Total Members Voted: 30
Voting closed: 06/01/2023 07:41 pm
Speaking of refilling, is it required for Starship missions other than the ones going to the Moon, Mars or other deep space missions?
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/12/2022 01:17 pmSpeaking of refilling, is it required for Starship missions other than the ones going to the Moon, Mars or other deep space missions?Maybe for a really heavy/big satellite going to GEO? Launch to a LEO orbit, refuel at depot and then up to GEO.
Quote from: zack on 03/12/2022 03:31 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/12/2022 01:17 pmSpeaking of refilling, is it required for Starship missions other than the ones going to the Moon, Mars or other deep space missions?Maybe for a really heavy/big satellite going to GEO? Launch to a LEO orbit, refuel at depot and then up to GEO.I guess they could also do an Ariane-style mega-rideshare and deliver multiple satellites to near-GEO in one go with about four refillings. Due to the heavy upper stage, it actually makes very little difference whether they take one satellite or three or four at once.
Quote from: pyromatter on 03/11/2022 04:45 pmhttps://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdfHLS Starship concept of operations slide.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdf
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/11/2022 05:37 pmQuote from: pyromatter on 03/11/2022 04:45 pmhttps://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdfHLS Starship concept of operations slide.They got the scale of Orion wrong in this slide, but I guess showing the actual size relationship of HLS and Orion might make for some uncomfortable questions.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/12/2022 02:16 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/12/2022 12:45 pmI know that there is a lot of hate for Shelby but he did help fund HLS and never tried to block it as far as we know. He apparently prevented NASA from funding depots for a while but not for Starship as NASA is paying SpaceX $53M for an orbital refilling test:https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/solicitations/tipping_points/2020_selectionsDynetics and National Team are also using refilling.If Shelby didn't allow Moon lander refueling, then his SLS rocket wouldn't have anywhere to go. So don't confuse this limited amount of money as Shelby finally admitting that in-space refueling should have always been allowed.A governmental lander launching on a SLS Block 1B was a possibility.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/12/2022 12:45 pmI know that there is a lot of hate for Shelby but he did help fund HLS and never tried to block it as far as we know. He apparently prevented NASA from funding depots for a while but not for Starship as NASA is paying SpaceX $53M for an orbital refilling test:https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/solicitations/tipping_points/2020_selectionsDynetics and National Team are also using refilling.If Shelby didn't allow Moon lander refueling, then his SLS rocket wouldn't have anywhere to go. So don't confuse this limited amount of money as Shelby finally admitting that in-space refueling should have always been allowed.
I know that there is a lot of hate for Shelby but he did help fund HLS and never tried to block it as far as we know. He apparently prevented NASA from funding depots for a while but not for Starship as NASA is paying SpaceX $53M for an orbital refilling test:https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/solicitations/tipping_points/2020_selectionsDynetics and National Team are also using refilling.
I know that there is a lot of hate for Shelby but he did help fund HLS and never tried to block it as far as we know.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/12/2022 02:49 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 03/12/2022 02:16 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/12/2022 12:45 pmI know that there is a lot of hate for Shelby but he did help fund HLS and never tried to block it as far as we know. He apparently prevented NASA from funding depots for a while but not for Starship as NASA is paying SpaceX $53M for an orbital refilling test:https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/solicitations/tipping_points/2020_selectionsDynetics and National Team are also using refilling.If Shelby didn't allow Moon lander refueling, then his SLS rocket wouldn't have anywhere to go. So don't confuse this limited amount of money as Shelby finally admitting that in-space refueling should have always been allowed.A governmental lander launching on a SLS Block 1B was a possibility.So no, a U.S. Government-owned lander has never really been an option, and from what we've seen of the "commercial" lander proposals that are not from SpaceX, they would not be much quicker than what NASA could do. SpaceX is only able to provide their lander "soon" because they started work on the basic vehicle years ago for Mars colonization, and they work like the NASA of the 1960's did, whereas NASA today can't work that fast anymore.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/12/2022 08:01 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/12/2022 02:49 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 03/12/2022 02:16 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/12/2022 12:45 pm........A governmental lander launching on a SLS Block 1B was a possibility.So no, a U.S. Government-owned lander has never really been an option, and from what we've seen of the "commercial" lander proposals that are not from SpaceX, they would not be much quicker than what NASA could do. SpaceX is only able to provide their lander "soon" because they started work on the basic vehicle years ago for Mars colonization, and they work like the NASA of the 1960's did, whereas NASA today can't work that fast anymore.The estimates at the time were that a government lander would cost about $15B. It may have been possible to have a government lander but it wouldn't have been ready in 2024. It probably would have been at least 5 years late, like SLS, and perhaps even longer. I think that people underestimate how important it was that HLS be a commercial program. If the Obama Administration and Bolden are remembered for funding commercial crew, the Trump Administration and Bridenstine should be remembered for funding a commercial HLS program. I think that both of these commercial programs are equally important. Under the 2010 NASA Authorization, it was believed that that LEO should be commercial but that BLEO should be governmental. Fortunately, Bridenstine and the Trump Administration did not follow that silly division. I like the fact that the Biden Administration and Nelson kept HLS commercial and decided to make spacesuits, a commercial service.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/12/2022 02:49 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 03/12/2022 02:16 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/12/2022 12:45 pm........A governmental lander launching on a SLS Block 1B was a possibility.So no, a U.S. Government-owned lander has never really been an option, and from what we've seen of the "commercial" lander proposals that are not from SpaceX, they would not be much quicker than what NASA could do. SpaceX is only able to provide their lander "soon" because they started work on the basic vehicle years ago for Mars colonization, and they work like the NASA of the 1960's did, whereas NASA today can't work that fast anymore.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/12/2022 02:16 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/12/2022 12:45 pm........A governmental lander launching on a SLS Block 1B was a possibility.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/12/2022 12:45 pm........
....
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/12/2022 08:01 pmSo no, a U.S. Government-owned lander has never really been an option, and from what we've seen of the "commercial" lander proposals that are not from SpaceX, they would not be much quicker than what NASA could do. SpaceX is only able to provide their lander "soon" because they started work on the basic vehicle years ago for Mars colonization, and they work like the NASA of the 1960's did, whereas NASA today can't work that fast anymore.The estimates at the time were that a government lander would cost about $15B. It may have been possible to have a government lander but it wouldn't have been ready in 2024. It probably would have been at least 5 years late, like SLS, and perhaps even longer.
So no, a U.S. Government-owned lander has never really been an option, and from what we've seen of the "commercial" lander proposals that are not from SpaceX, they would not be much quicker than what NASA could do. SpaceX is only able to provide their lander "soon" because they started work on the basic vehicle years ago for Mars colonization, and they work like the NASA of the 1960's did, whereas NASA today can't work that fast anymore.
I think that people underestimate how important it was that HLS be a commercial program.
If the Obama Administration and Bolden are remembered for funding commercial crew, the Trump Administration and Bridenstine should be remembered for funding a commercial HLS program.
I think that both of these commercial programs are equally important. Under the 2010 NASA Authorization, it was believed that LEO should be commercial but that BLEO should be governmental.
[...]And in reality there isn't a true "commercial" industry for landing on the Moon, just a lander that SpaceX is modifying from their Mars design. And SpaceX was working on that years in advance of the Trump Moon goal, so if not for SpaceX NASA would likely not be able to land humans on the Moon this decade.But that is NOT NASA creating a commercial transportation system to the Moon, that is NASA being lucky that SpaceX could modify their Mars vehicle. Because there are no other Moon landers being developed, so no commercial market has been created. Unlike Commercial Crew and LEO, where there will be at least two different commercial systems for getting to LEO. [...]
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/13/2022 04:39 pm[...]And in reality there isn't a true "commercial" industry for landing on the Moon, just a lander that SpaceX is modifying from their Mars design. And SpaceX was working on that years in advance of the Trump Moon goal, so if not for SpaceX NASA would likely not be able to land humans on the Moon this decade.But that is NOT NASA creating a commercial transportation system to the Moon, that is NASA being lucky that SpaceX could modify their Mars vehicle. Because there are no other Moon landers being developed, so no commercial market has been created. Unlike Commercial Crew and LEO, where there will be at least two different commercial systems for getting to LEO. [...]I think you are correct, but I have a minor nit to pick with your wording. True, NASA got lucky because SpaceX was already developing Starship, but Starship is not "just" a Mars vehicle. It's an entire elaborate complex system and a business plan that makes it work, which includes e.g. Starlink. Because the grandiose vision requires many SS variants, the Starship architecture was already required to be very flexible and permit relatively easy design and development of yet another SS variant (HLS) plus the use of two variants (tanker and depot) already needed for Mars. Thus the big piece of luck is the ease with which SpaceX could create an entirely new variant, which is very different than the putative "Mars vehicle".
Let me put on my scheduling profession hat and remind everyone that it was the Trump Administration decision in 2017 to set the first Moon landing date for 2024. And they did that WITHOUT a comprehensive plan for how to do it. THAT decision has driven all of the plans and decisions, and it has forced NASA into pathways that are non-optimal.
The assumption your statement implies is that a return to Moon program HAD TO HAPPEN, and that the return date HAD TO BE 2024.Again, that 2024 date, which Congress has not fully supported with money, has caused NASA to be pushed into risks that have not fully succeeded.For the HLS NASA had no choice but to ask industry if they could build Moon lander of their own, because NASA was not going to be able to build one on their own in the time that Trump needed it (or anytime this decade).
I think you are missing some important distinctions. LEO is an important destination, since it is the first potential stop once humans leave Earth. Everyone has to go to, or pass thru, LEO. Landing on the Moon is not on the critical path for any activity yet, except for the Artemis program.And in reality there isn't a true "commercial" industry for landing on the Moon, just a lander that SpaceX is modifying from their Mars design. And SpaceX was working on that years in advance of the Trump Moon goal, so if not for SpaceX NASA would likely not be able to land humans on the Moon this decade.But that is NOT NASA creating a commercial transportation system to the Moon, that is NASA being lucky that SpaceX could modify their Mars vehicle. Because there are no other Moon landers being developed, so no commercial market has been created. Unlike Commercial Crew and LEO, where there will be at least two different commercial systems for getting to LEO.
I think this is an internet meme, not a real thing. And I think it was created by those that were trying to justify the SLS. If you think it is real then provide proof please.
The Moon is just as strategic as LEO is. Just ask China and Russia.
QuoteThe Moon is just as strategic as LEO is. Just ask China and Russia. I was with you until we got here - this seems like total nonsense to me, unless you’re suggesting LEO isn’t strategic and only higher orbits are? (Which I’d also disagree with.)The moon has basically exactly zero strategic value here on earth. LEO and other earth orbits have massive strategic value.
Quote from: Redclaws on 03/13/2022 07:36 pmQuoteThe Moon is just as strategic as LEO is. Just ask China and Russia. I was with you until we got here - this seems like total nonsense to me, unless you’re suggesting LEO isn’t strategic and only higher orbits are? (Which I’d also disagree with.)The moon has basically exactly zero strategic value here on earth. LEO and other earth orbits have massive strategic value.I should have been clearer, I meant in terms of destinations for NASA astronauts. I shouldn't have used the word strategic but should have said that they are all important destinations for NASA astronauts...
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/13/2022 07:49 pmQuote from: Redclaws on 03/13/2022 07:36 pmQuoteThe Moon is just as strategic as LEO is. Just ask China and Russia. I was with you until we got here - this seems like total nonsense to me, unless you’re suggesting LEO isn’t strategic and only higher orbits are? (Which I’d also disagree with.)The moon has basically exactly zero strategic value here on earth. LEO and other earth orbits have massive strategic value.I should have been clearer, I meant in terms of destinations for NASA astronauts. I shouldn't have used the word strategic but should have said that they are all important destinations for NASA astronauts...We're not going to the Moon, or anywhere else in space, because it is important for "NASA astronauts". That is a fundamental misunderstanding of why America does anything in space.America does activity in space for U.S. national goals and needs, regardless if they involve humans or not. NASA astronauts are just government employees that are tasked with carrying out U.S. Government goals in space. NASA does not exist to please its workers...