5 ms·

The main component missing for an American crewed lunar landing is a lunar lander, which is planned to be a version of the Starship https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

The main component missing for an American crewed lunar landing is a lunar lander, which is planned to be a version of the Starship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS

dotnet00 3y ago
And spacesuits, NASA has been impressively ineffective at getting any kind of new spacesuit designs going, they're still just cycling between the leftovers from the shuttle.
- calderknight 3y ago
  Apparently, they can't do their lunar spacesuits until they do their lander > What's more, delays to Starship have knock-on effects because the spacesuit contractor needs to know how the suits will interface with the spacecraft, and simulators need to be built for astronauts to learn its systems. From https://web.archive.org/web/20230809230628/https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/nasa-may-delay-crewed-lunar-landing-beyond-artemis-3-mission-3686686 https://web.archive.org/web/20230809230628/https://www.chann...
chpatrick 3y ago
According to that article the astronauts would go to orbit in an SLS then get into the Starship lander in orbit. Is that just for political reasons so there's some point to the SLS?
- yoz-y 3y ago
  Afaik starship doesn't have and will not have an abort system. Lacking that, NASA will never put humans in it for takeoff from Earth.
  - chpatrick 3y ago
    SpaceX already takes people to the ISS though right?
    - chriswarbo 3y ago
      Yes, on Falcon 9/Dragon. That differs from Starship w.r.t. human-rating in a few ways: - Dragon can do an emergency abort, by (a) accelerating away from the booster and (b) parachuting down to a soft-landing. Starship's upper stage is so massive that such acceleration and soft-landing seem out of reach (ideally an emergency-fallback-everything-has-gone-wrong mode shouldn't rely on tricky maneuvers like their landing flip!). There may be ways around that, e.g. using an ejectable module, but it would all need designing, building, testing, validating, etc. - Falcon 9 needed to prove its reliability by performing many successful uncrewed missions. Starship will need to take the same approach, but hasn't managed any yet ;) - SpaceX had to stop making changes/improvements to Falcon 9, since NASA would reset the successful-mission-count back to zero after major changes. SpaceX was willing to do that, since they had another rocket to focus on (Starship). Also, it helped that Falcon 9 had already exceeded their expectations by the "Block 5" design (which is why Falcon Heavy hasn't seen much use; Falcon 9 is very capable on its own!). Even when Starship is reliably launching, it will likely undergo design changes for a while. - Getting Starship to the Moon will need in-orbit refuelling. That's untested, and more dangerous than docking and crew transfer (which is now routine), so it makes sense to launch the crew separately and transfer them to an already-refuelled Starship. This doesn't add much complexity, since refuelling requires multiple launches, orbital rendezvous and docking anyway. The choice of crew launcher is then arbitrary: SLS, Falcon 9, Soyuz, Starship, etc. (Earth) launch and landing will be the hardest parts to get crew-rated, if they ever are. Perhaps the only human-rated approaches will be smaller, safer systems like Soyuz (or some modern replacement on that scale), with immediate transfer to a Starship or space station once orbital. Given its cargo lifting capacity, and station-sized living space, that would still be a great improvement over today (although maybe not enough to pay back SpaceX's costs)
      - chpatrick 3y ago
        I mean why don't the astronauts go to Starship in orbit on a Falcon 9 instead of the very expensive SLS? Just because it's a sunk cost?

dotnet00 3y ago

And spacesuits, NASA has been impressively ineffective at getting any kind of new spacesuit designs going, they're still just cycling between the leftovers from the shuttle.

calderknight 3y ago
Apparently, they can't do their lunar spacesuits until they do their lander > What's more, delays to Starship have knock-on effects because the spacesuit contractor needs to know how the suits will interface with the spacecraft, and simulators need to be built for astronauts to learn its systems. From https://web.archive.org/web/20230809230628/https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/nasa-may-delay-crewed-lunar-landing-beyond-artemis-3-mission-3686686 https://web.archive.org/web/20230809230628/https://www.chann...

chpatrick 3y ago

According to that article the astronauts would go to orbit in an SLS then get into the Starship lander in orbit. Is that just for political reasons so there's some point to the SLS?

yoz-y 3y ago
Afaik starship doesn't have and will not have an abort system. Lacking that, NASA will never put humans in it for takeoff from Earth.
- chpatrick 3y ago
  SpaceX already takes people to the ISS though right?
  - chriswarbo 3y ago
    Yes, on Falcon 9/Dragon. That differs from Starship w.r.t. human-rating in a few ways: - Dragon can do an emergency abort, by (a) accelerating away from the booster and (b) parachuting down to a soft-landing. Starship's upper stage is so massive that such acceleration and soft-landing seem out of reach (ideally an emergency-fallback-everything-has-gone-wrong mode shouldn't rely on tricky maneuvers like their landing flip!). There may be ways around that, e.g. using an ejectable module, but it would all need designing, building, testing, validating, etc. - Falcon 9 needed to prove its reliability by performing many successful uncrewed missions. Starship will need to take the same approach, but hasn't managed any yet ;) - SpaceX had to stop making changes/improvements to Falcon 9, since NASA would reset the successful-mission-count back to zero after major changes. SpaceX was willing to do that, since they had another rocket to focus on (Starship). Also, it helped that Falcon 9 had already exceeded their expectations by the "Block 5" design (which is why Falcon Heavy hasn't seen much use; Falcon 9 is very capable on its own!). Even when Starship is reliably launching, it will likely undergo design changes for a while. - Getting Starship to the Moon will need in-orbit refuelling. That's untested, and more dangerous than docking and crew transfer (which is now routine), so it makes sense to launch the crew separately and transfer them to an already-refuelled Starship. This doesn't add much complexity, since refuelling requires multiple launches, orbital rendezvous and docking anyway. The choice of crew launcher is then arbitrary: SLS, Falcon 9, Soyuz, Starship, etc. (Earth) launch and landing will be the hardest parts to get crew-rated, if they ever are. Perhaps the only human-rated approaches will be smaller, safer systems like Soyuz (or some modern replacement on that scale), with immediate transfer to a Starship or space station once orbital. Given its cargo lifting capacity, and station-sized living space, that would still be a great improvement over today (although maybe not enough to pay back SpaceX's costs)
    - chpatrick 3y ago
      I mean why don't the astronauts go to Starship in orbit on a Falcon 9 instead of the very expensive SLS? Just because it's a sunk cost?