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 

[A_M_Swallow]

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 

Getting back to the Moon within the next 5 years is going to be a big rush. IMHO The USA will do it all internally. However after that things may be opened up to external contributions.

I suspect the Moon base will need:
* an assay module to determine what rocks consist off
* a lunar dump truck to bring the regolith back from mine to the processing plant
* an ore processing plant to extract water, carbon, oxygen and metals from the regolith
* industrial scale drilling, bull dosing and other mining equipment
* rock blasting equipment so dirt roads can be built

I am assuming the USA will make the habitats, landing pads, landers and space tugs.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
I suspect the Moon base will need:
* an assay module to determine what rocks consist off
* a lunar dump truck to bring the regolith back from mine to the processing plant
* an ore processing plant to extract water, carbon, oxygen and metals from the regolith
* industrial scale drilling, bull dosing and other mining equipment
* rock blasting equipment so dirt roads can be built
....

For the foreseeable future rock sample analysis will be done back on Earth.

The first few Moon base will not be mining operations. Which could only start with the availability of a heavy robust Lunar cargo lander that can disembarked at least 50 tonnes on the Lunar surface..

Finally there will not be not too much rock blasting on the Moon. The cloud of Regolith particles coating the work site is too hazardous and wears out hardware.

[ncb1397]

The first few Moon base will not be mining operations. Which could only start with the availability of a heavy robust Lunar cargo lander that can disembarked at least 50 tonnes on the Lunar surface..

50 t is not a minimum. For instance, excavators from Caterpillar range from about 1 t to 87 t. 90% of their models listed on their website are under 32 t.

source: https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/excavators.html

edit: I think you are over-estimating how much material needs to be processed for useful mining as well. For instance, about half of lunar soil by weight is oxygen. That means a cubic meter of lunar soil massing about 1.5 t would contain nearly 750 kg. Assuming that 50% is recoverable, 375 kg is enough oxygen for an astronaut for a year, not counting CO2 recovery.

[Zed_Noir]

The first few Moon base will not be mining operations. Which could only start with the availability of a heavy robust Lunar cargo lander that can disembarked at least 50 tonnes on the Lunar surface..

50 t is not a minimum. For instance, excavators from Caterpillar range from about 1 t to 87 t. 90% of their models listed on their website are under 32 t.

source: https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/excavators.html

edit: I think you are over-estimating how much material needs to be processed for useful mining as well. For instance, about half of lunar soil by weight is oxygen. That means a cubic meter of lunar soil massing about 1.5 t would contain nearly 750 kg. Assuming that 50% is recoverable, 375 kg is enough oxygen for an astronaut for a year, not counting CO2 recovery.

Didn't say anything about how much material need for viable mining operations.

The 50 tonnes payload is a bit arbitrary. But like for example a 25 tonne earth excavator of some sort needs spare parts along with maintenance consumables and support equipment. So it is not just a vehicle tied down in the lander cargo hold (if there is one) plus the hardware for deploying the vehicle to the Lunar surface if not part of the lander design.

However the energy requirement to processes Lunar Regolith will need a lot of tonnage for energy generation and storage.

[Patchouli]

50 t is not a minimum. For instance, excavators from Caterpillar range from about 1 t to 87 t. 90% of their models listed on their website are under 32 t.

source: https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/excavators.html

edit: I think you are over-estimating how much material needs to be processed for useful mining as well. For instance, about half of lunar soil by weight is oxygen. That means a cubic meter of lunar soil massing about 1.5 t would contain nearly 750 kg. Assuming that 50% is recoverable, 375 kg is enough oxygen for an astronaut for a year, not counting CO2 recovery.

Probably going to need 20 tons of LOX and hydrogen to refuel the lander.
Though even there you won't need a large excavator if there is only a flight every few months.
Move and process a ton a material a day that's 15 tons of LOX in a month you can at least take care of the oxidizer needs for a small lander in a month or a large one in two or three months.
A couple of rovers the size of ATHLETE could handle the digging.