And as we know, Elon is not afraid to obsolete a SpaceX rocket if it no longer serves a useful purpose. Unlike SLS proponents...
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
NASA Announcement for the Moon
- Thread starter Grendal
- Start date
This article adds some useful perspective to Jim Bridenstine’s frequent statements that “We know that there’s hundreds of millions of tons of water ice on the surface of the moon”. In reality, the quantity of water on the lunar surface is a matter of speculation, and even if it is present the issue of extracting it in a useful form may be much more difficult than some imagine. It is nothing like pure ice.
The Mystery of Moon Water
The Mystery of Moon Water
Like ULA is obsoleting D4 and A5? Like NASA did with STS? Like how the Ares program was mothballed? They all were canned because their ‘useful purpose’ had run its course.
The hard reality is that, whether we like it or not, SLS is not obsolete. There are no human rated American launchers flying today, let alone heavies capable of reaching the moon. And...because the likely answers to the conundrum are not state run programs (Starship and maybe eventually something from BO?), there still won’t be an air tight ‘SLS is obsolete’ argument.
The solution to this problem is extremely difficult, because it requires a cultural shift in the way The Man does business in the space industry—to wit, it requires a fundamental change to how “useful purpose” is quantified.
Sure—to anyone reading this, that’s obvious. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the people that can actually make or break SLS, the burden of proof (so to speak) simply isn’t there to obsolete SLS, and IMHO that won’t ever come until SLS flies. Its basically going to have to obsolete itself. It’s going to have to prove how worthless it is compared to Starship.
The good news is that SLS is probably the best thing that could happen for the future of space, or at least the future of rocketry. Yeah it sucks in the short term and is going to waste a lot of our taxpayer money, but it’s going to prove to many naysayers that Newspace is indeed better, faster, and cheaper. NASA can once and for all get out of the business of rockets completely and stick to their most valuable product: science.
If SLS gets canned now, there will always be those that will take the stance of “yeah, well, my dad could beat up your dad if he wanted to...but he doesn’t want to right now”, and then the next time some senator wants to work an agenda [that might just favor their constituents/lobbyists at the expense of the rest of the country...] we’ll be talking about SLS 2.0.
I'll just drop this here.
Blue Origin, Lockheed, Northrop join forces for Artemis lunar lander - SpaceNews.com
Blue Origin, Lockheed, Northrop join forces for Artemis lunar lander - SpaceNews.com
I think it’s great that those companies are joining forces in the race to build something that they have never done before and that there is no funding for, to meet a timeline that is impossible and is mandated to use an SLS rocket that is still years away from flying humans.
I think it’s great that those companies are joining forces in the race to build something that they have never done before and that there is no funding for, to meet a timeline that is impossible and is mandated to use an SLS rocket that is still years away from flying humans.
Not currently funded but bound to get lots of cost plus long term dragging their feet funding that will achieve very little. Joining the ranks of SLS, Orion, and James Webb Space Telescope for being very late and far over budget but successful at funneling vast amounts of taxpayer dollars into certain congressional districts.
This was posted in the Gwynne Shotwell thread, IAC 2019 video of a brief interview with her. Even though the quality was poor the audio was understandable. Gwynne wasn’t given much time to talk, nor did the interviewer ask many questions, but she did lay out a Starship timeline that was very interesting, specifically about the Moon:
“Aspirationally” SpaceX wants to get Starship to orbit in 2020, land on Moon with cargo before 2022 with “resources” for manned landing on the Moon by 2024, “trip around the Moon in the 2023 timeframe”. And of course ultimately take people to Mars though she gave no date.
It seems obvious that SpaceX is sending a message to NASA and to Congress: “We’re going to the Moon much more quickly and cheaply than the SLS/Artemis project, so do you want a ride?”
Of course SpaceX has zero experience so far in launching humans to orbit (though hopefully they will be successful at that in a matter of months) and little experience beyond Earth orbit (launching a Tesla to Sun synchronous orbit doesn’t help with landing humans on the Moon ;-). And Gwynne was careful to describe the timeline as “aspirational”, a word Elon also uses when talking about SpaceX goals.
But given what SpaceX has accomplished to date, and that Starship development is proceeding without US government funding, at some point NASA and Congress will take note. It would be extremely embarrassing for NASA if SpaceX beat them to the Moon.
Last edited:
Congress, not NASA, and I’m not sure that Congress is capable of being embarrassed.
That’s why I said NASA.
Seriously, there are a lot of great, talented, hard working people at NASA who want to achieve great things. I can imagine they would be embarrassed to not be given the right tools (meaning funding for the right tools) to get back to the Moon only to see a private company get there on its own.
Eric Berger Sizing up the contenders for NASA’s lunar-lander program
Quote: “To specifically pay for lunar lander development in fiscal year 2020, which began on October 1, NASA has asked for $1 billion. The US House has yet to provide any lander funding with its budget for 2020, and the US Senate has provided $744.1 million. NASA presently is operating under a continuing resolution, which contains no funding for lunar landers. Given the contested political environment in Washington, DC, it is not clear when a budget for the current fiscal year will be approved or how much money will be appropriated for the lunar program.”
Quote: “To specifically pay for lunar lander development in fiscal year 2020, which began on October 1, NASA has asked for $1 billion. The US House has yet to provide any lander funding with its budget for 2020, and the US Senate has provided $744.1 million. NASA presently is operating under a continuing resolution, which contains no funding for lunar landers. Given the contested political environment in Washington, DC, it is not clear when a budget for the current fiscal year will be approved or how much money will be appropriated for the lunar program.”
So, SpaceX is the only entity working on a lunar landing program. And even if Congress approves that level of funding, by government contract logic, it is barely enough to write some reports and not actually do anything...
Nikxice
Active Member
From the Eric Berger article, "Blue Origin will serve as the prime contractor, building the Blue Moon lunar lander as the "descent element" of the system to carry the mission down to the lunar surface. Bezos' company will also lead program management, systems engineering, and safety and mission assurance."
I can't envision how a 2024 Blue Origin human lunar lander and the BO motto, "Step by Step, Ferociously", can be compatible. Bezos time moves Elon time up to light speed. BTW, where are Bezos' "by the end of this year" New Shepard space tourist flights?
I can't envision how a 2024 Blue Origin human lunar lander and the BO motto, "Step by Step, Ferociously", can be compatible. Bezos time moves Elon time up to light speed. BTW, where are Bezos' "by the end of this year" New Shepard space tourist flights?
And even SpaceX can’t possibly make the 2024 government target date, in my opinion, no matter how much money and resources were devoted to the goal. Assume a Starship prototype orbital flight and successful landing in 2020 (and no RUDs). I would think you would really need several such flights to perfect the landing capability. At the same time the Super Heavy booster needs to be built and tested and also flown and landed several times.
At the same time SpaceX has to create a functioning crew compartment in Starship and test the life support systems to keep several humans alive for weeks, and at least several days on the Moon. That is going to take at least a few Earth orbit flights of a complete vehicle before you take it to the Moon.
All that in four years? I don’t think so. Stuff happens. Systems fail unexpectedly (like the Crew Dragon ground test), delays are inevitable even for SpaceX.
I love Elon’s ambitious timelines as he has described in all the IAC presentations he has made. But it’s now the end of 2019, the first Starship prototype has not flown even once, and the timelines he’s presented in the past are all behind schedule.
e-FTW
New electron smell
Good reporting on the latest space subcommittee: House committee raises doubts about Artemis - SpaceNews.com — SpaceNews
- NASA needs more funding
- Tom Stafford tells them to just go for the moon, drop the gateway.
- All are asking for SLS to do it all
And this beauty at the end, that I cannot like enough:
- NASA needs more funding
- Tom Stafford tells them to just go for the moon, drop the gateway.
- All are asking for SLS to do it all
And this beauty at the end, that I cannot like enough:
Let’s just go to Mars shall we?
A mix of good news and bad news, in my opinion.
BAD: “Babin and other Republican members of the subcommittee used the hearing to raise questions about NASA’s current approach, which makes extensive use of commercial launch vehicles to launch elements of the lunar Gateway and lunar landers, in favor of one that uses the SLS to launch lunar landers.... A heavy-lift rocket like the SLS was essential, Stafford said. “If you don’t have a big booster, you’re not going to make it,” he said.”
GOOD: “There was little disagreement among members and witnesses, though, about the importance of the long-term goal of sending humans to Mars. “The most compelling opportunity is humans to Mars,” Young said. “To have an objective of something like humans to Mars seems to be to be the inspiration and the beacon and the bright light. It’s way for our generation to tell the future generations there’s a lot of opportunity that’s out there, and don’t be turned off by just the fact that there are an awful lot of challenges because humans to Mars is just an incredible endeavor.”
Also good: bipartisan skepticism about the Lunar Gateway plan.
But the SLS boondoggle appears to be unstoppable. No mention in the article of any discussion about the $2 BILLION cost per launch.
Nikxice
Active Member
I can agree Stafford dissing the gateway, but his heavy SLS promotion for launching rovers and other infrastructure is a weak argument that fails to consider cheaper options. Quoting Stafford in the article above. "A heavy-lift rocket like the SLS was essential, Stafford said. “If you don’t have a big booster, you’re not going to make it,” he said. A large rocket also offers a larger volume that can accommodate rovers and other infrastructure needed for lunar exploration. “You have to have a big shroud, which leads you to a big, wide-diameter booster. If you don’t have it, you’re not going to make it.” "
Stafford's an American hero, but he's set in the old school methods of spaceflight. He was probably the loudest and most recognizable voice against SpaceX's fueling method of load-and-go for crewed launches. Overruled. Thanks for your service Tom.
e-FTW
New electron smell
Similar threads
