I have a feeling covid-19 sets the moon landing back.

[harrisjosh2711]

So, nasa awarded 1billion dollars to three companies developing lunar landers for the "Artemis" program today. The author of the article i read made an interesting point. According to NASA they need 1.357 trillion in funding through 2025 to successfully land on the moon. Im not sure if money is there folks. And while i love space, i must question if a moon landing is a priority in the unprecedented period of human history we are now experiencing. There is no doubt we are in a global recession and if economies dont open soon, it will be a global depression. We can always borrow the money, but we were borrowing the money to begin with. America always overspends what it takes in. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasa-awards-1-billion-moon-205211416.html

Edited May 1, 2020 by harrisjosh2711

[tater]

Every day SLS is not worked on sets it back a day, they have no schedule margin.

[mikegarrison]

The OP's point about a tanked economy not being able to support a moon landing program seems pretty valid to me.

[Superfluous J]

It was never going to happen anyway. The moment anybody supporting the mission leaves office the person replacing them will cut funding or change the requirements (or both) to fit their own vision and that of their financial backers constituents.

[harrisjosh2711]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Every day SLS is not worked on sets it back a day, they have no schedule margin.

Dont even get me started on that. One positive aspect - SpaceX was selected and their plan does not use the SLS. So it dependes on their success with the Starship.

[Bill Phil]

Can confirm - I know people working at MSFC. This is delaying the Moon landing - which was likely never going to happen in 2024 anyways.

[Canopus]

7 hours ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

Dont even get me started on that. One positive aspect - SpaceX was selected and their plan does not use the SLS. So it dependes on their success with the Starship.

The thing they proposed to NASA uses the SLS though. Its just a freakishly looking lander and doesn‘t transport astronauts from earth to the moon.

[Flying dutchman]

1 minute ago, Canopus said:

The thing they proposed to NASA uses the SLS though. Its just a freakishly looking lander and doesn‘t transport astronauts from earth to the moon.

I heard it does. Just not from the surface..

 

Refueled lunar starship in orbit- normal capsule docks with it and crew transfers into starship. Starship burns to the moon, Gets in to orbit- lands - goes back in to orbit where the crew is picked up by a capsule for the return.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

  

34 minutes ago, Flying dutchman said:

38 minutes ago, Canopus said:

The thing they proposed to NASA uses the SLS though. Its just a freakishly looking lander and doesn‘t transport astronauts from earth to the moon.

I heard it does. Just not from the surface..

Catches from rocketjump...

 

[Wjolcz]

49 minutes ago, Canopus said:

The thing they proposed to NASA uses the SLS though.

Because it needs to, or because they are desperately trying to prove Orion is needed?

They could use any other crew vehicle for this and just rendezvous in LEO.

[Canopus]

SpaceX wants to win the Contract so they are doing LOR simple as that. Its not about what that thing could hypothetically do. Still its not going to happen anyway.

EOR would also eliminate the ability to abort the mission on the way to the moon.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Canopus

[Wjolcz]

3 hours ago, Canopus said:

Still its not going to happen anyway.

Falcon Heavy is not a real rocket and SLS is going to fly first. Boeing will design and build a lunar lander.

Predicting the future is hard.

[Canopus]

@Wjolcz falcon heavy was supposed to fly in 2013. So its not impossible just way optimistic to have Starship flying soon. And i know, the next thing someone will say is that FH changed significantly, well so does Starship constantly.

[tater]

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

@Wjolcz falcon heavy was supposed to fly in 2013. So its not impossible just way optimistic to have Starship flying soon. And i know, the next thing someone will say is that FH changed significantly, well so does Starship constantly.

FH wasn't funded at anything like SLS levels. Total FH spending was probably a few months of nominal SLS program costs.

What a company does to develop a new product needs to be on their own schedule.

[RealKerbal3x]

7 hours ago, Canopus said:

The thing they proposed to NASA uses the SLS though. Its just a freakishly looking lander and doesn‘t transport astronauts from earth to the moon.

It's meant to launch using the Super Heavy booster, not SLS. It's meant to dock with a crew vehicle in lunar orbit.

[Canopus]

1 minute ago, RealKerbal3x said:

It's meant to launch using the Super Heavy booster, not SLS. It's meant to dock with a crew vehicle in lunar orbit.

Thats what i‘m saying, the starship in this scenario is not an alternative to SLS.

[RealKerbal3x]

4 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Thats what i‘m saying, the starship in this scenario is not an alternative to SLS.

Yes, but it needs the full Starship launch system to be operational for orbital refuelling, which is necessary for the design to work. If it flies enough in its uncrewed state, it could eventually be crew-rated, which would allow it to totally leave SLS in the dust.

Edited May 1, 2020 by RealKerbal3x

[tater]

38 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Thats what i‘m saying, the starship in this scenario is not an alternative to SLS.

Exactly. NASA has political realities, and one is that SLS/Orion will continue to be a thing until it isn't. That point won't be reached until there is something off the shelf that eliminates it, SLS isn't about spending money to do stuff, it's doing stuff to spend money.

As such, all the NASA lunar plans must include Orion. That's just political reality.

Going forward, assuming a crew Starship for space use (not for launch or Earth EDL), there could certainly be a simple evolution that includes Orion, and dumps SLS. Launch Orion on NG. NG is crew rated from the start (BO has always said that all their vehicles will be crew rated). NG can easily loft Orion to LEO. Lunar Starship could always return to LEO via aerobraking, uncrewed (many passes to avoid overheating). Gets filled up in LEO. NG brings Orion, Orion docks. SS takes itself, and Orion, with crew on SS to LLO. SS leaves Orion in LLO, and goes to the surface. Returns to LLO, crew boards Orion, and heads home.

If SS is to fly multiple flights from and to Gateway, SpaceX will have to fill a tanker, then send the tanker to Gateway to refill it anyway. They could also dock Orion to that tanker and use SS tanker as a ferry for Orion.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

  

 

7 minutes ago, tater said:

As such, all the NASA lunar plans must include Orion. That's just political reality.

They should rename it into Orion M.H. _{must have}

 

[tater]

^^^It's certainly a "MH" part of any Artemis contract right now.

[RCgothic]

I like the joke how the best way to get Orion to the moon is to stick it in Starship's cargo bay.

[tater]

This is not COVID related, really belongs in the Artemis thread, but Orion is a Constellation vehicle, and only suited for the same sorts of mission profiles. For whatever reason it got stuck on top of SLS, but should it get moved to NG, it's back to being very Constellation-like.

Ares 1 was supposed to cost ~1.6 B$/flight (!). Of course Orion is over a billion, so unsurprising.

A NG launch with Orion might be 100 million not counting the spacecraft, so about the same as Orion cost wise (<10% more).