NASA Announcement for the Moon

[Yggdrasill]

I can't quite figure out how they would be able to do 12 tons of payload to the surface of the moon using Falcon Heavy and NTO/MMH or kerolox (using a specific impulse of 310). It seems plausible if using hydrolox with a specific impulse of 450, though.

Rough calculations:

A 60 ton lander in LEO could go to the moon with 44.5 tons of hydrogen/oxygen, 12 tons of payload and 3.5 ton dry mass.

A 60 ton lander in LEO could go to the moon with 51.5 tons of kerosene/oxygen, 6 tons of payload and 2.5 ton dry mass.

Also, this is obviously assuming Falcon Heavy in expendable configuration.

 

[mongo]

I can't quite figure out how they would be able to do 12 tons of payload to the surface of the moon using Falcon Heavy and NTO/MMH or kerolox (using a specific impulse of 310). It seems plausible if using hydrolox with a specific impulse of 450, though.

Rough calculations:

A 60 ton lander in LEO could go to the moon with 44.5 tons of hydrogen/oxygen, 12 tons of payload and 3.5 ton dry mass.

A 60 ton lander in LEO could go to the moon with 51.5 tons of kerosene/oxygen, 6 tons of payload and 2.5 ton dry mass.

Also, this is obviously assuming Falcon Heavy in expendable configuration.

What about CH4/ oxygen (Raptor based) with a 380 specific impluse? Based on your two points, I'm guessing 8 tons?
Could F9/FH (perhaps just the second stage) convert to Raptor?

 

[Yggdrasill]

What about CH4/ oxygen (Raptor based) with a 380 specific impluse? Based on your two points, I'm guessing 8 tons?

Maybe a little more than that. 48 tons CH4/LOX, 9 tons payload and 3 tons dry mass.

Could F9/FH convert to Raptor?

Anything is possible. Though the changes would be so massive there wouldn't be much left of the original Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy...

The question is how much effort SpaceX realistically would put into this lander. Ideally, a moon lander should use LH2/LOX, as this is fuel one can make from proven water reserves on the moon. But this is a new fuel for SpaceX, and they would need to make a new rocket engine.

I think most likely, SpaceX would just offer something based on Merlin 1D vacuum or the SuperDracos, and be able to deliver around 6 tons. This would be relatively easy, and probably wouldn't be a major distraction from Starlink/Starship. 6 tons is equivalent to the stretched Blue Moon lander, and would likely meet NASAs shorter term needs.

 

[mongo]

Maybe a little more than that. 48 tons CH4/LOX, 9 tons payload and 3 tons dry mass.

Anything is possible. Though the changes would be so massive there wouldn't be much left of the original Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy...

The question is how much effort SpaceX realistically would put into this lander. Ideally, a moon lander should use LH2/LOX, as this is fuel one can make from proven water reserves on the moon. But this is a new fuel for SpaceX, and they would need to make a new rocket engine.

I think most likely, SpaceX would just offer something based on Merlin 1D vacuum or the SuperDracos, and be able to deliver around 6 tons. This would be relatively easy, and probably wouldn't be a major distraction from Starlink/Starship. 6 tons is equivalent to the stretched Blue Moon lander, and would likely meet NASAs shorter term needs.

I posted edited a potential Raptor second stage, much less tear up than the first stages.

Is the lander also meant to be an ascent vehicle? Relying on generating your own return fuel seems a little risky for NASA. Though, they could have smaller early (robotic?) misdion to set up the fuel depot.

Super Draco is only 235 isp per Wikipedia (but likely not vacuum optimized) but a lot simpler/ lighter.

 

[Yggdrasill]

I posted edited a potential Raptor second stage, much less tear up than the first stages.

It's an interesting thought. I'm sure it would be possible to get more performance out of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, but it would be an engineering challenge. Basically it would mean a completely new second stage. Plus you would want to make a vacuum version of the Raptor, which is planned for the future, but isn't currently a priority.

Is the lander also meant to be an ascent vehicle?

Payload is meant to be an ascent vehicle. 6 ton ascent vehicle gets you back to lunar orbit at minimum, so you could rendezvous with an Orion capsule in lunar orbit, or LOP-G. Basically 6 tons delivered to the surface of the moon should be enough for NASAs needs.

Relying on generating your own return fuel seems a little risky for NASA. Though, they could have smaller early (robotic?) misdion to set up the fuel depot.

Fuel production on the moon is more of a longer term goal. My understanding is that NASA would be fine with more traditional fuels at first, but longer term, they want to be able to take advantage of fuel produced on the moon.

Super Draco is only 235 isp per Wikipedia (but likely not vacuum optimized) but a lot simpler/ lighter.

Yes, it's not at all vacuum optimized. It's all about thrust to weight ratio at sea level. From what I can gather NTO/MMH can do up to 320, so it would be pretty close to the performance of a Merlin, if optimized for it. And it's of course quite simple and not as hugely overpowered like a Merlin.

(A single SuperDraco would still be a bit too powerful, I believe. A vacuum optimized version at 20% throttle would do around 1.8 tons of trust by my math, which gives a thrust to weight ratio of 1.2 for a 9 ton vehicle on the moon... So hovering would be impossible - you would need to do a hoverslam like the falcon 9 first stage. Though maybe the Super Draco could be tweaked for even greater throttle control.)

 

[ecarfan]

NASA’s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost

Clear analysis by Eric Berger as to why a US lunar landing in 2024 is highly unlikely/delusional based on current plans.

 

[bxr140]

NASA selects Maxar to build first Gateway element - SpaceNews.com

Including a few point drop after hours, MAXR up 25% today.

 

[Nikxice]

Neil Cavuto with Fox Business was complaining Friday about NASA "refocusing on the moon, the next sort of quest, if you will, but didn't we do this moon thing quite a few decades ago?" A little more than an hour later POTUS chimed in on Twitter. "For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!".

Looking beyond that bizarre statement, 2024 just became 2028 again. I feel bad for Jim Bridenstine and other affected NASA employees who must be exasperated dealing with this kind of BS. Not much sympathy for Pence. He knew who he was speaking for and now he's left to figure out how to spin this for his next National Space Council presentation.

 

[mongo]

Neil Cavuto with Fox Business was complaining Friday about NASA "refocusing on the moon, the next sort of quest, if you will, but didn't we do this moon thing quite a few decades ago?" A little more than an hour later POTUS chimed in on Twitter. "For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!".

Looking beyond that bizarre statement, 2024 just became 2028 again. I feel bad for Jim Bridenstine and other affected NASA employees who must be exasperated dealing with this kind of BS. Not much sympathy for Pence. He knew who he was speaking for and now he's left to figure out how to spin this for his next National Space Council presentation.

Not a fan, but I think this was bad phrasing. The moon is not the goal, the moon is part of getting to Mars, not 'the moon is part of Mars'

Jim tweeted yesterday Twitter

As @POTUS said, @NASA is using the Moon to send humans to Mars! Right now, @MarsCuriosity and @NASAInSight are on Mars and will soon be joined by the Mars 2020 rover and the Mars helicopter.

The moon is not the goal, it is a stepping stone to Mars. For a sports analogy: stop focusing on the inter city rivalry game comming up, the goal is the national title (of which that game is part).

For a Tesla analogy, stop focusing on the S demand, the goal is sustainable energy (of which the S is part).

 

[ecarfan]

Not a fan, but I think this was bad phrasing.

Agreed. The inability of that Twitter user to properly construct a clear sentence is something that we have all become used to by now.

Bridenstine’s tweet frantically attempting to “clarify” what his boss said is hilarious.

In any case, there is zero chance that the administration’s latest Moon program fantasy will come to pass because the tens of billions of dollars necessary will not be appropriated. Congress is not going to allow shady tactics like stealing funds from the Pell Grants account to pay for space hardware.

 

[mongo]

Agreed. The inability of that Twitter user to properly construct a clear sentence is something that we have all become used to by now.

Bridenstine’s tweet frantically attempting to “clarify” what his boss said is hilarious.

In any case, there is zero chance that the administration’s latest Moon program fantasy will come to pass because the tens of billions of dollars necessary will not be appropriated. Congress is not going to allow shady tactics like stealing funds from the Pell Grants account to pay for space hardware.

Besides, SpaceX may end up landing men and women on the moon next anyway (unless they delay to make NASA happy).

 

[Eno Deb]

In any case, there is zero chance that the administration’s latest Moon program fantasy will come to pass because the tens of billions of dollars necessary will not be appropriated. Congress is not going to allow shady tactics like stealing funds from the Pell Grants account to pay for space hardware.

Not a problem: Mexico will pay for it.

If the Moon is the stepping stone to Mars, it makes sense to me that NASA should focus on that first. Developing modern technology and processes to get there is still a huge task, but should hopefully make it less costly and safer than it was in the Apollo days.

 

[ecarfan]

If the Moon is the stepping stone to Mars, it makes sense to me that NASA should focus on that first.

That is a big “if”. Elon does not believe that is the case.

Developing modern technology and processes to get there is still a huge task, but should hopefully make it less costly and safer than it was in the Apollo days

Modern technology can very likely make it safer, but I am not sure it will be cheaper (in real dollars, adjusted for inflation).

 

[Eno Deb]

That is a big “if”. Elon does not believe that is the case.

I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion, but it may be a good idea to practice building and operating a station somewhere where there is a chance of rescue in case something goes wrong?

 

[mongo]

Modern technology can very likely make it safer, but I am not sure it will be cheaper (in real dollars, adjusted for inflation).

If super heavy is reusable and so is Starship, and starship has the capacity for a lunar visit and return, it sure seems cheaper.

I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion, but it may be a good idea to practice building and operating a station somewhere where there is a chance of rescue in case something goes wrong?

The moon sure seems like a handy test bed for some of the tech. That is seperate from being a needed stepping stone for a Mars mission.

 

[Electroman]

if Moon is the stepping stone for Mars, then don't we have to first getting the men back to the Moon and build some infrastructure (refueling and what ever) ?

So in a way Moon is destination 1, following by Mars destination 2

 

[bxr140]

The moon sure seems like a handy test bed for some of the tech. That is seperate from being a needed stepping stone for a Mars mission.

IMHO, that’s the big draw going back to the moon. You can learn a lot of things a lot faster than if you focus fully on Mars. That’s better for humanity.

Mars absolutely needs to be on the near term radar, mind...but, again IMHO, a Mars-only vision puts flag-planting above global advancement of technology and, ultimately, humanity.

 

[mongo]

IMHO, that’s the big draw going back to the moon. You can learn a lot of things a lot faster than if you focus fully on Mars. That’s better for humanity.

Mars absolutely needs to be on the near term radar, mind...but, again IMHO, a Mars-only vision puts flag-planting above global advancement of technology and, ultimately, humanity.

Especially depending on schedule, moon now or Mars in 22 months. Heck, unmanned Mars, moon for a year and a half, then Mars again. No need to be only one.

(Took me three reads to realize you wrote draw, not 'draw back' was so confused...)

 

[ecarfan]

If super heavy is reusable and so is Starship, and starship has the capacity for a lunar visit and return, it sure seems cheaper.

Except that the Artemis plan NASA recently announced makes no mention of Super Heavy/Starship. That plan may use some FH’s and it will use some SLS launches. So I can’t imagine it will be “cheaper”.

IMHO, that’s the big draw going back to the moon. You can learn a lot of things a lot faster than if you focus fully on Mars. That’s better for humanity.

Mars absolutely needs to be on the near term radar, mind...but, again IMHO, a Mars-only vision puts flag-planting above global advancement of technology and, ultimately, humanity.

I know you know this, but in case some of those reading this thread are not aware, the vision of Elon/SpaceX is definitely not a “plant the flag” Mars mission. It is a “build a self-sustaining human colony on Mars” vision. And putting resources into establishing a base on the Moon is an unnecessary diversion from that mission. If the US government wants to foot the bill for a lunar base with that ridiculous “Lunar Gateway” structure that is a separate matter that need not concern SpaceX.

 

[mongo]

Except that the Artemis plan NASA recently announced makes no mention of Super Heavy/Starship. That plan may use some FH’s and it will use some SLS launches. So I can’t imagine it will be “cheaper”.

Yeah, I should be posting in the SpaceX moon mission thread.