Interesting! One kind of stunt is bad, but the same kind of stunt done by someone else is terrific.
You are comparing Apples and Orange hair.
One was NASA having a carefully laid out plan and schedule for testing SLS-Orion without a crew on the first flight, with a POLITICIAN who did not ASK NASA ABOUT THIS beforehand, telling NASA screw that, fly it with a crew TO THE MOON. Causing a greater risk for mission failure and loss of crew by politically pressuring NASA to speed up the process. "Go Fever!"
And oh by the way NO EXTRA MONEY to expedite it more safely, and NO nominee for new administrator for NASA either, their true interest in the U.S. space program is JUST that much (that little). NASA plans to do the first crewed SLS-Orion mission on the second SLS launch. Which would be lunar. That was BEFORE a politician started ordering NASA around to do something they had calmly and carefully decided NOT to do.
Anyone remember how it was speculated that the reason why NASA did NOT delay the STS-51-L fatal Challenger mission, despite the cold weather, was because the State of the Union Speech was that night (delayed due to the accident) and supposedly Ronald Reagan's speech would point to the historic nature of that mission with the first Teacher in Space onboard? Well, I have never believed that the White House actually pressured NASA. But NASA *may* have felt pressure (of their own) to launch for that reason, even though not asked. I'm not blaming, just impossible to ignore.
What can NOT be ignored is that at least Christa McAuliffe would not have died on that flight if not for politics. Specifically Senators Jake Garn, and Bill Nelson. BOTH of them WEASELED their way onto shuttle flights, Garn in Aprii l985, and Nelson January, 1986 on the mission before Challenger. Had they NOT done that, McAuliffe would have flown sooner than 51-L, and lived. Although I'm sure a 7th crew member would have been aboard Challenger in any case, but at least not as many schoolchildren would have seen that accident live on TV as many schools did because of the first Teacher in Space.
But I use the above as examples of why POLITICIANS should NOT SCREW WITH with NASA's plans. Of course, NASA has to get congressional approval to carry out various missions, and the funding to do so. But once approved, there should not be any MEDDLING or PRESSURE from politicians that could affect safety (in a bad way at least). Yet it was political clout, holding the purse strings, that explains why NASA felt pressure into having to let Garn and Nelson fly as the first citizens in space (even if technically it was called something else as a whitewash), to get "first hand experience" for the committees thy were on. No, those were the ultimate political junket/joyrides and their used their political power to get seats they did not deserve.
Now, onto the other hand..... "commercial spaceflight". From this wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight#History_of_commercial_space_transportation
Development of alternatives to government-provided space launch services began in earnest in the 2000s. Private interests began funding limited development programs, but the US government later sponsored a series of programs to incentivize and encourage private companies to begin offering both cargo, and later, crew space transportation services.
So, that's what SpaceX is. A company that builds launch vehicles and spacecraft. Offering launch services to not only the US Government (like the ISS resupply missions to ISS, and Dragon-2 coming up for Commercial Crew), but also to launch satellites and spacecraft for commercial customers.
And in this case.... they are offering commercial launch services not just for a payload, but for people who can pay to fly. Now, if SpaceX was planing to fly those people FIRST, before they flew NASA crews to ISS, that would be bad. But they plan to do that after a few NASA crew missions to ISS. Long as it does not interfere with or delay the Dragon-2 crewed missions to ISS, it should not matter who else they may also launch. Now if SpaceX got delayed preparing all the NASA Dragon-2 Spacecraft due to squeezing in the one for this mission, then that would be a problem. Current plans are for one commercial crew mission a year to ISS, and three CRS supply missions. So if they can crank out a 5th Dragon (two Dragon-2's) each year, that'd be OK. One of these days they will re-use a refurbished previously flown Dragon Spacecraft, more likely for a CRS mission than a crewed mission (BTW - Dragon 2 is the crewed version, so no way would any CRS Dragon-1 be used for this lunar flight).
Exploration aspects...... it's a commercial flight. If I buy a ticket to fly on a plane that flies over the north pole, I'm not really exploring the North Pole, though I'd really enjoy seeing it below if it was a clear day. But as long as I paid for it, and used a commercial service for it, without affecting any customers waiting ahead of me, whats the problem. What WOULD be a problem would be for NASA to accept money to send specific individuals into Space. Which is why the millionaires who have gone to ISS flew with the Russians and stayed on the "Russian side" of ISS.
Now, I will say if I went on a long mission around the moon and back, I would personally try to come up with some ideas of some experiments to try along the way. Or ask for help in coming up with ideas (Reddit would explode). Hey, if I had the $ to go, I could just as easily pay another million or two to have some lightweight safe-enough experiment package carried in the "trunk" under the spacecraft, maybe some little satellite to slowly eject out back (spring-loaded) on the way to the moon, or whatever. Or if not that, something inside the cabin, if it would be safe enough. So, I would not be surprised if those two people did something beyond being just a tourist, but I won't expect it either.
Now having said all of the above, I'm not 100% on this thing. It seems a bit screwy. And whoever goes, they are going to be running a significant risk. Of course all spaceflight is a risk one way or another. And most importantly it's THEIR choice. They wont have some politician with no skin in the game (not HIS rear end onboard!) affecting the plans for their launch or meddling in the safety preparations or moving up the schedule for THEIR flight.
This is all provided that the Falcon 9 will be ready on time.
As I said earlier, no way it'll happen in 2018. SpaceX is going to have a hard time getting the first Commercial Crew flight done before the end of 2018, never mind the 2nd one. There is a "joke" about "Elon time", but I tired of that excuse, oh, about 6 months ago, and 6 months before that, and 6 months before that, and 6 months before that.......
So, the SpaceX schedules that do matter more are the ones they they are contractually obligated to meet, which unfortunately they have not met for several timelines for Commercial Crew. But the same is true of Boeing and their "Starliner" slipping too. A big difference there being that SpaceX has launched and successfully recovered 9 Dragon-1 spacecraft launched into orbit, plus a ground abort test. Boeing has not launched any version of a Starliner.
So far, the failure rate for the Falcon 9 is the worse for any manned vehicle.
Mercury-Atlas: Two failures out of nine flights (22%). Fortunately nobody onboard during those two failures (MA-1 and MA-3).
Apollo: Sixteen with crews onboard, one killed three crew members (Apollo-1) the other came CLOSE to killing its crew(Apollo-13). That’s 6.25% fatal, combined 12.5% near-fatal or fatal and with loss of mission.
Falcon-9: IIRC 30 flights (31 vehicles). One inflight failure (3.3% flight failures), one on-ground failure (31 vehicles), combined total of 6.6% lost vehicles/payloads. No crews on board.
My math tells me Mercury-Atlas was the worst (22%), Apollo crewed spacecraft second worst (6.25% fatal, 12.5% near fatal & mission failure).
Of course, no Saturns failed, but see how shortsighted it is to pay attention only to the launch and not the spacecraft safety as well.
There were two fatal shuttle accidents but those were 135 flights, two fatal missions, so 1.5% (four times SAFER than Apollo!).
What will the Falcon-9 rate be when it has its 100th flight? Dunno. What will SLS' rate be at 100 flights? I know exactly, it will never make 100 flights. If it was launched at a "fast pace" of once every 2 years (it could be one every 3 years), it would only make 15 flights in thirty years, and would no doubt be replaced by something far more practical by then. I mean, there has been a realistic chance all along that it could be cancelled as it is a massive boondoggle, and still could be.
My bigger concern with a first flight of Orion taking a crew around the moon would be something critical happening along the way, crippling the spacecraft so there were only hours to do something, and it's a six day-trip (No lunar module lifeboat as with Apollo-13). Which is one big reason why it would be very dangerous and stupid to do a first flight of Orion to the MOON, and not LEO where it could be safely back on the planet in an HOUR if necessary (And I am also leaving out the BAD IDEA of flying a crew onboard the first launch of SLS in the first place). Which is why NASA did NOT plan to do such a foolhardy thing for flight #1.
BTW - Soyuz-1 which crashed and killed cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov, was a certain example of politics over safety. Komarov himself expected to die on that flight.
Prior to launch, Soyuz 1 engineers are said to have reported 203 design faults to party leaders, but their concerns "were overruled by political pressures for a series of space feats to mark the anniversary of Lenin's birthday."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_1
Also see:
"GO FEVER" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_fever
In the US space industry, "go fever" is an informal term used to refer to the overall attitude of being in a rush or hurry to get a project or task done while overlooking potential problems or mistakes. "Go fever" results from both individual and collective aspects of human behavior. It is due to the tendency as individuals to be overly committed to a previously chosen course of action based on time and resources already expended (sunk costs) despite reduced or insufficient future benefits, or even considerable risks.