Can We Please See The NASA Moon Plan?
Remarks by Vice President Pence at the Fifth Meeting of the National Space Council Huntsville, AL
“Just a few moments ago, Buzz Aldrin was reflecting on his time in the Apollo program. He talked about that fabled Apollo 11 mission. He said, in 1962, we had an objective; we had time, but we didn’t have a plan. In Space Policy Directive-1, the President directed NASA to create a lunar exploration plan. But as of today, more than 15 months later, we still don’t have a plan in place. But Administrator Bridenstine told me, five minutes ago, we now have a plan to return to the moon. (Applause.)”
Keith’s note: OK. So NASA has a “plan”. A plan usually has words – words that are contained in a document. Plans usually have pictures and diagrams too. A plan cites goals and objectives and the steps that will be taken to meet goals and achieve objectives. There is usually a timeline and a budget associated with such a plan too. So, if NASA now has a plan to go back to the Moon, is NASA going to share that plan with the rest of us?
Hey House members: someone ask @JimBridenstine where the lander is that will actually land humans on the Moon in 2024. No design yet. No contractor yet. No budget yet. No test flight yet. Just sayin' h/t @tariqjmalik pic.twitter.com/1pOQMlm7fz
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) March 27, 2019
LOL. Wasnt it just announced? How could they have a plan yet? This is your government at work!!!
Sometimes it helps to first come up with the plan and then make an announcement. Makes too much sense…. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Actually, NASA didn’t have a plan when Kennedy announced a manned lunar landing within a decade. But they had thought about it enough to have several ideas, and to think it would be possible. And Kennedy checked on that before making the announcement.
Maybe Mr. Pence wasn’t that careful. Or maybe he did ask, and Mr. Bridenstine had his people do some homework before the announcement. In that case, the plan might be seeing if they can speed up SLS/Orion/Gateway with a backup plan of something involving other contractors if they can’t. If that’s correct, I can see why they aren’t saying much right now.
That’s true, but JFK made it a top national priority and it was funded as such. I just see a speech…the $$ plus up isn’t there yet, right?Where’s the $$ for this?
I don’t see launch vehicle as the issue. SLS…F9H…it probably doesn’t matter. The human lunar lander will be incredibly expensive and in the near-trem there’s no commercial case for it. We’re talking about habitable landers and habitats that can survive day-night cycles. It’s got to be at least several $B/yr. This isn’t in the current 2020 NASA budget.
Given other national priorities, will there be a consensus (WH and the Hill) to add several $B/yr to NASA? I highly doubt it.
I agree about cost and budget, especially since this would be a crash program. But I don’t think you’re correct about the nature of the lander. The Vice President did not did not specify a permanent or sustained presence by 2024. He said an American astronaut on the lunar surface, and a sustainable presence at some later date. That means the 2024 lander doesn’t have to be an habitat surviving multiple day-night cycles.
Something with the capabilities of an Apollo lander (even with just the capabilities of Apollo 11) would do what the Vice President asked NASA to do by 2024. Naturally, you wouldn’t want that to be a dead end, but that means (in my opinion) a architecture with a minimalist lander, ready by 2024, and a separately landed habitat (for later missions with longer stay times.)
It’s great that there’s so much interest in a project like this in the White House, but without a credible plan, set of Level 1 requirements, realizable budget and schedule, this idea simply doesn’t appear possible. Vision is great but it’s hard to see how this will ever have the kind of national commitment that Apollo had. Without such a national commitment, the required budgets will never materialize. Does anybody see such an environment existing today?
I don’t think it likely even a minimalist human lunar lander could fit with a politically realizable budget in the near future, nor could it be launched, land, and safely return a human crew on anything like the schedule mandated.
Many would argue that NASA and its stable of “usual suspect” contractors are incapable of meeting this challenge. They would point to the private sector as the key both in terms of processes and resources to make this happen. I ask how long did it take Space X to launch Falcon 9 Heavy? Surely the leap from Falcon 9 to Falcon 9 Heavy is far less than a 5 year, affordable human lunar lander program. I observe that Falcon 9 Heavy was promised by SpaceX in 20111 to launch in 2013 but it wasn’t finally launched until 2018. So even with all of the significant Falcon 9 heritage, a far less demanding development challenge, and Space X magic, Falcon 9 Heavy development occurred on a longer timeline.
I ask again, where’s a credible plan with a realizable scope, budget and schedule.
I think you’re point about Level 1 is the key one. If we take them exclusively from the Vice President’s speech, I think a very minimal lunar landing might be possible (in terms of technology and money.) But it would probably be politically dead on arrival.
Specifically, he said landing an astronaut on the Moon by 2024. I assume a safe return is also a requirement, although I think the Vice President forgot to mention it. I believe everything he said about a sustainable presence was not required by the 2024 deadline. So a one-off stunt would satisfy the key requirement. He mentioned boots, so an EVA would be a requirement. He did not mention how much time should be spent on the surface. He did not mention the crew size. A solo mission is unprecedented since 1967 (1963 for NASA), but it would satisfy the requirements so it should be in the trade space. If the mission were a one-off, solo mission as a stunt, the astronaut would have to be an American female. (He said the first woman on the Moon would be American, and if it’s a one-off solo mission, that flows down to a Level 2 requirement on nationality and gender.) I think you can see where I’m going with this.
If I did the numbers right, a Falcon Heavy could send a very small spacecraft on a direct landing and ascent lunar mission. Expending absolutely everything, I make it a spacecraft dry mass [Correction: not landed mass] of about 2000 kg in addition to all the fuel tanks. I think that’s enough for one person who would get spend about 10 days in Mercury capsule-like comfort. I believe that could be done in five years and within the current budget.
Now, that would be an obvious dead end, and an obvious publicity stunt. But if the Level 1 requirements are exclusively drawn from the Vice President’s speech, that approach would satisfy the requirements. In practice, it would be a bad joke and seriously suggesting it would be insane. As well as pushing the unspoken safety requirement, there are also unspoken requirements not to do something that would be a national embarrassment or make everyone involved look like idiots.
So you’re right about needing the Level 1 requirements. If they are bizarrely mInimal, this could be viable. If a repeat of Apollo 11 (2 people, 1 EVA of 150 minutes and about a day on the surface overall) satisfies the requirements, then I think it’s marginally possible. Very, very marginally, and that’s assuming there would be support for a moderate increase in NASA’s budget. If it’s anything more is required, it isn’t going to happen.
Five minutes ago. Lol.
I’d like to see it too. But as I posted before, NASA had 15 months to make a plan based on Space Directive #1 to send men back to the moon:
In Space Policy Directive-1, the President directed NASA to create a lunar exploration plan. But as of today, more than 15 months later, we still don’t have a plan in place. But Administrator Bridenstine told me, five minutes ago, we now have a plan to return to the moon. – VP Pence
That had to hurt.
There is a Plan it’s based on LOP -G and a moon landing by 2028- obvious now with this announcement they will have to come out with a new plan .
NASA had stated they could order two of the Power and Propulsion units. IF they buy two and put the second one in LLO and lease a BA330 they could do a reusable a little easier.
Plan step 1: Complete work on SLS
Plan step 2: Test fly Orion
Plan step 3: Design and build lander
Plan step 4: Place Gateway in deep space, halo lunar orbit
Plan step 5: Send crew on an Orion to Gateway, and complete successful return
Plan step 6: Send lander to Gateway
Plan step 7: Send 2nd crew on an Orion to Gateway, then use lander to descend to the Moon
The only problem with this plan is that NASA cannot get through the first 4 or 5 steps for about 8-10 years so I don’t know how they can get to step 7 in only 5 years.
That is the ‘NASA plan’ that NASA is on now. If they stay on that plan then they can probably put people on the moon about 2030-2035, assuming they terminate ISS and use those formerly ISS funds to support the Lander development.
An alternative commercial plan is to
Step 1: establish a commercial lunar landing program
Step 2: Select a vendor to be responsible
Step 3: Use the current $3-5 billion annually being used to support SLS and Orion instead for the commercial lunar landing program.
Step 3: give the vendor ~3-4 years to place humans on the Moon.
I think they can do it in a lot less than 10 years , but agree 2024 is a bit optimistic . There are several proposed Lunar Modual study’s there is Altair which has been kept alive on life support one item I read was that if the go ahead is giving it could be available in 5 years, Boeing has a proposal for a \Lunar Module and more recently Lockheed martin had a proposal which was announced at the IAC last year , on commercial front Space X and Blue Origins could come up with proposals. Last year China signed a technology transfer agreement wioth Russial for soviet Lunar module and have already demonstrated a descent stage which works.
I would want the lander to be capable of being launched on multiple providers. Reusable, If not the gateway LLO or have the commercial company responsible for a docking hub.hab in LLO as part of the program .. It really has to be developed as a dual use system and be reusable with either end to end by each company or generic design.
Those are all desirable characteristics. But not on a five year deadline. That schedule would (will?) push the lander design in the direction of expediency. That, by the way, also happened with Apollo. A number of the design choices which made it unsustainably expensive were driven by the need to meet a December, 31, 1969 deadline.
“Plan step 3: Design and build lander”
Fund design studies, fund design development, fund testing, fund building, fund testing, All having to go through engineering by district.
I am thinking that our Boy Administrator has capabilities hitherto unforeseen, and that among those are both leadership and negotiation.
And I think that the “plan” could not have been previously announced because it depends on commercial heavy lift, a door that door has just begun to swing open.
We will witness some riveting developments.
Though doubtful based on past experience, I really hope you are right!
Dangerous, but I have creeping hope that this time it really is going to be different.
“I’m making this up as I go along.” – Dr. H. W. Jones, Jr.
[Blows off dust] “I have here in my hands a plan, study, a ’90 Day Study’ that will answer all your questions!”
In the spirit of the image that Keith included with this posting (and aimed at no one in particular):
(Stridently) “Y’see! Y’see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!”
Lots of options for a Lander , Altair ,there is proposals from Boeing and last year Lockheed Martin ,which can be used with SLS . But wither these could be available for 2024?
A sustained human presence on the Moon requires that the cost of putting each person on the Moon, keeping him there and safely returning him, be less than what a customer is willing to pay. Whether the customer is the US or another government, a corporate entity, or a tourist this will remain the case, as we discovered when Apollo lost funding. Economically viable human flight to LEO is just becoming feasible with reusability.
If we proceed with lunar human flight with an expendable architecture it is difficult to see how human presence could possibly be funded past the first few flights, when public interest will naturally decline, as it did during Apollo.
The first 19 Falcon 9 launches were expended. And they still expending cores on a fair fraction of the launches. Without reuse of hardware and in situ resources, I can’t see a sustainable lunar presence. But that doesn’t mean the initial landings can’t use expendable hardware and do without in situ resources. You just need an architecture that can evolve into a sustainable one.