|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ISS mission extended to 2024 | Greg \(Strider\) Moore | Space Station | 7 | January 13th 14 12:27 PM |
Pac boots | John Nichols | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | November 21st 09 04:38 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 03:30 PM |
Thermal boots | Ed | UK Astronomy | 5 | December 16th 05 10:00 PM |