Quote from: Jim on 05/25/2016 06:03 pmQuote from: Lar on 05/25/2016 01:29 amLeave landers to ULA and SpaceX.You mean Boeing, LM, ORB-ATK, NG, Spacex, etc. And, that is who NASA would contract anyways, just like Orion.If NASA is contracting just like Orion, eight years will get us zip, zero, nada. See Orion.
Quote from: Lar on 05/25/2016 01:29 amLeave landers to ULA and SpaceX.You mean Boeing, LM, ORB-ATK, NG, Spacex, etc. And, that is who NASA would contract anyways, just like Orion.
Leave landers to ULA and SpaceX.
8 years? Some sort of Orion derived lunar lander is feasible. It just needs an SM that holds about ~60,000 kg of MMH/NTO vs the current ~10,000 kg...and landing legs. Would be fueled in lunar orbit by an SM derived SEP logistics drone to do LLO -> surface -> LLO in one stage. 4 astronauts on the surface for 2 weeks. 3 launches for the first mission and 2 for each subsequent mission.
CCDev (Commercial Crew Development) will have taken 6-8 years to produce 2 flying spacecraft. So a mixture of Space Act Agreements (SAA) and fixed price FAR 15 contracts may work.
Is it really conceivable that Congress would fund another endeavour like Commercial Crew? It took a lot of bartering SLS vs. CC to get that through. If it happens then with a contract to Lockheed Martin or Boeing, I could imagine. But in 8 years?
{snip} But in 8 years?
Quote from: guckyfan on 05/30/2016 05:41 pmIs it really conceivable that Congress would fund another endeavour like Commercial Crew? It took a lot of bartering SLS vs. CC to get that through. If it happens then with a contract to Lockheed Martin or Boeing, I could imagine. But in 8 years?Several people have said on this site that NASA's budget has been flat for decades. If so replacement projects for the development money will be needed when SLS and Commercial Crew development come to an end.
A lander and ISRU do seem like viable options within eight years - but so does a habitat if you derive the pressure vessel off current or near-current hardware, such as Bigelow tech, Cygnus, ISS modules, the list of options go on. Space suit is also necessary if you want to use any of the above in a useful manner. Why not do a commercial competition? You'll see progress within those eight years at the minimum, and even if if every element isn't on schedule, they will be far enough along to make program cancellation extremely difficult.
Quote from: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/24/2016 11:48 pmA lander and ISRU do seem like viable options within eight years - but so does a habitat if you derive the pressure vessel off current or near-current hardware, such as Bigelow tech, Cygnus, ISS modules, the list of options go on. Space suit is also necessary if you want to use any of the above in a useful manner. Why not do a commercial competition? You'll see progress within those eight years at the minimum, and even if if every element isn't on schedule, they will be far enough along to make program cancellation extremely difficult. Exactly!An 8 year time frame with SLS and Orion in place gives enough time to get on to the surface. Being productive once there and not just collecting rocks is important.Start building up a south or north pole base with tele-operated landers and ISRU. Up close imaging and maping of the landing zone. Site selection, navigation beacon, each landed load provides raw materials. I think a series of competitions that develop ISRU technology, not just for oxygen, but trace elements, metals and other feed stocks that could be produced for 3D printers to create more capability.Let the commercial sector compete for transport and landing of cargo and depot facilities. If it takes months to get cargo to lunar orbit with an ion drive who's going to argue.Unlike the do nothing go no where ISS, if 20 years of deliveries to the moon were done there would be considerable materials to work with and an increasing capability. Instead we have a big ISS lump that's going in the ocean one day.As for foreign partners, let them join if they can keep up. But not rely on them for anything critical. The US should go ahead on it's own. Larger groups take too long to make decisions. JAXA, ESA and CSA are okay, but Russia is unreliable and shouldn't be critical path.
In 8 years Elon time, humans will be landing on Mars. I think SpaceX would view any such lunar efforts as a distraction.
The financial year 2017 Budget for the US Government contains wording that suggests NASA should target the Moon. Since each president has his own views on missions to the Moon or Mars IMHO there may only about 8 years before this changes again. NASA may get a small budget but a big one is unlikely.What can we do in these 8 years?
You think ISS is do-nothing/go-nowhere but you think SLS is a good way to get to the moon? Really?
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on 06/07/2016 09:38 pmIn 8 years Elon time, humans will be landing on Mars. I think SpaceX would view any such lunar efforts as a distraction.1) Who cares what SpaceX thinks, if there are contracts for launches and cargo delivery SpaceX would be all over it like a cheap suit.2) You hit the nail on the head with 'Elon time'. I'd comfortably bet everything I own now or in the future that humans to Mars in 2024 has a 0.000000% likelihood of happening.