A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 31st 19, 01:38 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rocket Man[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/US_...asy_999.h tml

What are the chances of this really happening? I admire Bridenstine's
boldness, but this seems incredulous to me, as there haven't even been any
contracts awarded for building a lander. In addition, NASA is attempting to
build the Lunar Gateway and SLS at the same time.

If Bridenstine's serious about this he should cancel ISS, SLS and the Lunar
Gateway and start developing an architecture based on Falcon Heavy hauling
up and assembling subsections of a lunar mission (lander, service module,
reentry capsule, Trans-Lunar Injection stage) in orbit.

But given the current political climate, I don't see this ever becoming
reality.


  #2  
Old March 31st 19, 08:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

In article ,
says...

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/US_...asy_999.h tml

What are the chances of this really happening?


Without major structural changes? Zero.

What would need to change:

1. Cancel SLS (not useful ever) and defer Gateway (may be useful later).

2. Find another way to launch Orion using commercial launch vehicles.
If NASA can crew rate Falcon 9 and Atlas V, surely they can do the same
for a vehicle which has the payload capacity to launch Orion.

3. Full speed ahead on commercial lunar landers. Starting small and
working up to something crew rated in about 5 years is going to be
challenging at best. The only way this will happen successfully is if
NASA runs this like they did commercial cargo. If they run it like
commercial crew, they're going to stick their noses in places they don't
need to be and slow the entire process down.

4. Full speed ahead on commercial LEO propellant depots. You don't need
SLS if you can refuel your upper stage in LEO. Doubly true for
refueling the lunar lander(s). Landers can become reusable if an
additional propellant depot is attached to Gateway (I'm assuming it
can't be killed).

I admire Bridenstine's
boldness, but this seems incredulous to me, as there haven't even been any
contracts awarded for building a lander. In addition, NASA is attempting to
build the Lunar Gateway and SLS at the same time.


I'd immediately cancel SLS and defer Gateway until after the first (in
this century) lunar landing. But that's not going to happen. Canceling
ISS won't happen either.

If Bridenstine's serious about this he should cancel ISS, SLS and the Lunar
Gateway and start developing an architecture based on Falcon Heavy hauling
up and assembling subsections of a lunar mission (lander, service module,
reentry capsule, Trans-Lunar Injection stage) in orbit.


Falcon Heavy and all other US launch vehicles which can do the job.
We're not going to drive down prices and have assured access without
more than one provider.

But given the current political climate, I don't see this ever becoming
reality.


Nope. At best SLS will lumber on for a couple more years. Hopefully by
then we'll see both Starship/Super Booster and New Glenn flying. I was
hoping for New Armstrong, but at the pace Blue Origin is moving, New
Glenn will have to do. The good thing about New Glenn is its *huge*
payload fairing. Perfect for a big crewed lunar lander.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #4  
Old March 31st 19, 09:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

"Rocket Man" wrote on Sun, 31 Mar 2019
14:38:01 +0200:

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/US_...asy_999.h tml

What are the chances of this really happening? I admire Bridenstine's
boldness, but this seems incredulous to me, as there haven't even been any
contracts awarded for building a lander. In addition, NASA is attempting to
build the Lunar Gateway and SLS at the same time.


I make the odds as slim and none and slim has left town. Trump wants
it pulled to 2024 so that it happens as his second term ends. This
may (mostly likely is) just be ego, but it may also be a recognition
that his successor will change direction radically AGAIN so that we
get another decade of doing nothing.

Note that SLS was supposed to be done several years ago. NASA thinks
they need at least another half decade to get back to the Moon.


If Bridenstine's serious about this he should cancel ISS, SLS and the Lunar
Gateway and start developing an architecture based on Falcon Heavy hauling
up and assembling subsections of a lunar mission (lander, service module,
reentry capsule, Trans-Lunar Injection stage) in orbit.


ISS is unrelated (and you might want it to put pieces together). SLS
has been a money pit from the beginning and should have been cancelled
long ago. Lunar Gateway could be used for assembly, but in lunar
orbit rather than LEO.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
  #5  
Old March 31st 19, 10:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

Jeff Findley wrote on Sun, 31 Mar 2019
15:15:17 -0400:

In article ,
says...

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/US_...asy_999.h tml

What are the chances of this really happening?


Without major structural changes? Zero.

What would need to change:

1. Cancel SLS (not useful ever) and defer Gateway (may be useful later).


SLS should have been cancelled several years ago. I've never quite
got the point of Gateway, since it seems to make the main development
goal something that isn't useful until years after it's done.


2. Find another way to launch Orion using commercial launch vehicles.
If NASA can crew rate Falcon 9 and Atlas V, surely they can do the same
for a vehicle which has the payload capacity to launch Orion.


They can launch it but they can't get it to anywhere important. They
need a high energy upper stage that can be independently rendezvoused
with and docked to Orion (and its Service Module).


3. Full speed ahead on commercial lunar landers. Starting small and
working up to something crew rated in about 5 years is going to be
challenging at best. The only way this will happen successfully is if
NASA runs this like they did commercial cargo. If they run it like
commercial crew, they're going to stick their noses in places they don't
need to be and slow the entire process down.


I (vaguely) recall that NASA thinks they can get a lander done in 24
months. Personally I think they're smoking something.


4. Full speed ahead on commercial LEO propellant depots. You don't need
SLS if you can refuel your upper stage in LEO. Doubly true for
refueling the lunar lander(s). Landers can become reusable if an
additional propellant depot is attached to Gateway (I'm assuming it
can't be killed).


I'm not a fan of propellant depots. They restrict orbital plane and
such you can refuel in. It still makes more sense to me to use
'tankers' and launch them as you need them.

I admire Bridenstine's
boldness, but this seems incredulous to me, as there haven't even been any
contracts awarded for building a lander. In addition, NASA is attempting to
build the Lunar Gateway and SLS at the same time.


I'd immediately cancel SLS and defer Gateway until after the first (in
this century) lunar landing. But that's not going to happen. Canceling
ISS won't happen either.


They'll never get a lunar landing by 2024 if they insist on building
their architecture around Gateway.

If Bridenstine's serious about this he should cancel ISS, SLS and the Lunar
Gateway and start developing an architecture based on Falcon Heavy hauling
up and assembling subsections of a lunar mission (lander, service module,
reentry capsule, Trans-Lunar Injection stage) in orbit.


Falcon Heavy and all other US launch vehicles which can do the job.
We're not going to drive down prices and have assured access without
more than one provider.


Falcon Heavy costs like half of what Delta IV Heavy. The fastest
approach might be to develop the four strap on Falcon and use that.

But given the current political climate, I don't see this ever becoming
reality.


Nope. At best SLS will lumber on for a couple more years. Hopefully by
then we'll see both Starship/Super Booster and New Glenn flying. I was
hoping for New Armstrong, but at the pace Blue Origin is moving, New
Glenn will have to do. The good thing about New Glenn is its *huge*
payload fairing. Perfect for a big crewed lunar lander.


I don't think we're going to kill SLS. I think we'll complete
development and blow a billion dollars a year to shoot one off
annually for no good purpose.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #6  
Old March 31st 19, 10:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

Jeff Findley wrote on Sun, 31 Mar 2019
15:24:30 -0400:

In article ,
says...

2. Find another way to launch Orion using commercial launch vehicles.
If NASA can crew rate Falcon 9 and Atlas V, surely they can do the same
for a vehicle which has the payload capacity to launch Orion.


Forgot to mention this possibility:

Launch Orion uncrewed on Delta IV Heavy. Launch the crew in a Dragon 2
or Starliner and have them dock with Orion before heading off to the
moon. This eliminates the need to crew rate Delta IV Heavy or Falcon
Heavy.


So now you need 3-4 launches and on-orbit assembly to get the job
done.


It's worth noting that Falcon Heavy can't (easily) launch Orion anyway
due to the fact that Orion has to be vertically integrated.


I don't see why this would be a problem.


You'd have
to come up with a way to stack Orion on top of Falcon Heavy on the pad,
which I doubt SpaceX is set up to do. That and ULA has said they can
build more Delta IV Heavies, if given the cash, of course. Keeping ULA
part of this builds political support anyway, even if they cost more.


I suspect the big driver of using Delta IV Heavy is to make the cost
comparison to SLS look 'better' (from NASA's perspective).


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
  #8  
Old April 1st 19, 01:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

In article ,
says...
Launch Orion uncrewed on Delta IV Heavy. Launch the crew in a Dragon 2
or Starliner and have them dock with Orion before heading off to the
moon. This eliminates the need to crew rate Delta IV Heavy or Falcon
Heavy.


So now you need 3-4 launches and on-orbit assembly to get the job
done.


You need docking, that's routine.


It's worth noting that Falcon Heavy can't (easily) launch Orion anyway
due to the fact that Orion has to be vertically integrated.


I don't see why this would be a problem.


It surely could be solved, with enough money. The devil is in the
details though. I've been told Orion and its service module can't be
horizontally integrated. Doubly so for the monster of an escape tower
(which wouldn't be needed if you launch Orion uncrewed).


You'd have
to come up with a way to stack Orion on top of Falcon Heavy on the pad,
which I doubt SpaceX is set up to do. That and ULA has said they can
build more Delta IV Heavies, if given the cash, of course. Keeping ULA
part of this builds political support anyway, even if they cost more.


I suspect the big driver of using Delta IV Heavy is to make the cost
comparison to SLS look 'better' (from NASA's perspective).


Sure. Also political since SpaceX isn't a good name to utter around
traditional contractors (many of whom either own part of ULA or some
other outfit that is trying to build a large launch vehicle of their
own).

Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #9  
Old April 2nd 19, 12:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

Jeff Findley wrote on Mon, 1 Apr 2019
08:23:18 -0400:

In article ,
says...
Launch Orion uncrewed on Delta IV Heavy. Launch the crew in a Dragon 2
or Starliner and have them dock with Orion before heading off to the
moon. This eliminates the need to crew rate Delta IV Heavy or Falcon
Heavy.


So now you need 3-4 launches and on-orbit assembly to get the job
done.


You need docking, that's routine.


But not with any of the pieces we're talking about using.


It's worth noting that Falcon Heavy can't (easily) launch Orion anyway
due to the fact that Orion has to be vertically integrated.


I don't see why this would be a problem.


It surely could be solved, with enough money. The devil is in the
details though. I've been told Orion and its service module can't be
horizontally integrated. Doubly so for the monster of an escape tower
(which wouldn't be needed if you launch Orion uncrewed).


I still don't see the problem. You integrate it like every other
payload on Falcon Heavy; vertically on the center core.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #10  
Old April 2nd 19, 12:08 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

In article ,
says...
It surely could be solved, with enough money. The devil is in the
details though. I've been told Orion and its service module can't be
horizontally integrated. Doubly so for the monster of an escape tower
(which wouldn't be needed if you launch Orion uncrewed).


I still don't see the problem. You integrate it like every other
payload on Falcon Heavy; vertically on the center core.



No payloads have ever been integrated vertically on Falcon 9 or Falcon
Heavy. All of their launch sites have horizontal integration
facilities. The vehicle with payload attached is then (horizontally)
rolled out to the pad on a transporter-erector. At the pad, the vehicle
is put into the vertical position by the transporter-erector. They
chose to do things this way because it's faster and cheaper.

Sure, SpaceX likely could do vertical integration of the payload if
given money to develop the facilities necessary. But I've never heard
anything coming out of SpaceX or even Elon Musk (Tweets) that says
they're going to do this.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ISS mission extended to 2024 Greg \(Strider\) Moore Space Station 7 January 13th 14 01:27 PM
Pac boots John Nichols Amateur Astronomy 11 November 21st 09 05:38 PM
ASTRO: NGC 2024, the Flame Nebula in Orion George Normandin[_1_] Astro Pictures 6 April 14th 08 04:56 PM
Proximity boots stephen Space Shuttle 0 March 18th 07 04:30 PM
Thermal boots Ed UK Astronomy 5 December 16th 05 11:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.