NASA Seeks Backup Plan for Carrying Astronauts to the Moon (cnn.com) 51
An anonymous reader shared this report from CNN:
[C]iting delays in Starship's development and competitive pressure from China, NASA asked SpaceX and Blue Origin — which holds a separate lunar lander contract with the space agency — to submit plans to expedite development of their respective spacecraft by October 29. Both companies have responded. But the space agency is also asking the broader commercial space industry to detail how they might get the job done more quickly, hinting that NASA leadership is prepared to sideline its current partners. CNN spoke with half a dozen companies about how they plan to respond to NASA's call to action, which the agency will formally issue once the government shutdown ends, according to a source familiar with the matter.
One possibility is Lockheed Martin... Notably, as a legacy NASA contractor, the company built the $20.4 billion Orion spacecraft that astronauts will ride when they take off from Earth... Now, Lockheed says it can piece together a two-stage lunar lander that uses spare parts harvested from Orion. The company would make use of Space Shuttle-era OMS-E engines — which are also used on Orion — to serve as the propulsion for an "ascent stage" of the lunar lander, providing the thrust for the vehicle to lift off the moon after a mission is completed. But the vehicle also needs a descent stage to get down to the lunar surface in the first place...
Other commercial space companies contacted by CNN — including Firefly Aerospace and Northrop Grumman — said simply that they were "ready to support" NASA in its endeavor to find a faster way to complete the Artemis III mission. They did not confirm whether they would formally respond to the space agency's anticipated request for companies to submit proposals.
The more important goal, argue some experts, is to pave the way for a permanent lunar base where astronauts can live and work... [P]erhaps the true winner will be the country that is able to build lasting infrastructure, experts say. "It makes great press fodder to frame this as competition," said one space policy source, who was among several that spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity to discuss controversial issues. "But this is about the long game and the sustainability."
One possibility is Lockheed Martin... Notably, as a legacy NASA contractor, the company built the $20.4 billion Orion spacecraft that astronauts will ride when they take off from Earth... Now, Lockheed says it can piece together a two-stage lunar lander that uses spare parts harvested from Orion. The company would make use of Space Shuttle-era OMS-E engines — which are also used on Orion — to serve as the propulsion for an "ascent stage" of the lunar lander, providing the thrust for the vehicle to lift off the moon after a mission is completed. But the vehicle also needs a descent stage to get down to the lunar surface in the first place...
Other commercial space companies contacted by CNN — including Firefly Aerospace and Northrop Grumman — said simply that they were "ready to support" NASA in its endeavor to find a faster way to complete the Artemis III mission. They did not confirm whether they would formally respond to the space agency's anticipated request for companies to submit proposals.
The more important goal, argue some experts, is to pave the way for a permanent lunar base where astronauts can live and work... [P]erhaps the true winner will be the country that is able to build lasting infrastructure, experts say. "It makes great press fodder to frame this as competition," said one space policy source, who was among several that spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity to discuss controversial issues. "But this is about the long game and the sustainability."
Why the hurry? (Score:4, Interesting)
I get that NASA wants to beat China or whatever. But this isn't the Cold War. Plus, we have been there multiple times already. China is looking for try #1.
So why the hurry?
Increase risk. Probably increase cost. And for what? Specifically?
What tangible and specific reason, other than "beat China", is there to get there say, six months earlier than otherwise?
Why?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why the hurry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Why the hurry? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, if you really want to give the magas their little victory... let the US landing take place in the same spot as the Chinese landing. Rip their flag out of the lunar soil. Replace it with a big beautiful American flag. (Twice as high!) Bring the Chinese flag back to earth and put it in a museum in Washington DC.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not necessarily reading this as they want to advance the timeline but perhaps facing reality that as Artemis III is set for sometimes in 2027 and that the SLS and Orion capsules for that mission are well underway (and the ESA already delivered it's service module) is that the landing systems may be what ends up holding the launch date back, which the idea that SLS is on schedule is kinda funny.
Re: (Score:3)
In the future I expect history books to call this the Second Cold War, Cold War Part 2: Electric Boogaloo, Cold War 2.0, or something along those lines.
or ww3.
If we choose not to participate in this cold war with sufficient speed and effort then that could embolden China to turn up the heat on that war and do something that could cost us more in wealth and lives later on.
i don't really think the chinese are in a race with the us, they are in a race by themselves. they would surely cheer if they got there "first" (ok, second first, or first of the new era), but if they really wanted to beat the us badly they could just close the tap on rare earths and set it back about a decade. that is if artemis 3 even gets there, and there are some serious concerns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
If we choose not to participate in this cold war with sufficient speed and effort then that could embolden China to turn up the heat on that war
2 points:
on the possibility of war:
a frontal china/us war is unlikely, as it would
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not watching an hour long video to get your point. You couldn't have found a clip from the video to link to? Or point to a few minutes in the video?
he basically explains all those shareholders and directors in the room that they're not daring to ask the hard questions, and points at a few of those. it is an interesting and quite fun talk, destin is very smart and a great communicator, but here is a summary: those people in the room didn't even know why they are going to use a near rectilinear halo orbit to approach the moon, how much fuel will be needed for that (which will have to be cryogenically transfered in space via additional rockets, which has
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. It would be interesting to see how the USA would respond to China attacking any American allied nations. I'm not sure we are discussing the same thing though. China simply cannot attack the continental USA
we are in agreement on that. i ruled that out above ("china attacking the us would go badly for them as well if it even made any sense, which it wouldn't."). the us is probably the safest countries on the planet, besides the sole idea that china would want to do that seems outlandish to me. what for?
for similar reasons i don't think that the us would ever attack mainland china with conventional means. it would be a crazy idea, they wouldn't succeed, at maximum they would be able to dish out considerable dam
Re: Why the hurry? (Score:1)
Re: Why the hurry? (Score:1)
...the traditional big aggressor in the East is Japan...
That was then - these days they're pretending to be cartoon characters and killing themselves in the forest.
Back off for a larger picture, and... (Score:5, Interesting)
pay attention to the players and some history.
There are some large and powerful companies who, over the decades, have become very dependent upon cost-plus contacts for large government projects that the congress gets all animated about, and upon which congress is willing to overlook massive cost overruns while firing the money cannon. It happens on big defense projects and big space projects where "national security" (the claim, not necessarily the reality) and "national prestige" are supposedly on the line.
With the Shuttle program ended, those contractors and the congress intended the work (and jobs, and pork) be kept with the same big aerospace firms and thus were Orion and the SLS launch vehicle born at MASSIVE cost to the taxpayers and with INSANE schedule slips. This was largely justified as a matter of national prestige. With the ISS about to end, and the currently-supported-by-both-political-parties goal of a return to the Moon and and enduring presence there, the big aerospace vendors were all happy to line-up for another high-profile set of contracts that they would under-bid and then drag-out for YEARS of delays and massively inflate the costs on... until some bad stuff (from their perspective) which they did not anticipate happened...
SpaceX showed up in the launch market and did what they'd never been willing to do: make launched much cheaper by re-using boosters (Something NOBODY who is sane and who has cost-plus contracts would ever do). Then, after making Falcon9 the most frequent flyer, SpaceX started working on its Mars rocket and offered is up as a candidate in the lunar project.
When NASA opened-up the bidding for a lunar lander, the big boys bid high (as always) and SpaceX bid low (since they were offering a dumbed-down version of their Mars lander which they were independently developing and funding anyway) and with Congress not sufficiently prepped for panic-spending NASA found that with its limited funds already largely consumed by Boeing and LockMart on SLS and Orion, it could only afford the SpaceX option. SpaceX thus won the Lunar lander contract. After the award, the big boys applied the appropriate bribes (err... "campaign contributions") and got congress to pony-up more money and force NASA to award a contract for a second lander - which went to a team including some of the big firms but lead by Blue Origin.
Other space startups appeared. RocketLab started launching payloads into orbit and became quite reliable, before starting development of a fully reusable medium lifter (Neutron). Sierra was working on Dream Chaser (Not a lunar thing, but an upstart space thing). Relativity Space came along with 3D printed rockets; not so successful yet, but promising to make rockets much cheaper and sort of printed-on-demand. Firefly Aerospace built and flew a successful small uncrewed lunar lander (a modern version of the old Surveyor probes). Even Amazon (yeah, I know, Blue Origin, same dude, different shop) got into things with the New Glenn. Everybody knows SpaceX, Blue, and Firefly will be able to reliably land on the moon very soon and others will follow...they just need time.
All of this means that, if one simply waits a while, a return to the Moon will likely be MUCH cheaper, and possible using "newspace" companies whose business models are not dependent upon cost-plus contracts obtained by low-bidding and lobbying followed by ballooning schedules and prices. If you are from the old aerospace defense contractor realm, this is a serious problem. You want those big juicy government contracts, so you need them to be issued NOW, before people have the time to think that by being a little patient there will be a bunch of low-cost "hungry" and eager providers. THAT is a HUGE problem because it could lead to MULTIPLE inexpensive vendors providing regular reliable commercial flights to and from the Moon, and THAT might cause the public (and anybody in congress not getting "campaign contributions") to ask much larger questions about all big Aerospace contrac
Re:Why the hurry? (Score:4, Interesting)
Manned Moon landings are only part of the current race. China has already made some early gains with robotic sample return missions from previously unexplored parts of the Moon. It looks like there might be water up there, and finding that would be a very big deal for whoever did it.
Then there is Mars. NASA has been planning sample return for a long time, but with a more complex mission that aims to get select samples found by its rovers. China is looking to just get any sample back, and is on track to do it first.
ISS is also nearing end of life, which would leave only China with a space station. And possibly a Moon station too.
Re: Why the hurry? (Score:3)
Because there are precisely 2 places on the moon that have a) uninterrupted solar power and b) uninterrupted line of sight to earth: the poles.
First to occupy either permanently wins a prize location that could be important for a century or more.
Re: (Score:2)
Conspiracy theory time? The Chinese won't tell us when they are ready. But their public schedule is certainly a feint. I doubt they are already ready for a manned moon landing, but I think their REAL schedule is to wait for the Americans to firmly commit to a launch date and then they will try to launch and land a month before that.
One more thing. I'm pretty sure the Chinese already have a complete copy of all the NASA documentation from the Apollo missions. But they don't want to just clone and launch an o
Blue Origin? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still puzzled that Blue Origin is being selected for anything more than a carnival ride. They can't seem to much more than fly rich people 66 miles up and do a less than soft landing (looking at the videos).
I recognize that BE-4 had one flight with a payload but damn at this rate I can't see them doing much to impact actual space activities.
What am I missing here?
Re:Blue Origin? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the effect of certain "present" a certain CEO gave to the king Taco.
Re:Blue Origin? (Score:4, Informative)
We can joke about the 66 miles up (and should sometimes) but they have done it which is still something and also it means they have all the requisites behind that; a factory, safety and manufacturing procedures, ground equipment, life support, launch platform leases, already ITAR compliant, etc etc. They are in fact a real aerospace company. Now that doesn't mean they're a good aerospace company but that's on them to prove out.
At the very least between New Glenn and ULA Vulcan they're a real engine producer, the BE-4 works as they claimed.
Re: (Score:2)
This race was won in 1969 (Score:2)
The United States won the race to send humans to the moon 56 years ago. We stopped going because the program cost over 500 billion dollars in today's money and it was unclear what more we were going to get out of it. Sue, we all thought that once we made it to the Moon, Mars would be the next step. But the technology just wasn't there and what would we accomplish sending humans that robots could not? So I fail to see what the urgency is here, and it seems unlikely any company will produce spacecraft fas
Trump has overruled this directive (Score:3)
Re:Trump has overruled this directive (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump says...
He says a LOT of things. Here he is in 2013 on avoiding a government shutdown [youtube.com]:
Interviewer: If you were president, what would you do?
Trump: Very simple. You have to get everybody in a room. You have to be a leader. The president has to lead. ... I actually think the president would be blamed. If there is a shutdown, I think it would be a tremendously negative mark on the president of the United States. He's the one who has to get people together. ... So I really think the pressure is on the president.
And ... (Score:3)
NASA Seeks Backup Plan for Carrying Astronauts to the Moon
Carrying them back? Eh, whatever. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
First mummies on the moon.
Guys we can't feed hungry children (Score:2, Interesting)
If you want to bring back actual space travel you're going to have to bring back competency and honesty.
That was kind of problem. Last election say what you love about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris but they never once lied to me.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm guessing they don't think the right wing media will allow even the whitest of lies from a Democrat anymore.
Haha media won’t even allow democrats to tell the truth anymore. It’s surprising because democrats have been paid opposition for decades, Chuck Schumer won’t even acknowledge Mamdami because of the lack of bribes and billionaire money, so much for vote blue no matter who.
Trump fucks kids (Score:1)
Donald Trump repeatedly and constantly abused children on Epstein Island and Putin has the dirt on him. So Putin owns America because Trump owns losers and America's full of losers who support Trump even though he's a pedophile criminal.
And if you don't believe me look (Score:1)
Here:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
You tell me right fucking now as Trump fucks kids where you think tire particulate goes when tires wear down.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Is that Trump fucks kids and you voted for a kid fucker.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Well that and Trump fucks kids.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Also Trump fucks kids.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
But after all Trump fucks kids. So I don't think you have a leg to stand on so long as the President of the United Stat
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
there will be a bigger and better demonstration of this same capability from the USA within 3 years
I wouldn't be so sure. The US and USSR had similar populations and the US was (and still is) richer - hence had more resources - than the USSR. So the US was able to do better than the USSR. China is different. They have 3-4x the population and rapidly increasing wealth - and is probably approaching US in wealth overall (and will soon become larger). The US still has an advantage, but it isn't that big and likely not going to last much longer. Meanwhile, the US is in the midst of destroying their science -
Re: (Score:2)
Last election say what you love about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris but they never once lied to me.
ROFLMAO
(at best, they never lied about anything that was important to you, but they most assuredly lied)
They's better (Score:2)
...make backup plans to bring astronauts BACK from the Moon, since Boeing can't even bring people back from a couple of hundred miles up.
Subcontract to the Chinese (Score:2)
Fascetious (Score:3)
Subcontract to China
I know this is facetious, but its really the right question. What do we have to gain from this pseudo-competition that we wouldn't get by partnering with China? And what is China going to learn by doing it ahead us that we don't already know.
I suspect the answer has more to do with these space companies balance sheet than any real benefits for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't partner with China because it can't be trusted.
You can make the same argument about the U.S. too if you want, to which I say fine, don't partner with it. It's been there, done that anyway....what? Over 50 years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
By this reckoning the winner will be Blue Origin because their capsule on a launch vehicle is the most penis looking flying vehicle ever built.
Insider scuttlebutt . . . (Score:2)
Here’s a lengthy and meticulous insider polemic that deconstructs Boeing, Lockheed, etc remarkable ability to miss deadlines and set mountains of NASA cash on fire:
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress... [wordpress.com]