NASA's accelerated return - What could international partners contribute?

[redliox]

The new goal of landing back on the Moon within 5 years has shaken the international space community possibly moreso than the NASA and American ones who've suddenly shifted emphasis from a slightly (if perhaps optimistically progressive) slow orbital buildup to an immediate landing.

Thus far, only Canada directly offered a contribution to Gateway with a Canada Arm 3.  However, with the American Vice President proclaiming a desire to actually land scarcely a month later, I suspect Canadians feel awkward.  A Canada Arm 3 would be very useful, but the space station it'd be attached to would be questionable if a choice between a surface versus orbital base is forced.

While Roscosmos continues to make seemingly pie-in-the-sky proclamations and China plans for robotic sample returns, the other international agencies appear largely silent...at least for the moment.

The question this thread poses is what could NASA's partners offer for a Moon landing, either in launchers or payloads?

[EnigmaSCADA]

If the goal is truly to do things fast then I'm firmly in the camp that thinks bringing on international "partners" is a good way to slow it all down. Now if there's hardware that is necessary, that is already developed, "buying" it if it makes sense, well, makes sense.

Nothing like the ISS treaties/MOU's will be fast, if the goal is to foster international relations and paint a bunch of flags on spaceship parts then that's one thing.

Not saying there's nothing that other agencies/companies COULD bring to the table, just that it will be anything but efficient or timely.

I'm jaded from the past, oh about 30+ years, and I believe it is well justified.

[b0objunior]

The best things they could bring are science experiments on the moon surface! They are not mission critical, but they could really bring great value to the whole thing.

[ncb1397]

The best things they can provide are payloads bound for the lunar surface - both people and ground equipment. We are going to need everything from power production equipment, space suits and scientific instruments to habitats, greenhouses, rovers and regolith processors. And we are also going to need the best astronauts in the world, which aren't likely to be 100% american.

Additionally, a logistics lander that can do a range of payload sizes and launch on one of their launch vehicles would be helpful. Even if it could only do 100 kg, if that 100 kg is for time critical repairs, it could make quite the difference to the robustness of the effort.

Imagine if in 2024, we land on the moon and an ESA lander launched on an Ariane 62 lands close by providing logistics that drastically increases the length of the stay.

[A_M_Swallow]

When it is against the clock I suspect there is little that NASA can import. However in 2025 NASA can start building the Moon base and In-situ Resource Utilisation (ISRU) work. The are many parts of those projects that Europe, Canada and Britain can develop.

[Oli]

A Canada Arm 3 would be very useful, but the space station it'd be attached to would be questionable if a choice between a surface versus orbital base is forced.

A surface base hasn't been mentioned at all so far.

[Rocket Science]

To the OP "please send money"...

[pberrett]

Speaking for Australia, I think we can finally join in and make a significant contribution.

As usual we'll participate with our Deep Space Tracking Station near Canberra to provide communications capability. But the big contribution will be the construction of a new spaceport at Cape York in North Queensland. The US moon rockets can launch from there.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-06/queensland-shoots-for-the-stars-to-become-space-hub/10205686

The extra kick you get from being closer to the equator means that you can carry more payload, use less fuel etc

cheers Peter

[jstrotha0975]

Speaking for Australia, I think we can finally join in and make a significant contribution.

As usual we'll participate with our Deep Space Tracking Station near Canberra to provide communications capability. But the big contribution will be the construction of a new spaceport at Cape York in North Queensland. The US moon rockets can launch from there.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-06/queensland-shoots-for-the-stars-to-become-space-hub/10205686

The extra kick you get from being closer to the equator means that you can carry more payload, use less fuel etc

cheers Peter

The US is currently looking at Brazil for launching rockets, a few company's are interested in it. I think it would be cheaper to ship to Brazil than Australia.

[redliox]

Speaking for Australia, I think we can finally join in and make a significant contribution.

As usual we'll participate with our Deep Space Tracking Station near Canberra to provide communications capability. But the big contribution will be the construction of a new spaceport at Cape York in North Queensland. The US moon rockets can launch from there.

The US is currently looking at Brazil for launching rockets, a few company's are interested in it. I think it would be cheaper to ship to Brazil than Australia.

Excellent points, and coupled with France's French Guiana, this is exactly why NASA/America investing in foreign partners can be useful.  If a commercial vehicle (let's say either of the Blue or X varieties) is authorized to operate for multiple agencies, i.e. NASA, ESA, ect, it becomes less of a matter of whose vehicle it is as what network of countries it operates for...which is more akin to airlines.  It would make more sense for there to be an agreement between NASA's allies for any of them to use a commercial vehicle especially if all partners are involved in either the same space station or Moon base.

[hektor]

ESA will provide the ESM for the Orion which carries the crew to the Moon.

[Lar]

ESA will provide the ESM for the Orion which carries the crew to the Moon.

That's not necessarily a new contribution, and it's also not a given that Orion is the way that will be selected.

[hektor]

ESA will provide the ESM for the Orion which carries the crew to the Moon.

That's not necessarily a new contribution, and it's also not a given that Orion is the way that will be selected.

You really believe that a new Earth to Moon crew transportation system can be developed from scratch within the next five years ? Fascinating.

And it is a new contribution since the ESM are destroyed at the end of each mission.

[Lar]

Won't be developed from scratch but there are alternatives. The DM1 setback doesn't help that case, of course.

I meant not new in that it was already a planned contribution, and not a new effort that adds something not previously planned, which is what the OP is asking about I think.

[pberrett]

Speaking for Australia, I think we can finally join in and make a significant contribution.

As usual we'll participate with our Deep Space Tracking Station near Canberra to provide communications capability. But the big contribution will be the construction of a new spaceport at Cape York in North Queensland. The US moon rockets can launch from there.

The US is currently looking at Brazil for launching rockets, a few company's are interested in it. I think it would be cheaper to ship to Brazil than Australia.

Excellent points, and coupled with France's French Guiana, this is exactly why NASA/America investing in foreign partners can be useful.  If a commercial vehicle (let's say either of the Blue or X varieties) is authorized to operate for multiple agencies, i.e. NASA, ESA, ect, it becomes less of a matter of whose vehicle it is as what network of countries it operates for...which is more akin to airlines.  It would make more sense for there to be an agreement between NASA's allies for any of them to use a commercial vehicle especially if all partners are involved in either the same space station or Moon base.

Point taken but there may be other advantages to having a spaceport in Northern Australia. Such a port could also house military/aircraft and other assets giving the US a useful base in the Asian region from which to project military influence. Australian is one of the "5 eyes" as well which means we can be trusted with sensitive military and commercial technology. Can the same be said of Brazil?

[Darkseraph]

Could an extended European Service Module be offered ESA? One that can reach Low Lunar Orbit and return to Earth?

The original ESM was built on the assumption of no lunar surface missions and staging for Mars from a rectilinear halo orbit. Now that the 'Moon Soon' is the focus of NASA and an independent assessment of the current approach to Mars landings found the existing architecture makes it infeasible to reach Mars by 2033, perhaps it's time to rethink how to land on the Moon.

Increasing the size of the European Service Module should be cheaper than the cost of developing it in the first place!

[redliox]

Could an extended European Service Module be offered ESA? One that can reach Low Lunar Orbit and return to Earth?

As in ESA offer a module with more propulsive capability?  That's a good question.  They had to tweak the old ATV abilities around a lot to accommodate Orion.  There are several paths ESA could take if NASA asks if they could...

1) Create a SM 2.0 still based of ATV
2) Create an entirely new SM
3) Politely pass on NASA's offer

As far as I know, ESA only promised 2 working SMs for Orion.  If NASA wants more, or especially if they want to revise the current deal, ESA might insist on more compensation than just paying off ISS debt in exchange for such a module.

[redliox]

Point taken but there may be other advantages to having a spaceport in Northern Australia. Such a port could also house military/aircraft and other assets giving the US a useful base in the Asian region from which to project military influence. Australian is one of the "5 eyes" as well which means we can be trusted with sensitive military and commercial technology. Can the same be said of Brazil?

Although NASA tries to be open to everyone (except China), in other arenas which influence a Congressperson's thinking Australia is more aligned to the USA whereas Brazil is more neutral; not to mention its tentative BRICS alliance that include Russia and China counts as frolicking with rival powers.  Also since we're talking spaceports, Brazil is kind of redundant while France still has dominion over French Guiana.

Overall I don't think there'd be harm in offering either Australia or Brazil a place on the Moon.

[jstrotha0975]

Speaking for Australia, I think we can finally join in and make a significant contribution.

As usual we'll participate with our Deep Space Tracking Station near Canberra to provide communications capability. But the big contribution will be the construction of a new spaceport at Cape York in North Queensland. The US moon rockets can launch from there.

The US is currently looking at Brazil for launching rockets, a few company's are interested in it. I think it would be cheaper to ship to Brazil than Australia.

Excellent points, and coupled with France's French Guiana, this is exactly why NASA/America investing in foreign partners can be useful.  If a commercial vehicle (let's say either of the Blue or X varieties) is authorized to operate for multiple agencies, i.e. NASA, ESA, ect, it becomes less of a matter of whose vehicle it is as what network of countries it operates for...which is more akin to airlines.  It would make more sense for there to be an agreement between NASA's allies for any of them to use a commercial vehicle especially if all partners are involved in either the same space station or Moon base.

Point taken but there may be other advantages to having a spaceport in Northern Australia. Such a port could also house military/aircraft and other assets giving the US a useful base in the Asian region from which to project military influence. Australian is one of the "5 eyes" as well which means we can be trusted with sensitive military and commercial technology. Can the same be said of Brazil?

I just don't see moon capable rockets launching anywhere but in the US. Commercial launchers yes, not SLS. Maybe Starship in the future.

[Khadgars]

Speaking for Australia, I think we can finally join in and make a significant contribution.

As usual we'll participate with our Deep Space Tracking Station near Canberra to provide communications capability. But the big contribution will be the construction of a new spaceport at Cape York in North Queensland. The US moon rockets can launch from there.

The US is currently looking at Brazil for launching rockets, a few company's are interested in it. I think it would be cheaper to ship to Brazil than Australia.

Excellent points, and coupled with France's French Guiana, this is exactly why NASA/America investing in foreign partners can be useful.  If a commercial vehicle (let's say either of the Blue or X varieties) is authorized to operate for multiple agencies, i.e. NASA, ESA, ect, it becomes less of a matter of whose vehicle it is as what network of countries it operates for...which is more akin to airlines.  It would make more sense for there to be an agreement between NASA's allies for any of them to use a commercial vehicle especially if all partners are involved in either the same space station or Moon base.

Point taken but there may be other advantages to having a spaceport in Northern Australia. Such a port could also house military/aircraft and other assets giving the US a useful base in the Asian region from which to project military influence. Australian is one of the "5 eyes" as well which means we can be trusted with sensitive military and commercial technology. Can the same be said of Brazil?

I just don't see moon capable rockets launching anywhere but in the US. Commercial launchers yes, not SLS. Maybe Starship in the future.

I don't think he was referring to launching rockets, but providing auxiliary services from Australia.  I'd like to see Australia provide scientific equipment or contribute to the lander in some fashion