4 ms·

There are multiple launch systems that will have the payload capacity to go straight to the moon within the next few years. Why not just use those? No one wil

There are multiple launch systems that will have the payload capacity to go straight to the moon within the next few years. Why not just use those? No one will care about a Lunar space station, it's not enough of a step forward to capture the public's attention. It's sad that NASA's 'futuristic' new proposal is to do half of what we were able to do 50 years ago. People will quickly vote to cut funding for it, and maybe they should.

avmich 7y ago
> There are multiple launch systems that will have the payload capacity to go straight to the moon within the next few years. Why not just use those? Maybe SLS and BFR - but those are not nearly ready, and SLS may not be able to launch directly to the Moon what we may require to launch this time. Remember that one of the problems of today is significantly lower risk tolerances. We'll want system to be much safer, and that will translate into more mass of the system for all kinds of backups. So Saturn-V or similar payload throwers won't cut it this time. BFR may - but this is much less visible on the horizon. > No one will care about a Lunar space station... People will quickly vote to cut funding... I doubt. ISS may be seen as a giant step back from Apollo (even if it has a pile of its own benefits). Comparing to ISS Gateway is a significant step forward. Just imagine: deep space instead of "just" 400 km up, Moon vicinity, flights measured in days and not because one need to synchronize orbits; platform for telescopes which are much more stationary and aren't obscured with Earth every hour... And launching expedition to the Moon from Gateway can be that much more convenient.