4 ms·

> It means establishing a renewed American presence on the moon... > And from the foundation of the moon... This is potentially bad news for SLS/Orion. They ha

> It means establishing a renewed American presence on the moon... > And from the foundation of the moon... This is potentially bad news for SLS/Orion. They have no ability to land on the Moon. SLS doesn't do retro-propulsion and Orion can only land on Earth's ocean using heat shields and parachutes. That's why NASA has pushed for asteroid missions and building a space station around the Moon. Those are things that SLS can do. Of course if the intention is to land on the moon this is very good news for SpaceX and Blue Origin, both of whom have working retro-propulsion landings under their belt. Arguably, Blue Origin is in an ever better position than SpaceX since their New Shepard is about the right size for a moon lander. SpaceX would have to develop one. (Dragon 2 was originally supposed to do retro-propulsion landing, but NASA nixed the idea of landing legs that extended from a heat shield, so the idea was dropped. They would either have to develop a lander version of Dragon 2, or wait until the BFS is available)

lwansbrough 9y ago
Fortunately, SpaceX begins production of their moon lander in 6-9 months! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQ0jBKH36Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQ0jBKH36Y Edit: realized you were probably referring to this when you said BFS.
- bmcusick 9y ago
  Yup, that's what I meant. I don't know how reliable those Elonian schedules are though. :-p
simonh 9y ago
New Shepard far too big, with far too much delta V for a moon lander. It’s design parameters are all wrong. Also SpaceX has a perfectly suitable propulsion system in the SuperDracos. The truth is none of the existing or currently planned systems, other than BFR, would make any sense as lunar landers. They’re just not designed for it. Dragon and Orion are Apollo Command Module replacements, not LEM replacements. For lunar landings and excursions we’d need a new vehicle along the lines of the LEM. Lightweight, vacuum only, reusable and refuelable with an ‘infinitely’ restartable engine. SLS would be perfectly capable of launching such a vehicle, in fact that’s exactly the sort of thing it’s designed for.
- randyrand 9y ago
  Why not just use the Saturn V designs? Are they that bad?
  - Inconel 9y ago
    As magnificent as the Apollo program was, and the Saturn V in particular, it was an incredibly expensive and complex launch system, unsustainably so. Additionally, even if you did want to recreate a Saturn V, the designs themselves aren't going to get you very far. Most of the tooling has been lost likely along with much of the institutional know how, especially on the technician side of things. I'd be very surprised if you could recreate a functioning Saturn V for a lower cost than designing an entirely new launch system.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster > As part of the Space Launch System (SLS) program, NASA had been running the Advanced Booster Competition, which was scheduled to end with the selection of a winning booster configuration in 2015. In 2012, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) proposed using a derivative of the F-1 engine in the competition as a liquid rocket booster ... The F-1B engine has a design goal to be at least as powerful as the un-flight-tested F-1A, while also being more cost effective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-3#Pyrios https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-3#Pyrios > Developed during the later stages of the Apollo program, the F-1A was test fired, but never flew. Several were crated and stored by Rocketdyne (later Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne). The company has also maintained an F-1/F-1A knowledge retention program for its engineers for the entire period the engine has been mothballed. Also, https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engine-upgrades-apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engi... .
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        And this engine lost the SLS competition to the SSME+solids. So yes, it's an interesting point that the Saturn V engine might still be buildable, but it's not cost effective today, and it's not the Saturn V rocket.

lwansbrough 9y ago

Fortunately, SpaceX begins production of their moon lander in 6-9 months! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQ0jBKH36Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQ0jBKH36Y Edit: realized you were probably referring to this when you said BFS.

bmcusick 9y ago
Yup, that's what I meant. I don't know how reliable those Elonian schedules are though. :-p

simonh 9y ago

New Shepard far too big, with far too much delta V for a moon lander. It’s design parameters are all wrong. Also SpaceX has a perfectly suitable propulsion system in the SuperDracos. The truth is none of the existing or currently planned systems, other than BFR, would make any sense as lunar landers. They’re just not designed for it. Dragon and Orion are Apollo Command Module replacements, not LEM replacements. For lunar landings and excursions we’d need a new vehicle along the lines of the LEM. Lightweight, vacuum only, reusable and refuelable with an ‘infinitely’ restartable engine. SLS would be perfectly capable of launching such a vehicle, in fact that’s exactly the sort of thing it’s designed for.

randyrand 9y ago
Why not just use the Saturn V designs? Are they that bad?
- Inconel 9y ago
  As magnificent as the Apollo program was, and the Saturn V in particular, it was an incredibly expensive and complex launch system, unsustainably so. Additionally, even if you did want to recreate a Saturn V, the designs themselves aren't going to get you very far. Most of the tooling has been lost likely along with much of the institutional know how, especially on the technician side of things. I'd be very surprised if you could recreate a functioning Saturn V for a lower cost than designing an entirely new launch system.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster > As part of the Space Launch System (SLS) program, NASA had been running the Advanced Booster Competition, which was scheduled to end with the selection of a winning booster configuration in 2015. In 2012, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) proposed using a derivative of the F-1 engine in the competition as a liquid rocket booster ... The F-1B engine has a design goal to be at least as powerful as the un-flight-tested F-1A, while also being more cost effective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-3#Pyrios https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-3#Pyrios > Developed during the later stages of the Apollo program, the F-1A was test fired, but never flew. Several were crated and stored by Rocketdyne (later Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne). The company has also maintained an F-1/F-1A knowledge retention program for its engineers for the entire period the engine has been mothballed. Also, https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engine-upgrades-apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engi... .
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      And this engine lost the SLS competition to the SSME+solids. So yes, it's an interesting point that the Saturn V engine might still be buildable, but it's not cost effective today, and it's not the Saturn V rocket.