According to statements made by @JimBridenstine in several congressional hearings @NASA was going to provide a revised budget request that includes the costs of the whole #Moon2024 thing by 15 April (today). Well, did #NASA send this revised budget to Congress?
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) April 16, 2019
Keith’s update: This is NASA PAO’s response – they declined to confirm Bridenstine’s statements that NASA will deliver its revised budget to Congress by the end of April / early May as reported by multiple news publications. “Last week, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine formally announced the agency’s plan to get the next man and first woman on the Moon by 2024. We are in the process of evaluating and discussing what additional resources will be needed to land NASA astronauts on the Moon in five years. We’ll provide further information in the near future.”
Keith’s note: I sent a request to NASA PAO but have not received an answer. Meanwhile it looks like Jim Bridenstine talked to some media the other day. Of course this Moon 2024 thing requires not one but 4-5 sequential NASA budgets – all at optimum levels – to achieve. Otherwise there will be delays and/or cannibalization of other NASA programs. This is a Hail Mary pass. But why not try it since the standard approach doesn’t work. The challenge for Bridenstine is to parse his people – the ones who want to try to fix the situation and those who do not. Those who prefer the status quo can be a formidable impediment to surmount since they have had decades of practicing schedule delays and cost overruns.
NASA’s plan to put humans on the moon by 2024 is taking shape — but will they get the money?, Houston Chronicle
“So, NASA is working up a budget that would allow for faster operations without sacrificing safety. Bridenstine said he will deliver that budget to Congress in late April or early May.”
How much will the Moon plan cost? We should know in two weeks, Ars Technica
“Then, Bridenstine will have to work to finalize the budget amendment before the end of April and begin the process of selling that to Congress, including skeptical Democrats. The agency will have to start choosing lander designs this summer and procure funding from Congress by early fall. If NASA is to reach the Moon, Bridenstine will have to keep right on running.”
Hopefully there’s some extra funding in there, and not them pillaging other projects (especially Planetary Science and Earth Science) for this.
Remember that $Trillion dollars for Mars? From the Mars Institute? A budget number like that kills projects. The Admin has a huge problem on his hands here, partly his own making.
Yeah, this is when Congress usually balks, right after NASA tells them how much it estimates it’s going to cost. Unfortunately, Congress isn’t helping by continuing to throw $2+ billion a year at SLS with nothing yet to show for it.
Especially when the military-industrial complex needs to be fed, with a evermore ravenous apatite; partly due to our established culture of violence.
One or two fewer aircraft carriers and few less F-35s would make a big addition to the budget.
Not going to happened. As that would mean less jobs for the builders and sub-contractors of the carriers and F-35 plus the cancellation cost for parts of those those projects.
What is SpaceX currently good at doing?
a) making rockets
b) planning deep space manned missions
c) inspiring the public
d) making space cool
e) stimulating the imagination
f) none of the above
g) all of the above
“This is a Hail Mary pass.” – this is not well thought out and serves only as an ego boost for an administration that can not see more than 2 years into the future. This will be a flags and footprints. Not enough data has been collected to determine a site that could produce any natural resources.The majority of resource arguments are “cart before the horse” in nature. No spacecraft or surface structures have been developed and tested. No long term plan can be supported financially or politically. Plus, no one looks at the big picture where funding will be continually diverted away from all “pet projects” to pay for things like taking care of our senior populations (there will be more people over 65 than under 18 by 2035), or the ever increasing costs due to natural disasters and climate change (over $1.6 trillion since 1980). Anything done on another planetary surface should have a 50 year plan, minimum and no one seems to understand that. Sad.
“Is this”, I ask myself, “the way that every agency reacts when pressured by the WH?”
Is honor completely lost?
??? Why do you think the President is referred to the the nation’s Chief Executive? Because he is in charge of the Executive Branch. So yes, it is expected the employees at NASA will listen when they receive orders, just as your boss would expect you to listen.
The professionals in my employ would be expected to respond accurately that such a plan, starting from scratch, cannot be prepared and vetted in the available time, thus saving me the embarrassment of representing incorrect data. It’s a mistake they would make only once.
It would be nice (simplistic as it is) to have a clear statement of the plan.
We are planning a permanent colony on the moon. We know that this’ll take Quadtrillions of dollars and decades to accomplish so we are establishing an international body to direct this effort. This body will include government and commercial entities. We are doing this, in part, to learn lessons and develop technology that will help the colonalisation of Mars.
A clearly stated plan would be as awesome as it is vanishingly rare these days.
An international body directing the effort would be a nightmare. “Too many cooks spoil the broth” and all that. A moon base run with the bureaucratic efficiency of the UN? No thanks. The UN Moon Treaty is already problematic as it is.
I would much rather see something akin to what happened in Antarctica, with every country pursuing their own research goals and objectives, collaborating as they decide to see fit, with an international body to iron out conflicts, but not trying to collectively manage the process.
And with the Antarctic model, then there would be no more than 1200 people continuously in space for the next 50 years. Funny thing is things 40 years from now will be very, very different than how things are today or have been for the past 100 years on Earth. And likely not in a good way.
Folks have been saying that since the days of the Rev. Thomas Malthus. The problem is they never take technology and market economics into account. Yes, the climate is changing, but when you nail down any of the predictions it is never as severe as they mislead folks into believing.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/u…
3 mm a year equals only about a foot per century rise…
So you’ve read “An Essay on the Principle of Population” cover to cover? I have. If you had you would know that since written, people have chosen very specific points and twisted them to their own liking to give Malthus the reputation freely bantered about today’s web. He did address technology. And our modern argument that technology will be our savior is a false hope, when in fact it is a double edged sword, especially when one takes into consideration issues of basic human emotions, fear, greed, ego and self-control. Oh, and the 3mm/yr is not a fixed value and is being revised as we speak.
You might want to consider reading Richard Rhodes’ book, Energy: A Human History. As far as energy use goes, he makes a very good case for technology having solved every shortage. He starts with the technology for coal mining and use. Europe had previously relied on burning wood for heat, cooking etc. to the point where deforestation was becoming a serious problem. Widespread use of oil started when the disadvantages of complete reliance on coal became apparent. Now we’re seeing many disadvantages of relying on oil, and suddenly the state of the art in solar power technology is rocketing ahead.
It’s easy to say we’ll run out of something, if we keep using it at the current rate. But the fact is, historically, every time we’ve gotten close to running out, there has been economic (and sometimes political) pressure to develop new technology and shift to using something else instead of the now-scares commodity. Similar arguments can and have been made about population growth and advances in land use and agricultural technology. (And the fact that more technologically developed countries have lower birth rates and sometimes even negative population growth.)
Yes, and many of the effects of climate change we see now could have been avoided if the transition to nuclear power hadn’t been sabotaged by the irrational fears generated by the fear campaigns run by environmentalists in the 1970’s. Global CO2 would still be in the low 300 ppm rather than over 400 ppm. BTW it was the old AEC that first funded the CO2 observatory in Hawaii in the 1950’s to measure CO2 build up.
Yes, one of the arguments for nuclear power was to prevent human caused global warming. Willy Ley wrote about it in the 1940’s. Issac Asimov in the 1950’s. Pity the environmentalists didn’t care about global warming then.
Rhodes makes that point towards the end of his book. He also has an interesting discussion of the assumed linear, zero threshold approach to risks of radiation exposure. I think I agree with that. But I also note that virtually every serious, nuclear accident has involved human error and people who should have known better making stupid mistakes.
In general, when any sort of system goes badly wrong, I like the idea of improving it. Or at least the possibility of doing so, if the costs are justified. But when the problem is human stupidity, that really is a reusable resource we’ll never run out of. I don’t know how to engineer it out of any system.
Yes, fools have a way of beating fool proof systems, although Freeman Dyson and General Atomics showed you could make a good try at it with their TRIGA Reactors like the one at the Colorado School of Mines. The major problem i see with first generation reactors was the heavily influence on their design by reactors for naval use where standards of discipline are high.
I have. Have you read Angus Maddison’s “Contours of the World Economy 1-2030 AD: Essays in Macro-Economic History” ? It shows that the invention of the steam engine derailed the Malthusian Collapse that should had occurred around 1820.
Yes, different folks keep proposing different numbers, many just fantasy. But that number is supported by solid data, including from NASA’s GRACE mission. But even if you double it, it isn’t going to be the disaster environmentalists are trying to scare the world into think it is.
Adjustments? Yes, there will need to be, but human society has been dong that for centuries, something everyone seems to ignore.
A 3 mm/year increase in sea level may be the current GRACE-measured value. But it would be a mistake to assume that will remain constant for a century and multiply by 100 to about one foot. That rate will change, and probably increase. I do agree that how it will change is difficult to forecast. Actually, I’m tempted to say it’s impossible to forecast with any confidence, since it involves a highly nonlinear and numerous assumptions. And some researchers may consider multiple cases and emphasize the ones with more dramatic results. And the press definitely tends to emphasize the dramatic. But if I expected to live long enough to collect, I’d offer to bet, with high odds, that the actual number 100 years from now, will turn out to be significantly more than 0.3 m. At the same time, no one will be selling beachfront property in Dallas (130 m.)
It may well be higher, but cities have been dealing with sea level rises for centuries. Usually the civil engineers just use landfill to build outward. Wall Street for example was named after the seawall that ran along it in the 1700’s.
But there are other factors involved. Much of Florida’s problem with sea level is the result of pumping out ground water causing the land to subside. The problems of each city will need to be addressed separately by civil engineers. But the key point is the magnitude of the rise is within limits that are workable. So are the most of the other effects of climate change in terms of its impact on human society.
I get the complexity of an international conglomerate when it comes to getting things done, but no one country will have enough financial resources to foot this alone (unless they take 1% of the defense budget to do it).
“footprints on the moon” by 2024 is one goal and not necessarily supportive of long term colonisation.
IntelSat worked well for the communications industry. But then it was a consortium with flexible membership, not a rigid UN Agency run by bureaucrats from emerging nations.
I agree with the notion that an actual plan would be wonderful. By actual I mean something with specific goals and dates and not the usual vague hand waving we see in most NASA “plans”.
I also agree about no “international” governing body.
However the Antarctic model won’t work either. It is much too restrictive in terms of commercial development to be used as a model for space development. As has been demonstrated over the years since Apollo, we’ll never develop space without private initiative.
Also, put down those rocks please. I agree with how we are handling Antarctica. I just don’t think that is the correct model for space development.
Sounds like Donald wants to be able to say that he put men on the moon by the end of his second term. How many will die as a result?
People die all the time. Many jobs are dangerous and astronaut is just another job in the big scheme of things. Even knowing the risks there is never a shortage of qualified applicants.
The question is do we go to the moon knowing that people are going to die because the knowledge gained is worth it? I’d say it’s worth it.
Lots of buildings going up around Austin where I live. Several of them cost the lives of one or more construction workers.
But rushing and taking stupid risks to do so is foolish.
Putting people in machines and operations that have not sufficiently vetted, due to human ego and greed is not worth it. Are going to tell families of the ~500 people from the two Max8s that their sacrifice was in the furtherance of aviation? No. And today, in space especially, this does not even address the waste of time, money and material form a poorly devised goal that has no long-term understanding of what exactly and really should be done.
You’re assuming that because of the accelerated timeline that there will be “machines and operations that have not sufficiently vetted”. That’s an opinion, not a fact.
Its a likelihood that is at least greater than 50/50 given past human performance.
Opinions are predictions that don’t have statistical backing.
Yes, look at how fast the Gemini spacecraft were designed and flown. Same with Mercury. Don’t confuse bureaucratic paper trails with proper vetting.
It’s not a fact, but it’s also not an unfounded concern. One option NASA is considering is to skip the “green run” test at Stennis. That’s the static test firing of the fully assembled SLS core. If they do, that’s either increasing risk or calling the whole decision making process into question (or both.)
The SLS test plans are things that people put a great deal of time and effort into, and which are subject to multiple, formal reviews. If the green run was in the plan, someone stood up and explained how it is necessary, explained all the analysis which went into proving that it is necessary, and convinced a review panel and the managers that it was. Actually someone would have had to do that on several occasions.
If you ask me, that means they can’t just say, “Oh, we changed our minds, it really isn’t necessary and skipping it is just fine.” I’d like either an explanation of why they originally and incorrectly concluded the test was necessary. Or an admission that the decision was much more qualitative and subjective than claimed.
If they said the test wasn’t really necessary but it sounded like the test couldn’t hurt and they weren’t worried about the schedule, that would be more honest. And it would let them say, they changed their minds because they are now worried about the schedule. But that’s not what’s happening, and taken at face value, it means they are talking about skipping a test they considered to be a necessity.
Wasn’t this test supposed to be done 2 years ago?
I have no idea. I don’t have enough confidence in the SLS schedules to pay much attention to them.
Agree with regards to the green run test. But I consider SLS a burning dumpster fire that’s not even necessary. The sooner it’s replaced with commercial alternatives the better. And that goes for safety too. A launch vehicle that flies once or twice a year is a huge magnet for human error. When someone has to perform a task once or twice a year, how are they ever going to become proficient at it? SLS is inherently less safe than alternatives that will be flying more often, IMHO.
I’ve heard that argument about SLS flight rates and safety refuted by someone working on the project. (It was a presentation at an OPAG meeting about possible uses for SLS by robotic missions.) The speaker noted that the Delta IV Heavy also have a flight rate of under two per year, and does not have any such problems.
I don’t agree, since the Delta IV has a medium configuration, which flies about four times as often as the heavy. (Perhaps that should be had and flew, I think the Delta IV Medium was retired last year.) A sizable fraction of the work would be similar, so presumably that helps maintain to the work force’s proficiency.
One Delta IV medium left, it will launch in a couple of months. Five more heavies after that, about one per year for the next five years. But yeah in its heyday there were three or four Delta IVs going up per year, typically one of those being a heavy.
Boeing did a complete flight test program and satisfied all the FAA requirements for certification before delivering the aircraft. The B737 Max started service in 2017 with about 300 delivered to date and made many thousands of flights before the problem emerged. Sounds like they sufficiently vetted it based on past experience.
Something was still screwed up in that process though, if a system like MCAS that takes over pitch control with no reflection in the yoke, bases actions on a single AOA sensor…how in the name of Hell did that architecture ever pass an FMECA study?
Just because you have a process for vetting something doesn’t guarantee it works. Indeed, it might even create the opportunities for errors like this because it gives you a false sense of confidence and you ignore reports that you should be listening to and studying.
That false sense of confidence is something I’ve seen with instruments on spacecraft. The lab tests and calibrations always show better performance than you get in flight. The testing is done under highly controlled and ideal conditions, which is something you never get in the real world.
The same is almost certainly true of flight testing of an aircraft. The people doing maintenance between flights are experts from the company who built the aircraft. So the pilot doesn’t have to worry about some systems acting a little flaky on top of whatever the test is about. Those pilots themselves probably much more experienced with dealing with unexpected problems than the average airline pilot. But doing it any other way would just be crazy.
True, you need to set up a procedure, but you also need to have the attitude to aggressively hunt down possible problems. In the 1950’s and 1960’s test managers had to prove to skeptical superiors that a mission was ready before it flew. That attitude seems to be missing, replaced in a false confidence in following the “book”.
“Putting people in machines”
Putting people in? Are these people prisoners? Forced on to the vehicles?
You are confusing a freely informed choice over something like military test pilots ordered to take a flight. . even then they can say pass on a flight that they believe is to risky.
Military test pilots, at least in the US, are not ordered to make a test flight, they are part of the team that decides how best to test the aircraft and its systems. A test flight does fly unless everyone involved, especially the pilots, has agreed its good to go.
Of course, there are such things as peer pressure and career-ending decisions not to “volunteer” to do something. Coersing someone into do something doesn’t necessarily mean holding a gun to their head. It can just involve making sure the alternatives are seem worse.
It’s one thing to acknowledge the certainty of fatalities due to risky enterprises (like traveling in space). It’s one thing to say that we carefully evaluated the risks and decided to go; it’s another to say we went ’cause we had to and didn’t do an FMEA, didn’t really understand the risks.
But I wonder what knowledge would be gained by doing again something we did 50 years ago as it seems that the most we could do by 2024 is an Apollo style short duration visit. Of course we have to relearn most of what they learnt back in the 70s so there’s that to be gained.
I have nothing against taking risks, but not pointless ones. It isn’t clear to me any knowledge will be gained by a return to the Moon in 2024. It could involve technology which is a dead end, and not something which could evolve into a sustainable presence. It could, scientifically, be no more the equivalent of a seventh Apollo landing, which would be of incremental benefit. It might be on par with or worse than Apollo 11, rather than resembling the scientific work done on the J missions (15, 16 and 17), which would be even less valuable. If that’s what it turns out being like, I’d have trouble saying the risks were justified by what we’d learn.
Agreed. I would hope that at least parts of the mission wouldn’t be a technological dead end (i.e. like SLS). And I was hoping it would surpass the Apollo J missions in terms of the science done.
So I suppose the point is we just don’t know what we’re going to get yet. We have vague notions of what a 2024 mission could be, and what might follow, but that’s about it. The SLS bit isn’t at all sustainable, but I’m hoping commercial alternatives emerge in the coming years.
Perhaps, but after 50 years it is not unreasonable to be satisfied if the first missions, like the early Project Apollo flights, just demonstrated the ability to safely land on the Moon and return. Then the objectives could be increased.
It might also be a good idea to determine if they strategy will be to visit a different site on every flight like Apollo, something that would increase the science return, or focus on returning to the same site and establishing a base. Of course the answer depends on the objectives of a lunar return.
Given the long gap since the last landing I think a minimum lander, single use for two astronauts, is probably the best option for a lunar return 1.0, and then building up to a larger reusable version as knowledge and confidence is developed. This expandable lunar lander 1.0 could serve well as a scout vehicle in the interim.
I wouldn’t complain if the next lunar landing involved a minimal lander, two astronauts and not very much scientific work on site. But I wouldn’t want to unnecessarily increase risk to accomplish that by a specific date. More to the point, I’d want that lander, and the other hardware involved, to be evolvable in the way you describe. Apollo made many compromises to meet the President’s deadline, and many of them made it impossible (or prohibitively expensive) to evolve the Apollo hardware into anything better.
Instead of debating is it worth for someone to die in order to conquer the moon, what about debate economic development of the moon?
A recent article “The dirty truth about green batteries” discusses a mining boom which I see much more tearing up landscape and polluting water. Now if somehow able to do all that on the moon ( to get a host of metals and minerals from across the periodic table instead of the earth. Perhaps need to determine if it is viable to do so. If it takes a zillion kg of mass to acquire a few hundred of kg back from the moon, that makes no sense. Can something sustainable and economical be done? Perhaps start off with NASA fund survey missions, help technology development for rovers and whatever to survey the moon. Rovers and orbiters don’t require risk of life though not as exciting.
Regarding risk of losing human life, I’m thinking what was done in Apollo to what is proposed now (yes, comparing two different eras but everyone else is). Back then we had test pilots going to the moon, they were part of the team that worked to reduce risk and methods to deal with problems. However it was the Cold War and WWII was recent memory where it was understood some may die in the effort and that was acceptable. Even offensive moves like Battle of Midway where pilots leave the carrier expecting to never return. Normandy where soldiers expected to die as soon as the ramps drop. In 1960s losing astronauts was “acceptable” exception Glenn so he was “removed from flight status.” After Apollo 1, ***lots*** of work was done to be sure that never happened again. It would have not been acceptable to give up the Apollo program. I believe Chris Kraft said if it wasn’t for that fire, we would have never made it to the moon. Block 2 CM was outstanding, can be cold started in space as done on Apollo 13.
Fast forward to these days, losing astronauts because design and systems not fully checked? Is it really worth losing people to conquer the moon? After Columbia loss, there was serious proposals to never again fly Shuttle. There are risks going back to the moon, maybe consider going to the moon for economic development like we go to various places on earth. Expect loss of life in mining operations?
Using loss of two 787s poor analogy as it is expected passenger airlines to never crash (nobody needs to sign a waiver like for skydiving).
And so those societies become so risk adverse they stagnate and are replaced by societies willing to brave the risks of the frontier. In this case NASA will be replaced by commercial ventures like SpaceX who is willing to gamble on new ideas like booster recovery and Stainless Steel reusable rocket ships.
This is where they will often a high price based on the triad of SLS/Orion/Gateway and get it slapped down. Then they replace it with a quote by SpaceX.
I’ve argued that SX should stay out of this fight- but just maybe this is a moment for Mr. Musk.
SpaceX would stay out of it basically. But if a good customer asks you for a quote to do a new job it’s expected you will provide them with one. In this case it would just be NASA issuing an RFI on alternative architectures to accomplish the goal when it’s clear SLS/Orion/Gateway won’t work.
It would be interesting if Congress asked SX for a plan to land on the moon (rather than waiting for NASA to issue an RFI).
I believe its time NASA got out of the rocket business and focussed on the missions.
Except that is not their function. But they could hold hearings on it and invite Elon Musk to testify about what SoaceX could do.
I don’t think the Constitution says anything about which branch of government may request or fund studies or research projects. So, I suppose Congress could do so if they wanted to. But I’m fairly sure they currently lack the staff and infrastructure to do so. Especially to do so in keeping with the laws they, themselves, have passed. Things like sole-sourcing a study to someone who may bid for the resulting contracts are a legal mess.
Unless NASA is asking for the flat rate per seat cost and not a bid for a “how to” architecture and then NASA hoops to jump through .. I would hope SpaceX stays out of it.
SpaceX could suggest flat rate transport contracts. A RFI (Request For Information) isn’t about contracts and the response isn’t a bid. If NASA put one out, it could be a formal way of saying, “how do you think we should structure commercial involvement in a Moon landing?” SpaceX could reply that it should be done in the same way as commercial cargo to ISS (and not with the greater NASA oversight which characterizes commercial crew.) That’s not committing them to anything should NASA decided to do it differently.
At the moment there are no plans for a lander. That is something someone now has to develop. The latest architecture/plan shows a 2-person lander which means they accomplish no more than Apollo. Flags and footprints although this time they will send a female and a male (whoopee!). What a waste. And they’ve done a recent assessment of SLS costs. $14 billion to date and not even an integrated stage to try and test. Safe, simple soon ! Amazing the poor management at an astounding cost since basically nothing new was created. This is a prime example of NASA’s management failure.
Sounds to me like NASA is doing exactly what congress whats.. endless development and a perfect launch record with no reported rockets blowing up on the news.
Maybe Congress should put out a request for proposals and see how much NASA and its competitors would cost. Let Congress choose the lowest bidder. NASA’s history since Shuttle is they cannot manage big human space flight projects, not to mention they have not made significant advances. Others, like Space X, seem to be able to manage and are advancing the state of the art.
After being a part of NASA since before Shuttle, I no longer trust the agency to do what is right or best. NASA is relying on its 50 year old legacy, not on anything they have achieved in 40 years in human space flight. Within the agency I see a lot of people promoted into positions they know nothing about, which is why they have failed so miserably, costing the space program a hundred billion $$ without advancing the program.
Then why are you still a part of it?
Trust me, there are enough of us around that if left alone and unencumbered by political considerations, we can get things done.
Personally I like getting a paycheck. The issue is not whether or not NASA has capable workers. There are plenty of them including me. The issue is poor-nonexistent leadership.
Maybe he does something like review work packages from video cameras to telemetry recorders for a wide range of departments (thousands of people do all kinds of stuff). Managing large programs i.e. do LOR for Apollo, TAOS for Shuttle, whatever, plus implementing infrastructure to be sure those systems are implemented, it seems those are decided by a very small number.
Indeed. Recently it was announced that the first SLS booster would be easy, real soon now!
Meanwhile, SX produces boosters faster than room to store them.
Simple market capitalism budget:
1. $200,000,000 to first commercial partner to develop and prove a life support module to transport dragon 2/3 to the moon by 2020. Or, a European module adapter for dragon 2.
2. $300,000,000 to first commercial partner to safely land human transport on the moon by 2023. Plus undisclosed contract to transport actual humans in 2024.
3. $900,000,000 to first commercial partner to attempt human transport to Mars by 2026.
New budget Idea:
$200,000,000 to modify dragon 2 to act as ISS module to push ISS to lunar orbit by 2021.
https://forums.teslarati.co…
Many in the know feel that the ISS solar arrays would be damaged by passing through the Van Allen belts. Also; the ageing ISS coolant systems would be strained by being in constant sunlight in high lunar orbit.
“by being in constant sunlight” … use a sunshade, like Skylab.
But point taken, something designed for LEO may not work well (at all ?) orbiting the moon.
Is it even possible, energy wise? How much delta V would the ISS need to escape Earth orbit, from its high inclination orbit? Is not a matter of “raising the orbit”, (right?) but escaping Earth and make it to the Moon. I defer to those of you who crunch the numbers. Are we talking a Centaur or Merlin Vacuum upper stage with larger tanks, or what? Thanks!
No, this wouldn’t work in so many ways, I’ll just stick to delta-v. It wouldn’t take getting to escape velocity, since the Moon is in orbit around the Earth. But it’s pretty close. About 3 km/s. And that means the mass of propellent required would be about half the mass of ISS itself. (If anyone mentions electric propulsion, I’ll point out how long it would take to get through the Van Allen belts, with astronauts onboard the whole time.)
Thanks for the reply.
I guess my two points would be, if discommissioning could be coming, the value of planning this as valuable test and research of effects would be a perfect opportunity to test both the impact by harding weak points and testing unknown risks for future space stations in LEO or lunar orbit. Also, would be invaluable for both research and discovery; besides the public support for a major space operation, it would be a first space station transit operation which would ideally be done by space leaders in the future.
Worst case scenario would be a parts depot or storage module, or test bed, orbiting the moon. If it landed/crashed on moon, would still be a test bed, possibly unpopular with scientists/engineers, however it would preserve it into the future for the public to at least be reminded of its success (instead of destroyed on reentry like previous space stations out of the mind of the public). $200,000,000 small price to pay to preserve our history and inspire the public. Not to mention it being the first space station transit and first space station orbiting the moon.
It’s good he is taking his time and it is excellent that someone engaged who understands Congress on a very deep level is at the helm for this. No guarantee of success but it should preclude the disaster that happened when Bush I wanted to do VSE.
Not Again Stalling Again.
I heard Pence say the right things: on a reasonable deadline, sustainable. If you think about what does sustainable mean? It means a program which operates continuously with frequent regular landings to deliver people and supplies, and at some point using in situ resources. That is not what NASA is doing. NASA designed an expensive, one-off vehicle it cannot afford to fly except perhaps once every couple of years. The vehicle is underpowered and can barely do a moon mission carrying minimal crew. For that reason they came up with a kluge of putting a space platform out in the middle of nowhere-the only place Orion can go. This necessitates making the lander more complicated, heavier,and yet with minimal carrying ability. So their plan does not do what is required. Why waste the time and money on a system that is not affordable or sustainable? I agree with those who say NASA has not demonstrated, in decades, the ability to manage a program on a schedule or a budget.
Bridenstine is the Captain. Remember Starfleet does not salute or say yes sir. You address the Captain as captain. He should tell his crew to use Apollo parts and SLS and do what Trump said. That way he can bypass all the rules. He may have to barter to get fuel etc.
PS. Keith NASA has their orbit tracker on Antares completely screwed up. They are using Mercator projection and have Greenland over 2x bigger than USA. They should use an actual NASA image of the whole Earth. NASA watching.
The dynamics around a NASA budget for humans on the Moon by 2024 are uncannily 1st Foundation right now. It doesn’t take much to see Hari Seldon rolling out and explaining why the effort in its NASA centric variations is always doomed.
As long as VP Pence is a possible follow-on to the current presidency,
why would a House controlled by the Democrats make him look good providing a budget? The usual answer will be jobs in certain districts. Yet listen to that answer carefully – jobs in certain districts, even Democrat controlled districts. The only way that works is to know ahead of a budget who is going to get the funds. The sure fire way to know certain jobs end up in certain districts is putting an assortment of forces in play, everything from going “cost-plus” to blatantly putting thumbs on the scales. It will be so obvious the uproar internal and external to NASA will doom progress. Especially coupled with the nature of the project once established this way, a year later doubling the cost estimate, a couple of years later showing no progress. Pre-planned cancelation, hearings, etc. in there at some point, just in time to embarrass the administration and Pence. No Moon 2024.
Alternately, say commercial. Say all the right buzzwords. We have the flavor of it already in the speeches. But no surety that certain jobs
end up in certain districts. It sells though, as many partners will say to their congressional rep. “better some chance than none”. Once again, run with the case. NASA announces the best two partners one day, probably just before the next election. We get these great partners, a bit of SpaceX here and Blue there and some new, imaginative thing too. None of this will involve SLS, and all of it will make Pence look good. And everyone with 2 neurons will run the same case in their heads –especially from SLS world, and Democrats in the House, and say –why do I want this? Huh? Make SLS irrelevant. Help Pence. We must slow walk this they say then, so as not to be seen as an obstruction. Again, no Moon 2024.
We need cases which go sideways from the above.