NASA Space Launch System (SLS)

[RJMAZ]

That will never happen. There is no point to it.

Saving tens of billions of dollars is a strong point.

This is like saying Falcon 9 will never happen and there is no point to it back in 2010.

SpaceX has a proven record beyond LEO. Falcon Heavy is already performing the first lunar Gateway module launch and they just launched the Europa clipper.

Or are you suggesting SpaceX gets the whole moon mission and there is no point going half way and fitting the existing ESM and Orion onto Starship? It's hard to tell from your short post if you are a SpaceX lover or hater.

I'm not a fan of the excessive number of orbital refueling flights with the proposed Starship HLS system. I prefer for everything to get smaller as you approach the destination. I would then have a small methane fueled lunar lander with a gross weight under 100 ton that can fit inside Starship. Then a 1,000 ton Starship can do multiple trips back and forth from Earth orbit to Moon orbit. This smaller Starship only requires 4-5 Earth refueling flights from Earth for each round trip to the moon surface. I assume there will be a large space station in LEO which would also be the refueling depot. The Moonship and Lander can then be inspected at the space station after each flight. I think inspections and system tests are critical.

With the Lunar lander about 75% of the fuel is required for descent and only 25% for ascent. I would then have the fuel for descent in a large "drop tank" that remains on the moon surface. These "drop tanks" become accommodation modules. The methane tank then becomes accommodation and the oxygen tank remains oxygen storage. Each moon landing mission then places a drop tank to create a circle. Then a large inflatable dome is placed in the middle.

 

[NMaude]

Saving tens of billions of dollars is a strong point.

True, but there's this thing called "Pork barrel politics".

 

[zevets]

True, but there's this thing called "Pork barrel politics".

It is an often forgotten fact that California based SpaceX got its first funding once democrats had the Presidency, both the house and senate, and Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the house.

 

[_Del_]

True, but there's this thing called "Pork barrel politics".

" Senate Launch System" is not a misnomer. I would happily see it die, but in their master's chamber when they gather for the feast, they'll stab it with their steely knives, but I expect they just can't kill the beast.

 

[publiusr]

Well, Trump was not likely to cut SLS on his first term.

Presidents become a bit more steely on a second term when there is nothing to lose. You don’t want to alienate folks the first go-around when running for re-election.

 

[NMaude]

Well, Trump was not likely to cut SLS on his first term.

Presidents become a bit more steely on a second term when there is nothing to lose. You don’t want to alienate folks the first go-around when running for re-election.

Trump wants to have his Nixon moment with the Artemis III crew:

And no doubt also with the Artemis II crew also.

 

[publiusr]

Well, he and SLS are both “yuge” and orange.

 

[RJMAZ]

Trump wants to have his Nixon moment with the Artemis III crew:

This is why I think there will be a shift to the lowest risk approach to the moon landing.

Elon surely has to know that Starship landing a man on the moon in 2026 will be difficult. They first have to do an unmanned landing. This requires atleast 15 times flights to refuel in Earth orbit before going to the Moon.

If a smaller moon lander is made it will be too heavy for New Glenn, Falcon Heavy and Vulcan. Boeing will not be able to make an extra SLS to dedicate to sending a small lander to the moon.

This comes back again to a Starship launch system. Starship has 3-4 times the liftoff thrust of New Glenn, Falcon Heavy and Vulcan. I would conservatively assume 2-3 times the payload to moon with the current tested Starship configuration. That's an easy 30 ton of payload to the moon that cover the ESM and Orion. That is enough for a Moon Lander double the weight of the Apollo lander.

Boeing with the starliner disaster will be easy to have the SLS taken from them. The other SLS contractors could work to make the emergency small moon lander. Aerojet Rocketdyne can provide the same AJ10 engine that will be used on the ESM for the Moon Lander. Northrop Grumman has its hands full with the B-21 and Sentinel.

 

[aim9xray]

" Senate Launch System" is not a misnomer. I would happily see it die, but in their master's chamber when they gather for the feast, they'll stab it with their steely knives, but I expect they just can't kill the beast.

In a dank Senate chamber, conditioned breeze in my hair, a warm smell of funding, rising up through the air

 

[Byeman]

Boeing with the starliner disaster will be easy to have the SLS taken from them. The other SLS contractors could work to make the emergency small moon lander. Aerojet Rocketdyne can provide the same AJ10 engine that will be used on the ESM for the Moon Lander. Northrop Grumman has its hands full with the B-21 and Sentinel.

Wrong.
a. Boeing Starliner is a different group than Boeing SLS.
B. there are no other SLS contractors for the Core vehicle.
C. Also, SLS contractors can not build an "emergency small moon lander." That would require an open competition for the contract to do that.
d. AJ10 is too small for lander
c. NG has a space group that doesn't work on B-21 and Sentinel.

 

[NMaude]

Phillip Sloss has new video out about Artemis cancellation anxieties at NASA and Artemis II stacking options:

Two years removed from the Artemis I launch, there's a big change in the vibes, but NASA continues to get Orion ready to fly Artemis II. In this video, I look at whether it's too soon to start stacking SLS for the flight...and what the risks are with delaying that for even more time.

A decision on the Orion base heatshield was expected before the end of the year, but now the appointed NASA leadership is in a lame duck situation...hmmm...

The change in administrations won't get in the way of Starship flight testing, and SpaceX is ready to launch the sixth prototype any day now; but I'll look at how the upcoming government efficiency review and new budget policy might get in the way of Artemis III. There's a new watch list, too, post-election. (On top of all the other ones.)

Imagery is courtesy of NASA, except where noted.

00:00 Intro
01:22 Artemis II Orion back in the altitude chamber for vacuum testing
01:56 EGS launch team terminal countdown simulation
02:31 Finishing Orion assembly and test
04:02 Looking ahead to Artemis II solid rocket booster stacking
10:22 ESM-4 update from Airbus, installing prop system tanks
10:57 Sixth Starship flight test ready to launch
11:43 Artemis III outlook further clouded by cancellation rumors
13:03 Presidential transition big picture for Artemis
14:04 Court challenge to impoundment act another watch item if Artemis funds are withheld
15:04 Thanks for watching!

 

[RJMAZ]

Wrong.
a. Boeing Starliner is a different group than Boeing SLS.

Same company. Same punishment.

B. there are no other SLS contractors for the Core vehicle.

I said SLS. This means the boosters and engines.

C. Also, SLS contractors can not build an "emergency small moon lander." That would require an open competition for the contract to do that.

SpaceX and Blue Origin already have lander contracts. This leaves Dynetics and the SLS contractors. The Dynetics Alpaca lander was actually my favourite lander from the very start.

d. AJ10 is too small for lander

You would run multiple engines.

c. NG has a space group that doesn't work on B-21 and Sentinel.

Same company. It will keep the upper management happy and make up for them shifting the workforce around.

There has been a lot of discussion on other forums regarding the SLS cancellation. The best idea I have seen is summarised as follows:

The crew go to LEO on Crew Dragon.
Lunar Starship HLS is fully fueled waiting in LEO.
Crew go direct to the moon surface on HLS.
A disposable Starship tanker is waiting in Lunar orbit to refuel HLS to allow it to return to LEO.
The crew return from LEO on Crew Dragon.

Considering the SpaceX HLS has to be finished for the first manned flight then nothing is stopping Humans going on HLS to the moon. HLS has to have life support systems to handle the mission on the moon surface so it shouldn't be too difficult to provide life support to and from the Moon.

 

[Byeman]

Same company. Same punishment.

not relevant and can't punish the SLS group for Starliner issues

I said SLS. This means the boosters and engines.

Meaningless. Aerojet has no spacecraft experience. NG SRB group has no spacecraft experience. Can't use a the same company for another task just because a division has a contract for a specific item.

SpaceX and Blue Origin already have lander contracts. This leaves Dynetics and the SLS contractors. The Dynetics Alpaca lander was actually my favourite lander from the very start.

don't need any more landers.

You would run multiple engines.

There aren't enough of them even for the ESM.

Same company. It will keep the upper management happy and make up for them shifting the workforce around.

Not relevant, still separate divisions and that many people don't move within a company.

There has been a lot of discussion on other forums regarding the SLS cancellation. The best idea I have seen is summarised as follows:

The crew go to LEO on Crew Dragon.
Lunar Starship HLS is fully fueled waiting in LEO.
Crew go direct to the moon surface on HLS.
A disposable Starship tanker is waiting in Lunar orbit to refuel HLS to allow it to return to LEO.
The crew return from LEO on Crew Dragon.
.

nope. not going to happen. too much SpaceX

 

[publiusr]

What about SLS and Falcon Heavy—that allow a landing while Starship goes through its teething?

 

[RJMAZ]

What about SLS and Falcon Heavy—that allow a landing while Starship goes through its teething?

What are you landing with if Starship is not available?

If Starship has teething issues then there is no Starship lander available in 2026 for Artemis III.

The Blue Origin lander is planned for 2029 which is after Trump has left office.

The only option is for Starship to work or an small Apollo style lander will have to be created very rapidly. The small emergency lander would have to be a quick up and down with a few hours spent on the surface. A backup solution to guarantee a man on the moon for Trump.

 

[NMaude]

The only option is for Starship to work or an small Apollo style lander will have to be created very rapidly. The small emergency lander would have to be a quick up and down with a few hours spent on the surface. A backup solution to guarantee a man on the moon for Trump.

In that case dusting off and massively updating the Grumman project Apollo LM design taking into account the massive advances in manufacturing technology, materials sciences, structural design and electronics in the last 55 years?

 

[Byeman]

What are you landing with if Starship is not available?

If Starship has teething issues then there is no Starship lander available in 2026 for Artemis III.

The Blue Origin lander is planned for 2029 which is after Trump has left office.

The only option is for Starship to work or an small Apollo style lander will have to be created very rapidly. The small emergency lander would have to be a quick up and down with a few hours spent on the surface. A backup solution to guarantee a man on the moon for Trump.

nope, a "small Apollo style lander" would take longer

 

[Byeman]

In that case dusting off and massively updating the Grumman project Apollo LM design taking into account the massive advances in manufacturing technology, materials sciences, structural design and electronics in the last 55 years?

no such thing, would take a complete redesign.