The NASA Artemis 2 mission would be a manned lunar flyby. It will cost about $5-10 billion with the SLS and Orion systems. A SpaceX Falcon Heavy option with modified Dragon would cost about $2-3 billion.
Alternative vehicle costs:
Falcon Heavy: Approximately $90-150 million per launch
New Glenn: Exact pricing not publicly available, but estimated to be competitive with Falcon Heavy
Orion spacecraft:
The Orion spacecraft would still be required for the mission. Its development costs are already incurred, but production costs per mission are estimated at $1 billion.
Mission-specific adjustments:
Adapter development: A new adapter would be needed to integrate Orion with Falcon Heavy or New Glenn.
Software and avionics modifications: To ensure compatibility between Orion and the new launch vehicle.
Additional testing and certification: To validate the new configuration.
Ground systems and operations:
Some cost savings might be realized by using existing commercial launch infrastructure, but modifications would still be necessary.
Estimated total cost for Artemis II using Falcon Heavy or New Glenn:
$1.5-2 billion per mission, significantly less than the $4.2 billion per launch for SLS-based Artemis missions. Potential launch date:
Given the necessary adjustments and certifications, a realistic launch date could be late 2026 or early 2027, assuming immediate decision to switch launch vehicles.
This might only be about 6-12 months later than SLS-based Artemis.
Alternative Dragon instead of Orion
Cost Comparison
Orion capsule: Approximately $1 billion per mission, not including the $300 million European Service Module.
Crew Dragon: Estimated $60-67 million per seat for LEO missions.
Modifications and Development
To adapt Crew Dragon for lunar missions, SpaceX would need to make several upgrades:
Radiation shielding enhancements
Extended life support systems
Improved propulsion for lunar trajectories
Modifications to thermal protection for lunar return velocities
These modifications could potentially cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but would likely still be less than Orion’s development costs.
Mission Architecture Changes
Multiple launches: A lunar Dragon mission might require 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches for the capsule, service module, and fuel1.
Potential cost: $300-450 million for launches, plus $200-300 million for the modified Dragon capsule and service module.
Total Estimated Cost
A rough estimate for a lunar Dragon mission could be $500-750 million, compared to the current $4.1 billion for an SLS/Orion launch
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.
I agree, the real settlement target in our lifetime should be Mars and not the Moon. This is the problem with massive government bureaucracies such as the current NASA management structure…..It is not about the “intended goal”, that “goal” is hung out as bait to attract further government funding, it is in reality, about the continued employment of millions of less endowed “plodders” who owe their allegiance not to us but to “their overlords”. So the “intended goal” is prostituted into supporting a large group of parasites!
Some of my ancestors did not have such luxury, they set sail in little ships (including the Mayflower) for the English “New World” Colonies, fleeing religious and political oppression without the luxury of waiting for any government sponsored exploration efforts…. Thinking retrospectively, I feel that it turned out to be the best option! 😉
So, using the Dragon capsules to begin the settlement of Mars is a no-brainer, they exist, can be modified cheaply/quickly and they can begin the settlement of Mars today before others with less kind intents can get there. Any re-entry shield problems can be fixed with the addition of a deploy-able re-entry heat shield, as has already been tested by NASA. Freight trips to support early settlement can begin next year, just using existing COTS!
NASA worries about the “funding opportunities” to maintain their top-heavy structure. Ditch the failed/expensive/dangerous SLS now. Flatten the management structure and divert SLS spending to maintain those very important research efforts that properly align with NASA’s published scientific goals! Contract out the early settlement of Mars to the private sector, like was done for Apollo.
Large private companies have been able to re-structure to reduce operational costs, and so can NASA!
Start now with an expeditionary force and then upgrade to nuclear thermal propulsion/etc. as and when it becomes available. No doubt “Starships” will also become available in time, just not as fast as Elon Musk thinks, certainly not before 2032 (IMHO).
I can see that SpaceX needs additional funding and direction to get the Dragons to Mars, which is where the new President may need to step into the picture by providing some direct funding and direction?
Perhaps we should halt SLS, Orion, and all replacements for human spaceflight that is not going to reusable. Put the funds and talents to work building deep space probes, telescopes, in-situ resource demonstrators that convert local materials into structures powered by nuclear power infrastructure for moon and mars. Focus human spaceflight on a combination of looking ahead to what starship can accomplish and making ISS replacement a success for commercial partners and international partners astronauts.
Apollo used a two stage lunar lander. Lox tanks could be left in place after landing. The crew and cargo section of a Starship could be reduced and larger fuel tanks added. A lighter weight Starship Hopper could fly to lunar orbit or hopp to different locations on the moon. My favorite is inside a cave. Caves can provide protection from radiation, meteorites, and temperature fluctuations. Lunar starship is already designed with engines at the base of the crew/cargo section. Dividing the ship below the landing engines would require little design change.
SpaceX can do it faster, better, cheaper…;-)
Look up BO’ blue moon.
It was a big mistake by NASA and Boeing not to utilize the core stage and the EUS for simple commercial crew launches in order to substantially reduce operational and production cost. Even without any SLS launches at all, SLS cost are going to be at least $2 billion a year just to maintain the operational work force and systems. Such a simple two stage SLS rocket could easily deploy a 16 tonne crew vessel to orbit plus an additional 12 tonnes of payload.
It was also a big mistake not to initially use the SLS to deploy a large space station into orbit with a single launch, a space station mostly derived from multiple EUS hydrogen tanks (7.5 by 8.4 meters) repurposed to be used as habitat sections. Charging each visiting astronaut or tourist just $500,000 per day would have provided daily revenue if the space station was constantly occupied.
The SLS core stage plus SRBs could also be used to deploy a rotating space station that produces artificial gravity (three 8.4 meter in diameter habitat modules attached to two expandable booms to produce 0.5g of simulated gravity). This would allow astronauts to remain in orbit for months and even years without the need to return to Earth dramatically reducing launch cost for personal operating artificial gravity and nearby microgravity space stations.
The hardware for Artemis II and III are already paid for. I’d plan the switch for Artemis IV, will give three years to make the change.
The ground crew, etc, for a manned launch is the cost. Use the SLS for cargo.
These scenarios are beyond optimistic. You don’t human rate a rocket and safely add all of these engineering modifications in 6-12 months.
And, as far as Dragon is concerned, you’re talking about building an entirely new spacecraft. Look at how many years SpaceX is going to take just to build a Dragon with a robust enough propulsion system to de-orbit the ISS.
The heat shield alone will be a big challenge, and how huge is that service module going to be after adding all those new engines, fuel and life support? Orion can sustain four astronauts for at least a month…probably longer. Dragon can barely handle a week.
And, here’s the last problem: No way is Elon going to support this. He doesn’t want to human rate Falcon Heavy. He’s said that many times. He believes Starship can do the whole job in four years or less, and he…together with our return to the Moon…will die on that hill.
I advocated solutions like this five years ago when I first started my channel. We had time then.
China’s gonna smoke us now.
And, if you think I’m wrong, name one time…just one…that anyone managed to complete a task like this with a human rated spacecraft in this kind of timeframe.
So you are willing to correctly say that antiquated regulations are needlessly slowing down nuclear rockets (and reactors) but then say that human rating a rocket cannot be engineered in 6-12 months. Technically, the human rating can be done with two good unmanned launches. Also, Orion still has heat shield work to make it safe.
the only thing currently being discussed for the next four years is a human flyby of the moon and then one human landing (Artemis 2 and Artemis 3). It does not matter and is not worth $10-20 billion to perform a deadend program for those stunts. Going completely to Starship lunar and Mars colonization and development program is the better option. Even it has some setup time.
The goal should be Mars. Use the Moon for practice if you want but in case you weren’t alive, we landed on the Moon in 1969. If China lands there 60 years later, who really cares?
The Next Great Leap is Mars. Why? Well like JKF said “Not because it is easy, but because it is hard”. Artemis was an excuse of a program to justify SLS/Orion both which are way too expensive.
I would ditch the SLS immediately, too late, too expensive and too dangerous with delayed timelines now stretching out well into the far future.
The SpaceX Crew/Cargo Dragon capsule is underrated. This exceptional and very reliable vehicle is now coming to “end of life” with the planned retirement of the ISS and could be adapted for missions to the Moon and to Mars….
I am not saying that the SpaceX efforts with their large booster and Starship are not extraordinary but the developmental chain is long and the entire assembly including Starship has yet to produce one LEO of the planet. The required in-orbit refueling is also not proven/costly. A three stage rocket with the big booster as the first stage has the potential to put the Crew Dragon into a fast transfer (less than 28 day) Manned Mars landing situation, that could be done by 2028 with one way (slow) unmanned freight trips to Mars with Cargo Dragon/Falcon Heavy by 2026 using the well known Hohmann transfer orbit, but the other stuff involving Starship is still on the drawing board….
Some minor modifications are needed to make the Manned Dragon interplanetary, a moderator/reflector type radiation shield with Kevlar needs installation to ward off Cosmic Rays and provide micro meteorite protection, but the existing heat-shield will only be needed (presuming retro propulsive entry) for Mars Entry as these capsules will not be returning to Earth.
For lunar work, the astronauts can travel up into lunar orbit on a Falcon Heavy in a Crew Dragon with the lunar lander launching separately on a second Falcon Heavy. Working quickly with a dedicated small crew using COTS would get things moving in an acceptable timeline and at an acceptable price. The same would be possible with the proposed orbital Moon lab with the docking/undocking already proven with Dragon to/from the ISS. The Orion capsule is not needed for any of this!
The Dragon capsule was originally designed for retro propulsive landing, ideal for the Moon and Mars. NASA refused to man-rate that version, and they had to redesign it to us parachutes. I wonder how hard it would be for SpaceX to resurrect the retro propulsive version, only with enough delta v for those landings? SpaceX has had a LOT of experience with precision retro propulsive landings now, and if ever there was an excuse for that refusal, it’s long since expired.
Hm, after looking at the numbers, it would probably be easier for SpaceX to design a Moon lander from scratch; The mass ratio for a Moon landing using super-Dracos would be about 6.2
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/10/dragon-propulsive-landing/
They already added it back. Dragon could probably soft land on the moon without any changes. It could never leave again but it could land on super Draco’s thrust.
Glad to hear it. But I doubt the current Dragon capsule has enough delta V to do a retro propulsive landing, that’s about 2kps, quite a bit higher than needed on Earth given the help you get from air slowing you down.
Maybe they should equip it so that you can add drop tanks?
I’m sure your right, air braking makes a huge difference in earth and a fairly big difference on Mars.
I’m a big fan of drop tanks for rockets in space. For many missions, acceleration isn’t a key parameter, so it makes sense to add tankage without adding engines, and then just drop the tankage when not needed. It lets you reach higher mass ratios at lower expense.
In the specific case of a Moon landing, acceleration is basically irrelevant for the deorbit burn, then you need to exceed lunar gravity for the landing and return.
But Dragon is designed to exceed Earth gravity already, which means that for a landing on the Moon, it can be about 6 times heavier than ‘out of the box’ at the end of the deorbit burn.
So, I believe that the Crew Dragon could be reconfigured as a Moon lander by adding a connect system for drop tanks. It could probably do so with permanently connected extra tankage, too, a bit less efficiently. But the ability to drop the external tanks would increase mission flexibility.
For lunar purposes, maybe the ideal compromise would be to alter the Dragon to have enough internal fuel storage for a return from the surface, and drop tanks for the landing. Then you could leave the drop tanks on the surface for use as storage and other purposes.
Use A-2 and 3 to put nuclear tugs into orbit.
Moving Starships up in orbit reduces tanker flights for trips to Mars, Moon etc…
Saving 2 tankers per Starship trip to Mars, for 20 Starships ,is 200 launches saved.
Nuclear tugs are infrastructure.
One and a half trips to the Moon are a media stunt.
Math
Nuclear is definitely the best long term solution.
Dump these antiquated development regulations!
Welcome
Well, in the long run…
Having two ~100 mile diameter rings in low equatorial orbit, counter-rotating, edge on, with a station bridging the rings, using drive wheels to control spin rates, could lift and accelerate a payload to higher orbits.
My own variation on this NASA study from the ’80s:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19840007111
The materials science has caught up and then some.
Wouldn’t we first need the nuclear tugs? That requirement alone pushes the mission out to at least the next decade.
A properly supervised and motivated Lockheed-Martin could simplify and accelerate the Draco project.
However, whatever means are used to reach Selenian soil by ’28, two N-tugs in orbit beat 1 1/2 glory runs any day.
Unfortunately even nuclear tugs need expendable mass, improving delta V but not by more than 3x. Any tug that can do a round trip on anything as big as a starship is long into the future.
You do lox/ch4 tugs now ( easy / quick to build ), have refueling, and use space station modules ( which would ECLSS/power ) from one of the new companies building these, and then you have LEO to LLO . Later replace the chemical with nuclear.
This would give redundancy and a possibility of lowering costs vs. starship.