NASA Announcement for the Moon

[Brass Guy]

It seems obvious to me. NASA has SLS and Orion (well, not yet of course) to get people to lunar orbit. They just need a contractor to get a lander to lunar orbit, so they invited proposals. Space-X (among with the others) offered a proposal to meet that goal.

Besides, if Space-X performed the whole mission, there'd be no need for SLS and Orion. You must understand that's unacceptable; how would we feed those cost-plus leeches?

 

[mongo]

Well the first issue is that while Dragon can accelerate away at several G's, SS can barely manage 1 G fully loaded, that is it can just maintain its own weight so the escape from an exploding 1st stage would be very slow indeed.

The second issue is that while the Dragon escape system is redundant to the Falcon's propulsion system, both 1st and 2nd stage, SS isn't. If there were a problem with the SS itself, e.g. it blew up, there would be no redundancy. Dragon is essentially a 3rd stage that isn't used until already in orbit.

I think NASA would have a serious problem with a launch system that had a VERY slow escape system for a first stage failure and no escape system for a second stage failure.

Dragon / SS's acceleration rate doesn't matter beyond ability to pull away from the failed stage(s).

Part of thread regarding SS Raptors as abort system:
Twitter

Distance from fireball is 0.5*a*t^2, so if t is small, you haven’t moved far even if a is high. At ~6g thrust, you’ll only travel ~0.03m in 100 ms. Pressure wave (aka explosion) with liquid rockets is low, as ox & fuel are poorly mixed. If you can fly out of it, you’re prob ok.

Everyday had an interesting video on abort systems:

 

[Grendal]

That certainly seems reasonable. But Eric Berger’s article appears to say that the crew transfer will be done in lunar orbit.

The place to do an astronaut transfer is at the lunar Gateway. However, it's supposed to go up on SLS and isn't even funded yet. So there is an important step in the process missing.

NASA: Artemis

 

[ecarfan]

NASA has SLS and Orion (well, not yet of course) to get people to lunar orbit. They just need a contractor to get a lander to lunar orbit, so they invited proposals. Space-X (among with the others) offered a proposal to meet that goal.

Yes, good point. So then what SpaceX is proposing is a vehicle whose only purpose is to, from lunar orbit, descend to the surface and ascend back to lunar orbit.

So the approach you describe would then require astronauts to transfer from Orion to the Starship-L, go to the lunar surface and return, and then transfer again.

I’m laughing thinking about astronauts moving from the relatively small Orion capsule to the spacious (by space exploration standards) quarters on Starship.

The place to do an astronaut transfer is at the lunar Gateway. However, it's supposed to go up on SLS and isn't even funded yet. So there is an important step in the process missing.
NASA: Artemis

I thought the Artemis program for a Moon landing in 2024 was not requiring the Gateway, that would come later. NASA probably realizes there is no chance for the Gateway to be funded any time soon.

In any case, I’m skeptical that NASA will even get enough funding to get to the Moon by 2028 the way things are going these days.

 

[Nikxice]

I thought the Artemis program for a Moon landing in 2024 was not requiring the Gateway, that would come later.

That's an accurate statement. Without more information I think we can only speculate how this lunar landing might work. Where in the lander proposals might spacecraft initially rendezvous for the mission, lunar orbit or earth orbit? Note that an EOR would provide a trans-lunar lifeboat for Orion.
The 2024 goal is quite a stretch, but I understand that Bridenstine has to go all-in and at least make the effort. As long as he's pursuing this goal it seems less likely that another administration might try and kill the program. However, accomplishing this triple F mission strikes me as just a means to an end. Won't future missions be conducted drastically different? I'm not sure if NASA has adequately explained the benefits of reaching for 2024, although I suppose it's not their job to justify the will of this administration or to refuse additional pork from Congress.

 

[Grendal]

I’m laughing thinking about astronauts moving from the relatively small Orion capsule to the spacious (by space exploration standards) quarters on Starship.

Here's an image of what to expect:

 

[ecarfan]

Thanks for posting that diagram, it answers a lot of my questions.

What an extraordinarily complex and expensive mission architecture that is. Surely that will cost over $3 billion per mission?

I do not expect that plan to get funded in this decade given projected US federal budget deficits of trillions of dollars for several years. The world has changed in the space of a few months and people are having a hard time coming to grips with that.

 

[ecarfan]

NASA advisers skeptical of agency’s ability to meet 2024 lunar landing goal - SpaceNews.com

 

[e-FTW]

Here's an image of what to expect:

Adding what SpaceX’s solution requires (launch and multiple refuelling runs for Starship-L) adds even more complexity versus the other solutions. This thing is way oversized for the job of landing a couple of humans on the Moon. It has too much capacity/deadweight. Feels to me like using an entire semi to move one chair across the country.
Now, if you wanted to land big chunks of a moon base, this thing win hands-down!

In the end, maybe this is a way (if it is selected) for NASA to help SpaceX with Starship, and when that other big rocket fails to materialize, NASA can pivot? And work to make that whole stack human-rated instead of just Starship-L?

 

[Brass Guy]

Feels to me like using an entire semi to move one chair across the country.

If the semi cost less than UPS, take the bargain.

 

[ecarfan]

Now, if you wanted to land big chunks of a moon base, this thing win hands-down!

Well, NASA does want to build a base at the lunar South Pole, so Starship seems best suited for that job. And if NASA would just pay SpaceX to do the entire Moon mission, including getting the astronauts up to LEO and then back down from LEO, the cost would be far far less than requiring a $2 billion SLS launch as part of the mission, which is what the NASA diagram @Grendal posted (#306, upthread) specifies.

That SLS launch is the real problem, not the size of the Starship for taking a few astronauts to the lunar surface.

In my opinion, Congress is not going to fully fund Artemis so it’s not going to happen.

 

[e-FTW]

Well, NASA does want to build a base at the lunar South Pole, so Starship seems best suited for that job. And if NASA would just pay SpaceX to do the entire Moon mission, including getting the astronauts up to LEO and then back down from LEO, the cost would be far far less than requiring a $2 billion SLS launch as part of the mission, which is what the NASA diagram @Grendal posted (#306, upthread) specifies.

Of course. I agree with you 100%. But the way this systems works, SLS is in the way. I honestly doubt this changes until much later on when it becomes obvious to the casual observer that SLS is a waste of money. Until then, one person’s waste of money is good paying jobs for a American voters in someone else’s district. I wish this were not the case of course.

That SLS launch is the real problem, not the size of the Starship for taking a few astronauts to the lunar surface.

Agreed. On a purely physics standpoint, Starship-L is overkill for landing two humans to the moon. But it is still far cheaper than anything else so physics argument is a moot point! A manned Starship moon direct mission would be the smart choice.

In my opinion, Congress is not going to fully fund Artemis so it’s not going to happen.

I guess we shall see how November shakes out. Even then, space is not exactly a hot topic for the general public.

 

[Watts_Up]

Is there any connection between the SpaceX-Artemis Moon landing project and the SpaceX-Deep-Space first tourist trip around the moon?

My understanding is that both projects should be based on using the SpaceX's BFR spacecraft?

Do those two projects might share any synergy, and how much they might be affected if one of them failed into limbo?

 

[ecarfan]

Is there any connection between the SpaceX-Artemis Moon landing project and the SpaceX-Deep-Space first tourist trip around the moon?

My understanding is that both projects should be based on using the SpaceX's BFR spacecraft?

Do those two projects might share any synergy, and how much they might be affected if one of them failed into limbo?

The “Dear Moon” project is being financed by Yusaku Maezawa and as far as I know is not part of anything NASA is trying to do. dearMoon project - Wikipedia

Of course the Starship development work that Maezawa’s money is supporting will be a useful foundation for other uses for Starship. Building the vehicle to take multiple people on a loop around the Moon and back would be a huge step forward and NASA could use that experience if it selects SpaceX as the company to build the lunar landing system that it will actually use for Artemis.

 

[ecarfan]

In my opinion, Congress is not going to fully fund Artemis so it’s not going to happen.

House bill restores funding for five NASA science missions - SpaceNews

Quote: “Despite its criticism of NASA’s accelerated Artemis program, the bill says little about the Human Landing System program, for which the bill provides $628.2 million, versus a request of more than $3.3 billion. “Funding is provided for the lunar lander office to lead the support of NASA’s lunar lander development oversight,” the report states, offering no other direction about the program.”

So the House bill provides only a small fraction of the amount NASA is requesting for the Artemis program lunar lander. Of course the Senate version of the bill will differ. Then the haggling will start...

 

[Grendal]

Key word: Mockup.

Blue Origin team delivers lunar lander mockup to NASA - SpaceNews

 

[ecarfan]

It’s taller than I envisioned. But not as large inside.

And some of the multiple vehicles used for the overall mission are not reusable, right?

On a cost and capability basis Starship seems like the obvious choice.

 

[ecarfan]

This may be a positive development for Artemis.

The International Artemis Alliance to return to the moon takes shape

 

[Grendal]

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...alize-gateway-partnership-for-artemis-program

 

[Nikxice]

Surprised this thread has been dormant for almost a year. Ironically, the gap might coincide with the extra months Bill Nelson just added to the first human moon landing attempt for NASA's Artemis program. No surprise, 2024 is now off the table. Poor Jeff Bezos, his wasteful HLS lawsuit against NASA is taking most of the blame. Suppose BO is a convenient scapegoat for a timetable that never appeared to be based in reality. Nelson also remains consistent with his unwavering support of the porky Space Launch System. He's reaffirmed that SLS is the only rocket capable, of course with Orion on top.....So, SpaceX's Starship will be NASA's human lander, but in Ballast Bill's eyes, Super Heavy probably only exists over on Planet B. More details from Eric Berger. NASA delays Moon landings, says Blue Origin legal tactics partly to blame