House FY 2021 Budget Makes 2024 Moon Landing Doubtful
H.R. 7617 Division-by-Division Summary, House Appropriations Committee
“National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – $22.63 billion, equal to the FY 2020 enacted level. This funding includes continued investments in human space exploration efforts, as well as other investments, including the following:
• $819 million for Aeronautics research, an increase of $35 million above the FY 2020 enacted level and equal to the President’s budget request, to continue efforts to improve passenger safety, fuel efficiency, and noise reduction, and to make air travel more environmentally sustainable.
• $126 million for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Engagement, an increase of $6 million above the FY 2020 enacted level, to inspire young people to pursue future careers in science and engineering, and rejecting the Administration’s request to eliminate funding for these programs.”
Lucas and Babin: Appropriations Bill Fails to Prioritize NASA’s Human Exploration Activities
“In particular, we need funding now to move forward on the Human Landing System, but this legislation provides only a fraction of what’s needed to do that. As a nation, we need to prioritize human space exploration. This bill is shortsighted, and I hope we can do more to support NASA’s critical missions.”
So wonderful that the “Orange Man Bad” crew decided we don’t need to inspire the spirit of innovation and exploration… You wouldn’t want the US to succeed while he’s in charge… (Sarcasm)
Huh?
I doubt that has anything to do with it, Mr Judd – there has been active skepticism about a quick return to the Moon for several years; particularly as it pertains to SLS/Orion.
Endless cost plus, fixed fee, sole sourced, FAR development contracts that are funding our Lunar return, SLS and Orion in this case. does not inspire a spirit of innovation and exploration. All it represents is 30 billion flushed down the drain that could have been spent buying services.
With the Apollo Lunar Module of the Apollo Era, detailed development began in 1962 / 1963. The first developmental lander, LM-1, was put in orbit on a Saturn IB in January 1968. LM-3 next flew with a crew on Apollo 9 in low Earth orbit in March 1969 – the first flight of the combined Apollo Crew Service Module and the Lander in order to qualify it for operations.
Next, Apollo 10 took LM-4 for a trip around the moon as a test run for the landing mission… termed a “dress rehearsal at the time. That was May 1969. It was only with Apollo 11, in July 1969, did the Lunar Module actually finally land.
So full up, it too 7 years of lavish funding and some of the best engineering companies in the country to develop the last lunar lander. And in order to safely utilize it, it required a series of test flights to validate it for use, one step at a time. Alone in orbit -> Low Earth orbit with the module -> around the moon -> finally a landing.
This hairbrained scheme to land in 2024 – yes, a vanity project for Trump – is a surefire way to get Astronauts killed. For this lander, there is nothing close to the funding put up for the Apollo landers, under any budget. To do it in 3 and a half years is extraordinarily risky. While there is substantially institutional knowledge of landing on Mars, there is little remaining institutional knowledge of what is required from the Apollo era – NASA is a very different agency and many of those engineering firms involved have been merged, consolidated, or reorganized. The proposed lunar landers, for what they’re worth, are all on paper far more lavish than the two man Apollo one.
Oh and the 2024 plan? There is nothing planned to be comparable to the flights that were done to progressively validate the Apollo LM. This Artemis Lunar Module, it seems, will have its first flight, and first flight around the moon, on the mission it will be used to land on the moon. Which is insane.
The Companies involved are also questionable. Blue Origin has, on paper, the best design. But Blue Origin as a company has done nothing more than built some engines and did some suborbital flights. There is no evidence they have the engineering chops to accomplish a Lunar Lander, stately, in 3 years.
SpaceX proposed a variant of Starship. Starship on paper could do it. A variant of Starship certaily. By 2024 though? No way. 2030ish? Count on it.
Dynetics, the other, selected entree, has been around a long time and is very reputable, but is largely a subcontractor or integrator. They’ve never built or designed anything remotely this complex. Unlikely to do it by 2024 as well.
Boeing has the engineering chops to do it. Except they got themselves rejected.
Can America design a Lunar lander? Absolutely. To the tune of, let’s say $3 billion a year, you can have your Lunar Lander by 2028. But that is if you’re willing to fly a series of flights akin to the Apollo ones within a 18 month span, which will require at the very least Falcon Heavies, and more likely four separate SLS Block IBs. And you’ll probably want SpaceX, Boeing, Lockheed or Northrop to do it, not Dyanetics or Blue Origin.
But 2024? When we’re over halfway through 2020 and it’ll be until mid next year before a vaccine for COVID-19 is in any kind of real distribution in the US? That’s not even a joke. It’s reckless. It’s dangerous. It’s delusional.
Don’t worry, NASA will be able to buy some tickets for its astronauts along with the other tourists on SpaceX’s Starship flights to the Moon. And I am sure they will even let the NASA astronauts bring a couple of experiments along for a nominal baggage fee to be left on the Moon after they return to Earth.?
No. You have to booked with Emirates Spaceways for the all inclusive Lunar surface exclusion package. /S
Or the U.S.S.F. will give the NASA astronauts a ride in one of their Starship class patrol ships built by SpaceX. Maybe even let them stay at their patrol station and allow them to set up their lunar experiments.
Unfortunately, NASA employees and contractors are expected to fly on US carriers and at the lowest cost fair available. If it’s a choice between going to the Moon on Emirates or dead heading on an USSF cargo run, guess what the NASA astronauts will have to do.
2024 or even a 2030 moon landing has always been doubtful if we wait for NASA and congress. There is at least a small possibility of a 2024 moon landing with the lunar version of the Space X Starship.
The approved house funding is enough to fund SpaceX Lunar Starship for a landing in 2024.
ok, I’ll be first …
“no bucks, no Buck Rogers”
(at first, fat finger typed as “no buicks” … still works I guess)
Ah yes, the drama continues… I haven’t thoroughly studied the vehicles including landers needed for lunar return but overall none of it makes sense like what was done for Apollo. Even back in 1960s as a little boy the architecture seemed to make sense: A big rocket to send stuff to the moon, lunar excursion module to land men to the surface and bring them back. All three return in a single capsule. Artemis has many pieces and various options, probably makes sense to deal with volatile budgets and politics. But it gets confusing. Perhaps that is intent as Apollo was “simple” but it had only one task which it was not sustainable. But that’s me, I’m sure those who are actually involved in business and have inside track know better. At least Keith and Mark gives us some insight of the going-ons.
One of the reasons for the complexity of the Artemis mission architecture is to make up for the lack of fuel that the Orion Service Module can carry. Orion only has about 9 tons of propellants, versus the Apollo quantity of 18. This lack of delta-v means Orion can slow itself into low lunar orbit or leave it – it cannot do both. The ‘Gateway’ is designed for an eccentric high lunar orbit that intersects favorable points for Orion to either arrive or leave the Gateway. Any Lander based there has to make the long descent and ascent themselves.
Orion was originally designed to launch on a much smaller booster than the SLS; the Ares 1. Orion was designed in the Constellation era, when the ‘Altair’ lunar lander was going to furnish the delta-v to arrive in low lunar orbit. Orion has never been re-designed with more propellants. If it were; Gateway would be far less needed. Although, some sort of Gateway would be useful as a Propellant Depot if a reusable Crew Lander were based there.
If this week’s SN5 hop goes well SpaceX can move on to a full SN8 prototype with nose, airfoils, more engines and envelope expansion (SN6 presumably an SN5 backup, and SN7 a test tank)
Then….
https//uploads.disquscdn.com/image…
“Even back in 1960s as a little boy the architecture seemed to make sense: “
No.. drowning BILLIONS in hardware in the Atlantic ocean never made sense. Building an unsustainable transportation system never makes sense.
“seemed to make sense”
There was no technology at the time that could do the job AND be reusable. Remember, this was the ’60s.
I was a youngster at the time, and it seemed to make sense to me, too.
More to the point is that they were on a tight schedule and it would have taken a lot of time to build a reusable infrastructure.
Well it was a Cold War effort and in war many things are not considered sustainable or economical like missiles. Concept of reusing rockets was unimaginable except for a spaceplane which I remember seeing a photo of a M2F2 in a book “in the future, astronauts may land back on earth in a spacecraft like this.” Even before Apollo 11 I could imagine how these things work in the big picture. I didn’t understand the engineering, never knew the scope of work till years later. I remember the arguments of wasting money on space program instead of spending it here on earth, why are we in this race with the Russians? After Apollo 11 the popular phrase, “If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we solve [insert problem topic here]?” and the classic VW beetle ad, “It’s ugly but it gets you there.”
We choose not to go to the moon in this decade, not because it is easy, but because we have made it hard. With apologies to the memory of JFK.