11 thoughts on “NASA’s Return-To-The-Moon Plans”

  1. It’s clear the political process has corrupted the agency.
    As I’ve pointed out before, we’d best be served if the ‘Administration’ noun were completely removed from it’s name. As an advisory organization NASA could serve a purpose. For example; in reference the subsequent post here, it’d be helpful if NASA were to relaunch another study into the feasibility of Space Solar Power on both small and large scales using the proposed next generation reusable rockets.

  2. I must be missing something. They claim to have payloads ready now but only one “provider” actually has any sort of actual launch capability.

    All the rest are at the “We have an idea to make a lot of money from the Moon, all we need is money enough for everything else.” stage.

  3. In a day before SpaceX’s Super Heavy and Spaceship, Gateway would have been great. The idea still has some merit but not for delivering people as if everything works out, SpaceX can deliver far more people at less expense.

    The good news is, as Berger noted, NASA is on a dual track. Lunar prospecting missions wont have to wait for SLS. Whether or not this part of the effort moves fast enough is a mystery. It has taken a long time to get where they are now with it.

  4. –“We want to strike a balance between getting to the Moon as fast as possible while also, when we get to the Moon, we’re there to stay,” NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said during a media call before the event. “This is the big vision.”–

    I don’t think NASA should stay on the Moon. And don’t NASA should stay on ISS.
    But we should continue ISS and continue with the Moon.

    NASA should have 40 billion dollar lunar exploration program and be finished with program in less than 10 years. And then start a 100 billion Mars program that uses the 100 billion dollars within 10 years, and continue with Mars program until it’s finished- which could require another 100 billion dollar for 10 years. It could be less than 100 billion dollars and/or could more than another 10 years. I generally tend to think it should take about 2 decades to finish the Mars exploration program.

    Both Lunar and Mars is mostly about water.
    Does lunar poles have mineable water and where is there some mineable lunar water.
    Does Mars have mineable water and where is there enough water, that this water can be cheap to extract a lot of water [billions of tons of it].
    There is a market for lunar water and it could be a small amount as compared to Mars. One mine a region which had as little as 10,000 tons. With Mars one needs a lot more water at some site.
    Price of water on Moon can start around $1000 per kg.
    Price of water on Mars has to be much cheaper.
    Lunar water has to be amount one can extract in near term, Mars is more about long term use of water and lots available to extract when it’s needed. Though immediate use of Mars water could huge, but not large amounts which are used for rocket fuel.
    Or a large reserve of water which is accessible, is the location of real estate for settlements on Mars.
    The Moon’s value is not some where to live, one can work on the Moon while living on Earth [or more correctly a large portion of people working on the Moon, don’t have to live on the Moon].
    Lunar water make the Moon useful. Mars water makes Mars livable.

    NASA has stop funding ISS when it starts Mars program, it continue ISS funding while doing lunar program. NASA needs to solve ISS, so as to not take option of de-orbiting it. It should work this out, while finishing lunar program. But first it needs to start the lunar program. It should should start with lunar robotic program and end with Manned and robotic program, and both transfer to Mars program. About 1/2 of 40 billion lunar budget should robotic, and about 1/2 Mars program should be robotic.
    A problem with robotic exploration is it’s slow and takes quite while before it can launch. A good thing about Manned is it’s fast [and gets a lot done].

    1. I think it is likely people do tours on the Moon, with maybe a trip to rehabilitate at a station with artificial gravity, rather than live there in any significant numbers. Has anyone made the case that it is a pleasant place to live from a physiological standpoint?

      I know there are a lot of people who think it will be awesome but I don’t know what they are basing that decision on and it is highly idiosyncratic. It’s not like there is a guarantee their offspring or mates will enjoy it. Hard to have a society where a significant portion of your youth want to leave. Of course, they might not have that choice. We don’t know yet.

      1. ” Has anyone made the case that it is a pleasant place to live from a physiological standpoint?”

        You can fly like a bird?
        And things [blowing fans] that can make fly like bird on Earth, would work better on the Moon or Mars.

        Fat people might be happier.

        One can not escape the general premise that the human body evolved on 1 gee world.
        But also possible that in some cases low gravity could have health benefit for some people.
        I tend to think varying or adjustable gravity is more likely to have health benefit as compared to simply a low gravity.

        Though possible low gravity has no net benefit to anyone and changes of gravity environments has as bad or worst effects over long term.
        But in short term, if injured, crippled, elderly, and gravity is a problem, lower gravity could be less of a problem.

        1. Provided, of course, that the minutes-long multi-G launch required to get to all that nice long-term low-G doesn’t kill you first.

          The lame, the halt and the blind are tricky enough to take care of on Earth. The Moon, like the Old West, is going to be plenty tough enough for the able-bodied in the early going. The Earthrise Rest Home and Sanitarium is going to have to wait awhile.

  6. This sort of plan appeals to Old Space Age nostalgia. It was how we were going to get to the Moon and Mars, starting out with Von Braun’s 1949 “Die Mars Projekt.” (The English translation is well worth reading, including the tidbit that Von Braun himself, like so many space enthusiasts, did not understand the inclination of the LEO station was irrelevant). Had Gateway been proposed as a major plan and enacted in 1990, I would have been thrilled. And it would have worked! Now? We’re leaving for Earth the way Tom Corbett, Spacde Cadet intended all along: in a spaceship. (Yes, I know Tom’s Solar Guard cruiser was nuclear. But ya gotta start somewhere…).

  8. I appreciate the NASA desire to speed up the timeline of lunar missions.

    But…

    The three-stage lunar-lander architecture NASA insists on seems exceedingly odd to me. Particularly if the eventual goal is reusability and refueling of the lander.

    Supposedly the problem is the payload limitations of the launch vehicles, which forces a three stage lander design. Uh, okay?

    So why does NASA insist on a four man crew if that forces the lunar lander to use three stages? Why not a two man lander for the initial capability? Maybe a single stage lander would suffice for a two man crew?

    However all that being said, the answer to the NASA specifications seems fairly obvious. Just comprise the NASA lunar lander of three full sized landers, each of which is partially fueled to comply with the payload limits of the launch vehicles, and each of which functions as one of the NASA lander ‘stages’.

    That way you only have to design one vehicle instead of three, and when refueling is finally available (or a larger launch vehicle?) you could switch to using just one ‘stage’ for the entire mission and with full reusability.

    Besides, a large lunar lander is what’s needed for early one way cargo missions from LEO to the lunar surface. And a large lander inevitably provides you with a vehicle capable as a single-stage reusable lunar lander able to fly from the surface to Gateway, then return to the surface for refueling at a lunar base.

Comments are closed.