4 ms·
Man that we still have to argue this is so sad. This has been explained over and over again since 2011 when congress forced NASA into SLS. Launching a moon mi
by panick21_ 4y ago
Man that we still have to argue this is so sad.
This has been explained over and over again since 2011 when congress forced NASA into SLS.
Launching a moon mission on standard commercial rockets is absolutely possible. Many different architectures have been proposed to do that. Its really not a question at all.
Its not about 'matching capabilities' because Artemis is currently designed such that it requires SLS. So of course if you design to program to the rocket you were forced to use, then of course its the only option.
When the NASA Administrator in 2019 proposed to shift to Falcon Heavy he was almost fired and was given a mouth guard on the topic. NASA was not allowed to invest single $ into any program that could threaten the existence of SLS/Orion.
NASA is barley even allowed to make studies that suggest an alternative.
Just in very simple terms a few possible architecture:
1. This is if you are forced to keep Orion. You need to change Orion so Orion and a slightly larger Service Module can dock in orbit, rather then launch together. Each one can launch on a Falcon Heavy. This alone would give you 3.5 billion to invest into the service module and other related cost. And over the 2020 would save about 15 billion $ or more.
2. You can throw away both SLS and Orion if you add extension tank into the cargo trunk of Dragon then it could do basically the same as Orion/SM does now. That would literally save 5 billion a year and would easily be enough to make a real service module.
3. The Artemis architecture already requires a moon lander. Instead of SLS/Orion you can launch people into LEO with Crew Dragon or Starliner, there they would transition into the moon lander. And the journey to moon and back would be in the lander.
There are many other way. Almost every other way is cheaper then SLS/Orion. Try to do the math yourself.
But of course the problem is, NASA is simply not allow to advocate or design such missions architectures. Any architecture that cuts out SLS or Orion is stillborn because of politics.
- killyourcar 4y agoI'm arguing that we have the SLS today and we don't have another compatible option. Is SLS the best outcome? Of course not, if we had a time machine would we go do it differently, of course. But it's sitting on the pad today and nothing else is.
- panick21_ 4y agoWe don't have 'the SLS' as a viable rocket. We have a single SLS, when this one launches. SLS will not exist anymore for many years to come, hopefully launching again in 2024 more likely 2025. So SLS really doesn't exist practically. That is the problem with incredibly low launch rates. > But it's sitting on the pad today and nothing else is. Falcon Heavy has been ready to use for 3 years and you could easily design a moon mission around Falcon Heavy. Hell you could even use Atlas or Falcon 9.
- killyourcar 4y agoOk, get a falcon heavy configured to launch a mission around the moon by, say, Friday. When the SLS is on the pad. You cannot just wave your hand and say SpaceX. As much as I think it's the better option to use falcon heavy, it's not ready this week.
- panick21_ 4y agoThat is such a ridiculous statement to make. Its literally trolling and not making an argument. Nobody says this first SLS shouldn't launch. Not that it would matter much if it didn't, but still. The discussion is about forward looking space policy for the next 10 years, for the whole Artemis program. SLS will fly LITERALLY 1 and then not again for 2-4 years. In that time a strategy change can and should be made.
- killyourcar 4y agoThis thread is full of people hoping it fails to launch.
- panick21_ 4y agoSome people say that, reading all the discussion far few people hope that it fails then that the program overall should get reformed, ie. SLS/Orion should get dropped.
- 4y ago