SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation > Missions To The Moon (HSF)
ESA leading us back to the Moon
redliox:
Apparently the incoming leadership of ESA is speaking about literally reaching for the Moon after the ISS is deorbited. There's been hints that ESA, in addition to the international community in general, has been taking an interest in the Moon of late while NASA speaks of Mars. However, Johann-Dietrich Wörner (the new ESA chief) spoke more specifically about looking into a lunar base as ESA's next step after their duty with the ISS is completed.
If anyone has more details on Wörner's moon plans do post them here, as they seem indicative of a promising direction of human space flight.
As for this direction in general, I approve. We all know the basic logic behind the Moon: it's a helluvalot closer to us than Mars. NASA brags about Orion taking us to Mars...but by itself Orion can't safely do anything beyond circling Luna or visiting its Lagrange points; the fact ESA's building its service module seems foreboding coupled with ESA's lunar preference. ESA seems to approach this logically, whereas NASA is attempting a great leap when it can't honestly repeat the effort made 40+ years ago (a less-than-secret embarrassment shared by engineers and enthusiasts).
Unless NASA establishes the technologies needed for Mars (ISRU, aerocapture, maybe SEP), the Moon is the only thing in our reach. On the other hand, we already have the means for lunar travel: HLVs, a crewed orbiter...just add lander and the set is complete. Hypothetically, ESA might develop the lander and even spearhead the moon base it's chief suggested.
sanman:
Won't ESA have to figure out a way to do reusable launch vehicles first? If so many others are flying reusable vehicles by then while reaping the cost benefits, then won't ESA look horribly outdated and appear to be bleeding money by trying to continue with higher pursuits while using discardable vehicles?
Will ESA somehow be able to put into practice reusable spaceflight technology as a stepping stone to these higher pursuits like the Moon, etc? Will it mean somehow radically restructuring Arianespace? Otherwise, how will they proceed without addressing this fundamental issue?
redliox:
--- Quote from: sanman on 05/02/2015 07:37 am ---Won't ESA have to figure out a way to do reusable launch vehicles first? If so many others are flying reusable vehicles by then while reaping the cost benefits, then won't ESA look horribly outdated and appear to be bleeding money by trying to continue with higher pursuits while using discardable vehicles?
Will ESA somehow be able to put into practice reusable spaceflight technology as a stepping stone to these higher pursuits like the Moon, etc?
--- End quote ---
Define flying, since we are also dealing with the Moon's airless environment. Second, look at how well NASA's 'reuseable' shuttle went, and why bother developing a vehicle when vehicles like Dragon and the European version of Dream Chaser could be rented instead. Third, elaborating from the second point, that would free up ESA (or any space agency) to focus on the lunar vehicles - without reentry or aerodynamics a pure space vehicle just needs to be refueled before reuse, then perhaps deorbited when its warranty is up.
--- Quote from: sanman on 05/02/2015 07:37 am ---Otherwise, how will they proceed without addressing this fundamental issue?
--- End quote ---
One step at a time like anyone else. ESA, JAXA, and China's agency came into being decades after NASA, and considering NASA regressed from Apollo to the space shuttle and to Orion the playing field is mostly level frankly...especially if it's not LEO but Cislunar & interplanetary space you're looking at. ESA will have hurdles to cross to land on the Moon...but so will NASA. ESA, much like China too, is going slow and steady whereas NASA leaps, trips, and falls on its face.
kevinof:
--- Quote from: sanman on 05/02/2015 07:37 am ---Won't ESA have to figure out a way to do reusable launch vehicles first? If so many others are flying reusable vehicles by then while reaping the cost benefits, then won't ESA look horribly outdated and appear to be bleeding money by trying to continue with higher pursuits while using discardable vehicles?
Will ESA somehow be able to put into practice reusable spaceflight technology as a stepping stone to these higher pursuits like the Moon, etc? Will it mean somehow radically restructuring Arianespace? Otherwise, how will they proceed without addressing this fundamental issue?
--- End quote ---
I don't understand why everything needs to start at the beginning every time, re-inventing what other companies are doing. We already have solutions for getting into LEO and these are solutions that would cost far less than anything ESA could develop and build. You only need to build an RLV if you want to get into the LEO business at an affordable level - It has nothing to do with getting to the moon.
If ESA want to go to the moon then build the bits that take you from LEO to the moon and ignore the Earth stuff. They can get their hardware into LEO and then hire SpaceX, ULA or whoever as a "taxi" to get them to earth orbit and go from there. In 2025 when ISS is no more, what are SpaceX or ULA or whoever, going to charge to get a crew into LEO? Going to be far less than it would cost ESA to build their own.
gbaikie:
--- Quote from: redliox on 05/02/2015 06:08 am ---Apparently the incoming leadership of ESA is speaking about literally reaching for the Moon after the ISS is deorbited. There's been hints that ESA, in addition to the international community in general, has been taking an interest in the Moon of late while NASA speaks of Mars. However, Johann-Dietrich Wörner (the new ESA chief) spoke more specifically about looking into a lunar base as ESA's next step after their duty with the ISS is completed.
If anyone has more details on Wörner's moon plans do post them here, as they seem indicative of a promising direction of human space flight.
As for this direction in general, I approve. We all know the basic logic behind the Moon: it's a helluvalot closer to us than Mars. NASA brags about Orion taking us to Mars...but by itself Orion can't safely do anything beyond circling Luna or visiting its Lagrange points; the fact ESA's building its service module seems foreboding coupled with ESA's lunar preference. ESA seems to approach this logically, whereas NASA is attempting a great leap when it can't honestly repeat the effort made 40+ years ago (a less-than-secret embarrassment shared by engineers and enthusiasts).
Unless NASA establishes the technologies needed for Mars (ISRU, aerocapture, maybe SEP), the Moon is the only thing in our reach. On the other hand, we already have the means for lunar travel: HLVs, a crewed orbiter...just add lander and the set is complete. Hypothetically, ESA might develop the lander and even spearhead the moon base it's chief suggested.
--- End quote ---
Generally I think ESA should/could build a lunar base.
Or I don't think ESA has much political support for Mars bases [not now, or within a decade].
So I think NASA should focus on building a Mars base [or bases] and ESA should focus in terms of ultimate goal within next 2 decades, of building a lunar base [or bases].
But America is more private sector and not as much governmental control of markets- and what exciting about the moon is it's commercial potential. Or most commercial ventures from Europe, China, Japan, and Russia would dominated by governmental projects [such as Arianespace]. Or if American did things like Europe, an American lunar base would Lockheed and/or Boeing lunar base- not a Bigelow lunar base [though Bigelow might be sub contractor of say Boeing].
So I would have US lead in terms of exploring the Moon, then ESA might put some lunar base on Moon, but NASA instead of trying to play some dominate role in lunar base building, instead shifts to exploring Mars and making it's governmental bases Mars bases, rather than lunar bases. But America private sector could be involved in mining or lunar base building, while NASA explores Mars.
And maybe at some point after 20 or more years other nations may become interested in having Mars bases, also. Or maybe not.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version