3 ms·
We have so much of so good off-the-shelf technology, that technically the only thing seriously missing is the lunar lander. Practically all components today are
by avmich 7y ago
We have so much of so good off-the-shelf technology, that technically the only thing seriously missing is the lunar lander. Practically all components today are better or significantly better than in 1960-s - engines, materials, control systems, electrical power, spacesuits, radios.
However, the crucial difference is the risk tolerance, and here we have much higher requirements than we had, and that is what adds months and years to development and billions to costs. Some lunar lander could be created in time - we have variety of technologies, and people working on similar things. But to have it reliable so we'd be happy to send humans to the surface in 5 years - that requires a crash program with significant budget right now.
- jvanderbot 7y agoCommercial lunar landers are fully part of the lunar exploration / habitation plan. I sincerely doubt NASA will be building a custom lander any time soon. What may get funded is novel rover types or instrument payloads on the commercial space taxi industry (which everyone I know is quite enthusiastic about, by the way). The vast majority of space launch, lift, transport, etc tech is mostly commercially made, ranging from pure COTS to custom-built. The emerging space-lift / space-logistics industry may make NASA missions significantly more cost effective.
- boltzmannbrain 7y agoThrough NASA's Lunar CATALYST program [1] there are three companies contracted for lunar lander dev: Astrobotic, Masten, and Moon Express [2]. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst [2] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-extends-agreements-to-advance-commercial-lunar-landers https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-extends-agreements-to-adva...
- rory096 7y agoDon't miss the $45.5 million awarded to 11 companies last week for prototype work under the NextSTEP program: https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-11-companies-for-lunar-lander-studies/ https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-11-companies-for-lunar-la...
- nickik 7y agoThe difference is that NASA has devolved into a pork operation where most of its money is bound up in hopeless projects protected by important congress members. Smart mission driven planning is impossible. Its not risk tolerance, its managment.
- skykooler 7y agoWhat about Blue Origin's Blue Moon lander?
- the_duke 7y agoThat's a paper project specifically created to get funding from NASA.
- sq_ 7y agoI'm really unsure about what to think of Blue Origin in general. They've been around for a good long while now, and all they seem to be doing is making big promises about New Glenn and living in orbit while only showing little tidbits of progress on small scale projects.
- monk_e_boy 7y agoBezos has a good track record of making things work, so I'd bet that he'll get there in the end.
- sq_ 7y agoGood point, although I do wonder what will happen to them if SpaceX gets Starship working before they can get New Glenn flying/reusable/cheap... would Bezos just keep pouring money in?
- tzs 7y agoWhat today is better than the Saturn V? That thing could put something like 3x the mass into lunar orbit than the Falcon Heavy.
- avmich 7y agoSaturn V flew about twice a year. I think it's easier today to get Falcon Heavy to fly 6 times a year, matching total payload, or to fly even more frequently. We have about 20 launches of Falcon 9, with 20+ tons payload each, which totals to 400+ tons annual - which is more than Saturn V carried per year.
- ChuckMcM 7y agoYeah this. There are two things that work in our favor, one is that Falcon Heavy can (in theory) launch more quickly. And second, the mass needed to achieve a similar capability is greatly reduced due to materials technology. The only missing piece is that it would be nice to use cryogenic fuels but these outgas over time so long duration is not a thing. Solving the on-orbit refueling puzzle would make this sort of endeavor pretty straight forward from a planning standpoint.
- btilly 7y agoThat requires orbital construction. Also that imposes very severe constraints on size and shape of those pieces. This is not technology that we have demonstrated in a meaningful way. For example the stage of the Apollo mission that took it from Earth orbit to a trajectory that would intercept the Moon was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB, which nearly twice the maximum payload of the Falcon Heavy. Do you really want to trust this step to a rocket that has to be assembled and fueled in space?
- nostrademons 7y agoWould you still need as heavy a lunar interceptor as the S-IVB? The Wikipedia page for it indicates that the S-IVB's engine was burned twice, once for the final push to achieve LEO and one for translunar injection. It was done this way so that the S-IB and S-V could share a common interface to the command & lunar modues for LEO flight tests. The Falcon Heavy goes straight to LEO; presumably you'd build a custom launch vehicle for TLI and landing and not need the portion of the S-IVB's propellant used to get to LEO.