Bridenstine: Wouldn't surprise me if we determine the lunar South Pole is out of reach for Artemis 3. I'm not saying it is or isn't, decisions haven't been made. But if go to equatorial region again where would we learn the most? Inspiration of returning to an Apollo site?
Asked if the lunar landing locations have changed (i.e. south pole). "We are looking to have more participants – no spoiler alerts. More to come." @KathyLueders
I would make Marius Hills the second landing after landing at, say; the Apollo 12 site. Marius has fascinating geological possibilities. But at the Ocean of Storms Apollo 12 site; there would be both the 1969 LM descent stage and the 1967 Surveyor 3 artifacts to investigate the effects of long-term lunar environment exposure on. I would leave the Apollo 11 site as a permanent, historical ‘no mans land’. I would also keep the re-visit of the Apollo sites to a minimum, as this would make each multi-billion Lunar mission look like a pointless retread to the eyes of the cynical!
Surveyor 7 in Tycho crater would tick all the boxes, in my opinion. Though Tycho was deemed to be hard to reach in the Apollo era; to the point where at least one Apollo manager vetoed the idea. I honestly DON’T fully understand some of the resistance some people have to landing at Apollo sites! I can’t see why we couldn’t have our cake and eat it, too – Apollo 15’s Hadley-Appenine region was deemed worthy of a Geology re-visit someday, for instance. They even said so back in the day. Apollo 12 is the second-oldest human landing site on the Moon, in an area that is still very much unexplored in a practical sense.
I repeat that Apollo 11’s site should be preserved as-is, for the longest possible time. But I think at least one Apollo site should be thoroughly and forensically examined to check out ALL aspects of the effects of the Lunar environment on vehicle and instrument materials, not to mention the footprints and even the bags of trash left behind!
Most likely while NASA will just the Artemis mission names for the Starship flights it buys from SpaceX.
And the presence of lunar water will cease to be a site selection factor since Starship tankers will be able to cheaply deliver the hydrogen needed to mix with LOX to make all the water needed for a lunar facility.
I don’t think there’s much difference in payload starting from NRHO (which they’re still doing despite Gateway not being there, because that’s as far as Orion can get). I’m thinking easier thermal environment and less hazardous lighting conditions.
I’m guessing that second tweet means that they’re looking to land surface mission freight using commercial cargo delivery to reduce the HLS’s Earth launch mass. This leads to a number of scenarios:
1) Lunar surface rendezvous – LZ is constrained by commercial lander’s dV budget; 2) LEO or Halo rendezvous – LZ is constrained by heavyweight HLS’s dV budget; 3) Lunar orbit rendezvous – LZ inclination is constrained by either commercial lunar cargo orbiter’s dV budget and/or the HLS’s ability to plane change with a high dry mass.
Delivered propellants to LEO depot and LLO depot. Send the HLS Moonship to top off at both the LEO and LLO depots before landing payloads on the Lunar surface.
Since you will have to get the propellants for the HLS to the tollbooth location with the current plan of record. If the Moonship is part of the Artemis HLS program, then it follows that SpaceX will have to get the propellants there for the Moonship and the ALCAPA (Dynetics lander).
The LEO and LLO depots could just be Starship tankers.
#1&2: I don’t think latitude has much of an effect on required delta-v. The NRHO to be used is polar, and it’s a relatively minor variation of the transfer trajectory to inject into a polar lunar orbit from Earth.
3: Cargo orbiter launched from Earth to meet up in LLO with a HLS that has arrived from NRHO? That could involve some serious delta-v. This could be resolved by sending the cargo orbiter up to a couple weeks early though.
“More participants” may mean “people who are more interested in minerals than polar ices” rather than “people who can’t manage the delta-v”.
High difficulty, high risk, low reward. Exploring a lunar cave would make cave diving look like a walk in the park.
People keep talking about using them for radiation shielding, but you can get that anywhere by just piling up regolith. Making caves safe to inhabit would be a major effort. We’ll be able to build whatever we need, wherever we need it well before we’ll be able to inhabit lava tubes.
I would make Marius Hills the second landing after landing at, say; the
Apollo 12 site. Marius has fascinating geological possibilities. But at
the Ocean of Storms Apollo 12 site; there would be both the 1969 LM descent stage and the 1967 Surveyor 3 artifacts to investigate the effects of long-term lunar environment exposure on. I would leave the Apollo 11 site as a permanent, historical ‘no mans land’. I would also keep the re-visit of the Apollo sites to a minimum, as this would make each multi-billion Lunar mission look like a pointless retread to the eyes of the cynical!
Maybe land near enough to an Apollo site to EVA there, but far enough away to do something different.
Better yet don’t land at an Apollo site, but land near an old robotic lander to study long-term effects and compare/update lander’s science.
Surveyor 7 in Tycho crater would tick all the boxes, in my opinion. Though Tycho was deemed to be hard to reach in the Apollo era; to the point where at least one Apollo manager vetoed the idea. I honestly DON’T fully understand some of the resistance some people have to landing at Apollo sites! I can’t see why we couldn’t have our cake and eat it, too – Apollo 15’s Hadley-Appenine region was deemed worthy of a Geology re-visit someday, for instance. They even said so back in the day. Apollo 12 is the second-oldest human landing site on the Moon, in an area that is still very much unexplored in a practical sense.
I repeat that Apollo 11’s site should be preserved as-is, for the longest possible time. But I think at least one Apollo site should be thoroughly and forensically examined to check out ALL aspects of the effects of the Lunar environment on vehicle and instrument materials, not to mention the footprints and even the bags of trash left behind!
Artemis 3 will land in a junk yard some where.
Most likely while NASA will just the Artemis mission names for the Starship flights it buys from SpaceX.
And the presence of lunar water will cease to be a site selection factor since Starship tankers will be able to cheaply deliver the hydrogen needed to mix with LOX to make all the water needed for a lunar facility.
More ambitious LZ for lighter payload vs less ambitious LZ for heavier payload. Right?
I don’t think there’s much difference in payload starting from NRHO (which they’re still doing despite Gateway not being there, because that’s as far as Orion can get). I’m thinking easier thermal environment and less hazardous lighting conditions.
Possibly also easier access to commercial cargo support too.
I’m guessing that second tweet means that they’re looking to land surface mission freight using commercial cargo delivery to reduce the HLS’s Earth launch mass. This leads to a number of scenarios:
1) Lunar surface rendezvous – LZ is constrained by commercial lander’s dV budget;
2) LEO or Halo rendezvous – LZ is constrained by heavyweight HLS’s dV budget;
3) Lunar orbit rendezvous – LZ inclination is constrained by either commercial lunar cargo orbiter’s dV budget and/or the HLS’s ability to plane change with a high dry mass.
Better scenario.
Delivered propellants to LEO depot and LLO depot. Send the
HLSMoonship to top off at both the LEO and LLO depots before landing payloads on the Lunar surface.Since you will have to get the propellants for the HLS to the tollbooth location with the current plan of record. If the Moonship is part of the Artemis HLS program, then it follows that SpaceX will have to get the propellants there for the Moonship and the ALCAPA (Dynetics lander).
The LEO and LLO depots could just be Starship tankers.
#1&2: I don’t think latitude has much of an effect on required delta-v. The NRHO to be used is polar, and it’s a relatively minor variation of the transfer trajectory to inject into a polar lunar orbit from Earth.
3: Cargo orbiter launched from Earth to meet up in LLO with a HLS that has arrived from NRHO? That could involve some serious delta-v. This could be resolved by sending the cargo orbiter up to a couple weeks early though.
“More participants” may mean “people who are more interested in minerals than polar ices” rather than “people who can’t manage the delta-v”.
Let’s go investigate a lunar lava tube
High difficulty, high risk, low reward. Exploring a lunar cave would make cave diving look like a walk in the park.
People keep talking about using them for radiation shielding, but you can get that anywhere by just piling up regolith. Making caves safe to inhabit would be a major effort. We’ll be able to build whatever we need, wherever we need it well before we’ll be able to inhabit lava tubes.
It’s going to land on the chopping block.
Or if it ever flies, it may be invited to land at SpaceX’s lunar base.