No country except maybe China can afford to fund a lunar architecture with earth as your starting point. Apollo did it at huge cost and Constellation tried. If the starting point is 2.5km/s from lunar surface and only thing required is lander capable of 5-5.5km/s then develop costs are lot lower. A lot easier sell especially if it could be operation within 5yrs of approval. I suspect there will be cargo landers operating by time DSG is in place, making development of human lander more affordable than it is now.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 06/17/2017 04:33 pmNo country except maybe China can afford to fund a lunar architecture with earth as your starting point. Apollo did it at huge cost and Constellation tried. If the starting point is 2.5km/s from lunar surface and only thing required is lander capable of 5-5.5km/s then develop costs are lot lower. A lot easier sell especially if it could be operation within 5yrs of approval. I suspect there will be cargo landers operating by time DSG is in place, making development of human lander more affordable than it is now.China is piling up debt faster than we are, they wouldn't be able to afford it either. The DSG as you pointed out makes a lot of sense for a one off development lander, a lot easier to get from lunar orbit to the lunar surface.
Quote from: Khadgars on 06/21/2017 10:38 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 06/17/2017 04:33 pmNo country except maybe China can afford to fund a lunar architecture with earth as your starting point. Apollo did it at huge cost and Constellation tried. If the starting point is 2.5km/s from lunar surface and only thing required is lander capable of 5-5.5km/s then develop costs are lot lower. A lot easier sell especially if it could be operation within 5yrs of approval. I suspect there will be cargo landers operating by time DSG is in place, making development of human lander more affordable than it is now.China is piling up debt faster than we are, they wouldn't be able to afford it either. The DSG as you pointed out makes a lot of sense for a one off development lander, a lot easier to get from lunar orbit to the lunar surface.Of course China can afford it - it would only be a small part of their already large national debt.We here in the U.S. can afford it too. There is no constitutional limit on how much money NASA gets.All that the U.S., China, and any other nation needs is a "need" to go to the Moon. A justification to spend money on doing that as opposed to whatever other priorities they have here on Earth. Which is not a new situation, and is why the Constellation program was so easy to kill - going to the Moon was no longer a priority for the U.S. Government in 2010.Does anyone think that situation has changed?
In the meantime, Europe is advancing its plans for a large, robotic Moon lander closely associated with the Deep Space Gateway. The lander is expected to collect lunar soil samples and shoot them back to the station, where they can be delivered back to Earth by astronauts. The lander might also include a rover that would embark on what might become a record-breaking journey across the lunar surface, toward Amundsen crater near the Moon’s south pole.The European effort, known by some as HLEPP, the Human Lunar Exploration Precursor Program, would pave the way for a larger crewed lander that could be based at the Deep Space Gateway. At the international partner meeting, engineers confirmed the capability of the station to support human expeditions to the surface. However, the station apparently would not be able to descend to low-lunar orbit, which would be the most convenient option for staging lunar landings.
some new information (to me) about European interest in the lander component.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/23/2017 05:59 amAll that the U.S., China, and any other nation needs is a "need" to go to the Moon. A justification to spend money on doing that as opposed to whatever other priorities they have here on Earth. Which is not a new situation, and is why the Constellation program was so easy to kill - going to the Moon was no longer a priority for the U.S. Government in 2010.Does anyone think that situation has changed?China has a need: prestige.
All that the U.S., China, and any other nation needs is a "need" to go to the Moon. A justification to spend money on doing that as opposed to whatever other priorities they have here on Earth. Which is not a new situation, and is why the Constellation program was so easy to kill - going to the Moon was no longer a priority for the U.S. Government in 2010.Does anyone think that situation has changed?
To be the only Nation that has the capability to go to the Moon would have huge propaganda value for China.
If it offers to partner with ESA for a Moon Village, they can claim de facto leadership in space.
Assuming that this scenario unfolds, the USG can cede this to China -- or make it a priority again.
China is not going to "beat us" to anything in space. Their human spaceflight pace in the last decade has been a snails pace (being generous) - they only spend the bare minimum to make slow progress. They are not going to start a race anytime soon, so don't count on them creating a race to the moon.
Quote from: AncientU on 06/23/2017 02:22 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 06/23/2017 05:59 amAll that the U.S., China, and any other nation needs is a "need" to go to the Moon. A justification to spend money on doing that as opposed to whatever other priorities they have here on Earth. Which is not a new situation, and is why the Constellation program was so easy to kill - going to the Moon was no longer a priority for the U.S. Government in 2010.Does anyone think that situation has changed?China has a need: prestige.I see no evidence of that, especially since China's space plans are progressing slowly. If anything they are focusing their "exploration" money on building up their presence in the South China Sea, which has a much larger prestige and economic impact than going to the Moon would have.QuoteTo be the only Nation that has the capability to go to the Moon would have huge propaganda value for China.Maybe. Although isn't it likely that Elon Musk will be on Mars before China lands on our Moon? And if the BFR/BFS combo can land on Mars, then landing on our Moon will be doable - and likely far more impressive than anything China can build. Already China's expendable rockets are looking pretty antiquated, even the new Long March 5.QuoteIf it offers to partner with ESA for a Moon Village, they can claim de facto leadership in space.Well, except for that guy named Elon Musk. Who is going to Mars. In a giant reusable spaceship.QuoteAssuming that this scenario unfolds, the USG can cede this to China -- or make it a priority again.Just because the U.S. Government may not want to send U.S. Government employees back to our Moon doesn't mean we are "ceding" our Moon to anyone. Just like we didn't "own" our Moon after landing on it, neither will anyone else.
China has a need: prestige.
Quote from: Lars-J on 06/24/2017 06:02 amChina is not going to "beat us" to anything in space. Their human spaceflight pace in the last decade has been a snails pace (being generous) - they only spend the bare minimum to make slow progress. They are not going to start a race anytime soon, so don't count on them creating a race to the moon.Yes they are slow. But at least they are moving forward. Who else does that?
Pretty much everyone? And are you blind to the progress in this country? (Commercial space/crew on top of what NASA is doing)
Do we have any guesses where the DSG will ultimately be placed? Specifically as in what type of lunar orbit or Lagrange point. I assume NASA is still eyeing either high elliptical or one of those DRO variations.I ask this because it'll influence the needs of a future (potentially reusable) lunar lander; closer to the moon the less fuel needs. I furthermore refer to the needs of a crewed lander; a cargo lander would probably just be sent one-way to Luna itself from Earth.