to land and return is ~8.7 km/s, vs ~3 for TLI into a free return trajectory. Landing takes a lot of refueling, and adds too much risk for an early flight (quite possibly the first beyond LEO and/or the first manned).
It gets better once they can refuel at the Moon. Let me see if I can figure out the math:
Delta-v from LEO to Moon surface is 5.93 km/s (of which ~3 is TLI, ~1.9 is landing, and the rest is probably LLO capture). Delta-v from Moon surface to LEO is 2.74 km/s (with aerobraking). For the return trip:
m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[2740 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~2.1
If it returns empty, it’ll need ~94 ton of methalox. It’ll have to bring the carbon for that from Earth, which is 14.1 tons (15% of the methalox mass). Let’s round that up to 15 tons.
Now we can spend all our fuel on getting to the Moon, but we need to allocate 15 tons for carbon. So for this part:
m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[5930 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~5
85 + 15 + x <= (85 + 15 + 1100 + x) / 5 500 + 5x <= 1200 + x x <= 700/4 = 175 tons So if we can fit that in with 15 tons of carbon, we can land up to 175 tons of other payload, without a drop tank. Indeed, much better. But normally, the capacity to LEO is 150 tons, which leaves 135 tons for payload. It also looks better for Mars, but you'd want to refuel in LLO, without landing. The delta-v from LLO to Mars is ~8 km/s (via EML2) - vs 10.7 from LEO. And once they can refuel again in LMO, they cut an additional 4.1 km/s out of that. If they do want to use a drop tank, they may be able to use a tanker BFS. Insert into a free-return trajectory. The main BFS separates after the boost and lands later, the tanker returns back to Earth where it can aerobrake and land. This may explain the new design - in the previous one, the fuel feed lines where at the back, so it couldn't use the engines while docked to a tanker. Numbers from wikipedia /wiki/Delta-v_budget .
I don’t think that photo of Hiroshi Mikitani is correct. Doesn’t look a thing like him.
I don’t think that photo of Hiroshi Mikitani is correct. Doesn’t look a thing like him.
Very true and was thinking the same.
Still- it feels like going cross country to Wally World and letting John Candy stop you at the entrance.
First Apollo missions didn’t land either. But based on these calculations, crew BFS won’t be able to land at all unless then can get the crew facilities + crew + supplies under 29 tons (more likely 25, to leave some safety margin). Mars looks even worse, since the delta-v from LEO to Mars surface is 10.7 km/s. But Musk and his team aren’t idiots, and they can certainly do these calculations. So we’ll see what they have up their sleeve…
First Apollo missions didn’t land either. But based on these calculations crew BFS won’t be able to land at all unless then can get the crew facilities + crew + supplies under 29 tons (more likely 25 to leave some safety margin). Mars looks even worse since the delta-v from LEO to Mars surface is 10.7 km/s. But Musk and his team aren’t idiots and they can certainly do these calculations. So we’ll see what they have up their sleeve…
My thought is- Why just go around the Moon? I mean, obviously you are testing it but the BFS should be more than capable of landing on the Moon and taking back off again. You can even charge the tourist more for that. Give them a shirt or something, too. Like as a side benefit, I guess.
My thought is-Why just go around the Moon? I mean obviously you are testing it but the BFS should be more than capable of landing on the Moon and taking back off again.You can even charge the tourist more for that. Give them a shirt or something too. Like as a side benefit I guess.
Why only one tourist? The BFR is massive. What would the price be if all seats were taken??
Why only one tourist? The BFR is massive. What would the price be if all seats were taken??
That would be true until BFR would be certified by NASA as “safe” to carry their astronauts. But FAA would still have to approve the manned flights. Now the question in my cynical mind is how much footdragging might be done until NASA got SLS/Orion cranked up…sometime in the next decade or two? What we need to do is encourage Congress to cancel the dinosaur and hire SpaceX to take whoever around or onto the Moon. Of course, if SpaceX isn’t allowed to do its thing, will any astronauts/tourists have to apply to the PRC’s lunar embassy for visas in order to land! Sorry, I’m feeling frustrated tonight. Hope Musk can bring it off ASAP, but safely!
That would be true until BFR would be certified by NASA as safe”” to carry their astronauts. But FAA would still have to approve the manned flights. Now the question in my cynical mind is how much footdragging might be done until NASA got SLS/Orion cranked up…sometime in the next decade or two? What we need to do is encourage Congress to cancel the dinosaur and hire SpaceX to take whoever around or onto the Moon. Of course”” if SpaceX isn’t allowed to do its thing will any astronauts/tourists have to apply to the PRC’s lunar embassy for visas in order to land! Sorry I’m feeling frustrated tonight. Hope Musk can bring it off ASAP”” but safely!”””
That will come shortly thereafter. Doing 1 week trips to the Moon and back in a luxury spaceship will be the rage among the adventurous billionaires, until the 2 week package with a week in the Lunar surface becomes available. The funny thing is NASA astronauts won’t be allowed to fly on these space cruisers. So the next human to put feet on the Moon will be probably a tourist.
That will come shortly thereafter. Doing 1 week trips to the Moon and back in a luxury spaceship will be the rage among the adventurous billionaires until the 2 week package with a week in the Lunar surface becomes available.The funny thing is NASA astronauts won’t be allowed to fly on these space cruisers. So the next human to put feet on the Moon will be probably a tourist.
What the heck is going on with this site, with comments posting, and then vanishing again? I was willing to settle for Vuukle despite its numerous shortcomings, on the basis that, at least, it was reliable.
If it isn’t even that, why are we being subject to such a bare bones comment system?
That’s what I was thinking. Kind of pointless to just orbit the Moon, might as well be just orbiting the Earth, except for a few minutes of acceleration, and getting a good look at the farside.
But I suppose they’d like the first landing to be unmanned, be kind of an embarrassment for your company if you crashed your first manned landing on the Moon.
I’d suggest an orbital “drop tank”. For Apollo, the trans-Lunar insertion burn was just a bit over 3kps delta V. The insertion burn doesn’t have to be high G, either, so the structural demands needn’t be high.
So I’d suggest a drop tank that allows the BFR to end the insertion burn with a full tank. That would get your useful payload fraction up to about 45 tons.
A fully loaded Dragon 2 capsule is about 15 tons. The Bigelow module on the ISS is under 2 tons.
So, I’d say that you could get a Dragon 2 capsule with a drop tank providing enough fuel so that it could make it back to Earth on its own in an emergency, a fairly spacious habitat, a candy apple red rover, and several crew/passengers, even inside the 29 ton limit. It would be a piece of cake with 45 tons.
Great times we live in.
Just thought it would be cool if they skipped past just orbiting the Moon, to landing there.
Just thought it would be cool if they skipped past just orbiting the Moon to landing there.
Per wikipedia, BFS is 85 ton empty mass, 1100 ton methalox, up to 150 tons payload, and has 375 s vacuum Isp. Delta-v from LEO to Moon surface is 5.93 km/s, and Moon surface back to LEO is 2.74 km/s (with aerobraking). So total delta-v for LEO -> Moon surface -> LEO is 8.67 km/s. (LEO -> LLO -> LEO is 5.35 km/s.) The rocket equation states dV = g0*Isp*ln(m0/mf), so, using m/s: m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[8670 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~10.6 Now we need to find which payload x satisfies mf LLO -> LEO delta-v to find how much it can carry around the Moon.
Per wikipedia BFS is 85 ton empty mass 1100 ton methalox up to 150 tons payload and has 375 s vacuum Isp. Delta-v from LEO to Moon surface is 5.93 km/s and Moon surface back to LEO is 2.74 km/s (with aerobraking). So total delta-v for LEO -> Moon surface -> LEO is 8.67 km/s. (LEO -> LLO -> LEO is 5.35 km/s.)The rocket equation states dV = g0*Isp*ln(m0/mf) so using m/s:m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[8670 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~10.6Now we need to find which payload x satisfies mf
I don’t think that photo of Hiroshi Mikitani is correct. Doesn’t look a thing like him.
First Apollo missions didn’t land either. But based on these calculations, crew BFS won’t be able to land at all unless then can get the crew facilities + crew + supplies under 29 tons (more likely 25, to leave some safety margin). Mars looks even worse, since the delta-v from LEO to Mars surface is 10.7 km/s. But Musk and his team aren’t idiots, and they can certainly do these calculations. So we’ll see what they have up their sleeve…
My thought is-
Why just go around the Moon? I mean, obviously you are testing it but the BFS should be more than capable of landing on the Moon and taking back off again.
You can even charge the tourist more for that. Give them a shirt or something, too. Like as a side benefit, I guess.
and spent $110 million on a painting” A really ugly painting, too! I’m interested in a technical question: If SpaceX fully fueled the BFR before it left orbit, could it *land* on the Moon and return?
and spent $110 million on a painting””A really ugly painting”” too!I’m interested in a technical question: If SpaceX fully fueled the BFR before it left orbit”” could it *land* on the Moon and return?”””
Why only one tourist? The BFR is massive. What would the price be if all seats were taken??
That would be true until BFR would be certified by NASA as “safe” to carry their astronauts. But FAA would still have to approve the manned flights. Now the question in my cynical mind is how much footdragging might be done until NASA got SLS/Orion cranked up…sometime in the next decade or two? What we need to do is encourage Congress to cancel the dinosaur and hire SpaceX to take whoever around or onto the Moon. Of course, if SpaceX isn’t allowed to do its thing, will any astronauts/tourists have to apply to the PRC’s lunar embassy for visas in order to land! Sorry, I’m feeling frustrated tonight. Hope Musk can bring it off ASAP, but safely!
That will come shortly thereafter.
Doing 1 week trips to the Moon and back in a luxury spaceship will be the rage among the adventurous billionaires, until the 2 week package with a week in the Lunar surface becomes available.
The funny thing is NASA astronauts won’t be allowed to fly on these space cruisers. So the next human to put feet on the Moon will be probably a tourist.
Just thought it would be cool if they skipped past just orbiting the Moon, to landing there.
Per wikipedia, BFS is 85 ton empty mass, 1100 ton methalox, up to 150 tons payload, and has 375 s vacuum Isp. Delta-v from LEO to Moon surface is 5.93 km/s, and Moon surface back to LEO is 2.74 km/s (with aerobraking). So total delta-v for LEO -> Moon surface -> LEO is 8.67 km/s. (LEO -> LLO -> LEO is 5.35 km/s.)
The rocket equation states dV = g0*Isp*ln(m0/mf), so, using m/s:
m0/mf = e^[dV/(g0*Isp)] = e^[8670 / (9.8 * 375)] = ~10.6
Now we need to find which payload x satisfies mf <= m0/10.6: 85 + x <= (85 + 1100 + x) / 10.6 10.6*85 + 10.6x <= 85 + 1100 + x x <= (85 + 1100 - 10.6*85)/9.6 = ~29.6 tons So fully fueled, it could land and return up to ~29.6 tons by these calculations. If it returns empty, it could land more, but the calculation is more complex. Plug in the LEO -> LLO -> LEO delta-v to find how much it can carry around the Moon.
“and spent $110 million on a painting”
A really ugly painting, too!
I’m interested in a technical question: If SpaceX fully fueled the BFR before it left orbit, could it *land* on the Moon and return?