A composite version of the 4.5 meter capsule could have been a relatively light craft.
With the thread finally moving away from politics and toward technology, a survey of possible architectures might be worth examining. As it is, I see three primary pathways, each with its own set of options.I. A. SLS Block IB and Orion would likely require two launches. A lander needs to be developed.I. B. SLS Block II (i.e. Dark Knight boosters) and Orion may be able to perform the same mission in 1 launch. Lander still needed.I. C. Advanced SLS with 5-6 main engines and/or liquid boosters enables robust program. Lander still needed.II. A. Disposable FH, with D2. Possible 2 launch architecture. Lander needed. Need either D2 upgrade or small Bigelow hab.II. B. Reusable FH cores, with D2. Same issues as above. More launches required, but lower launch costs. On orbit refueling possibly required.II. C. FH (either expendable or reusable) with Orion (possibly upgraded Starliner) as CSM. More launches required due to high mass of Orion. No hab needed and no upgrade of D2 needed. Still need lander.III. Move toward greater cooperation with SpaceX on BFR/BFS. Test landings on Luna are already a probability. Investing resources in newer cutting edge technology rather than expensive and obsolete legacy hardware may be a better approach. This furthers a technology already in planning stages, requires no new landers, habs, or modification of existing technologies. It may also be capable of attaining the goal before any of the others could. The big obstacle is NASA putting its very regulatory fingers on the architecture and drastically slowing it down. After first Lunar landings, SpaceX sells or leases hardware to NASA and brings new hardware online for Mars.
I was watching the news and they went to President Trump live in the White House at a cabinet meeting. After he finished talking about tax cuts and jobs, Trump started talking about commercial spaceflight and billionaires liking rockets (better they spend the money than us). He seemed impressed by SpaceX's FH and other commercial rockets. Trump was very impressed at the FH boosters landing. He said positive things about NASA, but did comment on how commercial rockets were far cheaper than government projects.
Quote from: RonM on 03/08/2018 04:23 pmI was watching the news and they went to President Trump live in the White House at a cabinet meeting. After he finished talking about tax cuts and jobs, Trump started talking about commercial spaceflight and billionaires liking rockets (better they spend the money than us). He seemed impressed by SpaceX's FH and other commercial rockets. Trump was very impressed at the FH boosters landing. He said positive things about NASA, but did comment on how commercial rockets were far cheaper than government projects.Video: https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/971794899904417792
President Trump amazed by the Falcon Heavy landing—and its low cost
"If the government did it, the same thing would have cost probably 40 or 50 times."
NASA has not, in fact, set a price for flying the SLS rocket. But Ars has previously estimated that, including the billions of dollars in development cost, the per-flight fees for the SLS rocket will probably be close to $3 billion. Indeed, the development costs of SLS and its ground systems between now and its first flight could purchase 86 launches of the privately developed Falcon Heavy rocket. So President Trump's estimate of NASA's costs compared to private industry does not appear to be wildly off the mark.