House bill seeks to gut NASA’s Artemis plan, resurrect Journey to Mars

Lawmakers also appear to like cost-plus contracts.

Read the whole story

 

[j17robotdancer]

The United States should retain "full ownership" of the Human Landing System, and unfettered insight into its design and development. In other words, it must be let under a cost-plus contract
The lunar plans should utilize "the Orion vehicle and an integrated lunar landing system carried on an Exploration Upper Stage-enhanced Space Launch System for the human lunar landing missions.
The Gateway to Mars shall not be required for the conduct of human lunar landing missions.

what a clusterfuck. seriously who came up with that drivel? :facepalm:

 

[danielravennest]

Yes, get Boeing to handle it - they are quite good at designing new aircraft I hear. I would absolutely trust them in outer space...

We've been trusting Boeing hardware in space for 20 years, on the US part of the Space Station. But that was before the company went to hell. I saw it start to happen from the inside when I was still working there.

 

[corscan]

The current generation of trolls is uninteresting. Anyone remember that person who was convinced that the XS-1 Phantom Express was actually a cover for a flyback booster, which would replace the solid boosters on SLS and create some sort of super-rocket that would be better and cheaper than Starship? Whatever happened to that person? At least those arguments focused on weird technical issues and showing that their ideas were unfeasible.

The recent cancellation of XS-1 must have hit them hard.

That was The Ulterior and he was a gem. I miss him. I mean, he was totally wrong about everything, but his wrongness brought out some useful discussions.

Edit: And he was never belligerent or one to throw insults. He seemed to accept that everyone disagreed with him on ... everything.

Yes, I seem to remember the Ulterior seemed ragingly supportive of ULA/Boeing. However I also remember that the comments in response were usually as, if not more informative than other posts. The Ulterior's posts were at least related to the article or spaceflight, and (coming in from a non-scientific background) the responses explaining why they were wrong were often helpful to me in understanding many issues surrounding launch, orbits, the engineering issues involved, etc...

If memory serves, this was around the time that SpaceX was starting to make tangible progress towards reuse; when the difference between old and new space was becoming more pronounced.

That difference has only become more apparent since then. Rocket lab is already starting towards reuse. SpaceX is obviously moving forward at pace.

In contrast, if I understood the recent article correctly, Boeing is saying it'll take 3 years to build each SLS core stage, with about a year and half lead time before that to order in parts. So no mission using SLS that a president orders will get done in the same 4 year term, unless they grab an SLS core already being made for another mission.

Alongside the dumpster fire of cost plus milking that is SLS, it's also been shown that fixed price contracting is possible, and has worked pretty well on commercial resupply and (hopefully soon) for crew too. So yeah, it's difficult to think of any justification for the House's approach on this without coming back to: pork.

 

[Pen Drive]

Should cheer up Boeing.

 

[danielravennest]

I thought Boeing legally owns the SLS design, although NASA obviously has the "unfettered" insight and access that the House bill would mandate applies to HLS.

Unless things have changed since I worked on NASA contracts, they are "build to spec", with the US government getting a copy of all the technical data as contract deliverables. As the only place the SLS can launch from is a NASA center, it doesn't matter who legally owns the design. They can't fly it from anywhere else, and even the building they build it in (Michoud) is NASA property. And who else would be stupid enough to buy a launch at the price Boeing would charge?

 

[danielravennest]

Real estate for military bases and installations. Nukes and anti-satellite weaponry.
However, so far nobody needs it, and that's why Moon was left dangling (not) in air.

All of that was banned by the UN Outer Space Treaty. Neither the US or the then USSR wanted nukes in space, or the other claiming the Moon by getting there first and planting a flag

 

[alastairmayer]

I read Ars articles for the technical content (and the excellent writing) and the comments for an educated reflection on that content. I find it amazing how much one dedicated Troll can degrade that experience. Let us hope the mods can be a bit proactive about excising the source of the contamination.

Two dedicated trolls, responding to each other.

 

[mhalpern]

The United States should retain "full ownership" of the Human Landing System, and unfettered insight into its design and development. In other words, it must be let under a cost-plus contract
The lunar plans should utilize "the Orion vehicle and an integrated lunar landing system carried on an Exploration Upper Stage-enhanced Space Launch System for the human lunar landing missions.
The Gateway to Mars shall not be required for the conduct of human lunar landing missions.

what a clusterfuck. seriously who came up with that drivel? :facepalm:

Do you really have to ask? the name starts with "B" and ends in "ing", likely with suggestions from one Richard Shelby of Alabama.

 

[George Moromisato]

Is there a roadmap for how this bill goes through Congress? When does it go to the full House? When does it go to the Senate?

I'd love to write my representative/senator about it, but I feel it would have more impact close to the time when they are considering it, not too early (or too late).

 

[TakeItOrLeaveIt]

Ultimately, I think this is good. It means SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others won't waste any more time on NASA contracts that slow development, increase cost, and are more likely to throw away years worth of work before completing than not. It is time to stop playing and start doing.

 

[JerryLove]

That makes sense, and I feel like that's how space exploration should be looked at for the foreseeable future. I'm only afraid that Mars will end up being another moon where we have a few years of awesome stuff but then 'interest' dies down and nothing else happens.

BUT if NASA doesn't do it, at least now it seems like someone from the private industry will.

My argument is that Mars being the second easiest place to sustain human life in the solar system, and due to the fact that because of the synodic cycle even a flags and footprints there would have to be close to basic requirements for a permanent base, Mars might be the best place to bootstrap an interplanetary economy.

I would think both Mars and the Moon would be similarly difficult to sustain life. The saving grace for the moon is there aren't any planet wide dust storms to worry about. I also feel like the the lack of atmosphere would make building on the moon easier. Though I haven't read up on anything on either case, if you do have any info I'd love to read/watch it.

Also are the Ars comments usually this trolly? I haven't posted here in a while.

With local resources alone Luna CANT sustain life, it lacks the required elements in meaningful quantities and easily accessible forms to do so. Mars however has those resources in relative abundance and doesn't have the temperature and pressure extremes most other non-Earth bodies that have said resources in quantity have.

True, okay so I'm not thinking about non-mineral resources either. Mars probably has trace elements in the atmosphere that are useful. Plus all the CO2 is useful too.

On the temperature extremes part, I figured that's why the plan was to make a base on the Moon's poles where it won't be under direct sunlight but be close enough to not be frozen solid.

There's a lot of water on Mars in addition to the CO2. If you wanted to, you could build a super lightweight glider frame and attach it to a solar-drive propeller. It won't be a fast way to get around Mars, but it works. On the moon you're limited to ground vehicles. And the atmosphere and wind probably rounds off the fines. Every grain of dust on the moon is a ball of razor blades waiting to grind you and your gear to bits.

There's 1/100th the lift on Mars that there is on Earth.

That means that a given heavier-than-air vehicle would need to move 100x faster on Mars than Earth to have the same lift.

I've not looked at the math; but I cannot imagine that's feasable for a solar propeller (remember too, the propeller has only 1/100th the thrust of an identical propeller at identical speed on Earth)

 

[ivekadi]

There's 1/100th the lift on Mars that there is on Earth.

That means that a given heavier-than-air vehicle would need to move 100x faster on Mars than Earth to have the same lift.

I've not looked at the math; but I cannot imagine that's feasable for a solar propeller (remember too, the propeller has only 1/100th the thrust of an identical propeller at identical speed on Earth)

Mars 2020 is bringing helicopter along. It's solar powered. We'll see how it works out.

 

[punder]

I don’t envy you Americans having to choose between two parties, both insisting on going nowhere with rockets made entirely of pork.

Hi zepi. How are your country's orbital rockets doing? Just curious.

 

[WanderingToes]

Everyone needs to remember this when Starlink costs a few $ more than whatever internet service provider you have, and please do your own "lobbying" for what you believe in.

 

[Stuart Frasier]

Everyone needs to remember this when Starlink costs a few $ more than whatever internet service provider you have, and please do your own "lobbying" for what you believe in.

If you live in a place with decent landline internet, it's probably too dense for Starlink. Sadly, there aren't going to be that many people who can tell Comcast to stuff it. On the other hand, it is going to be fantastic for rural or otherwise isolated customers.

 

[ivekadi]

Good point.
We are not going to Mars in anyone here's lifetime. Not unless it's a one way trip.[...]

Speak for yourself. I fully intend to live to 200. (edit: and something)

And although a bit controversial, going on a one way trip to Mars is not a bad thing if the right person(s) does it. It's merely bad optics for the companies or politicians. After all, you're not sending there the first random Joe.

 

[Wickwick]

I'll take that risk. Thanks for your opinion. I'm doing this for the greater good. If he keeps up his posting, you'll discover who he is. Good day folks. Sometimes the unpopular tactic works in the end.

I already "discovered" who he is by the first post, reported him to the mods and ignored him. He is a troll and hopefully banned and when he comes back hopefully banned again and again and again until he gives up. Until that happens however thanks to your vigilante efforts I get to see all the posts you quote while you shit on the floor because he is also shitting on the floor and you think if two people are shitting on the floor instead of one then the house will fill up with shit sooner or something. Good job.

And there's a visual for you. And to tie it back to the article on-hand, that's basically what the House is apparently trying to do to the HSF side of NASA.

No no no no no.

They aren't *trying* to do anything but give to those who give to them.

Which makes them very trying indeed.

Seriously, if human progress is halted, the lackeys in Congress will respond with a great big, "meh." They are FAR too corrupt to be accused of trying to do anything.

Did you read the post I was replying to? The "trying" in this case is the House shitting the floor.

 

[blackhawk887]

There's 1/100th the lift on Mars that there is on Earth.

That means that a given heavier-than-air vehicle would need to move 100x faster on Mars than Earth to have the same lift.

I've not looked at the math; but I cannot imagine that's feasable for a solar propeller (remember too, the propeller has only 1/100th the thrust of an identical propeller at identical speed on Earth)

Also 1/100th the drag, and 1/3 the gravity.

And there's a big difference between "solar powered" and "battery powered with solar recharging between flights".

 

[Wickwick]

There's 1/100th the lift on Mars that there is on Earth.

That means that a given heavier-than-air vehicle would need to move 100x faster on Mars than Earth to have the same lift.

I've not looked at the math; but I cannot imagine that's feasable for a solar propeller (remember too, the propeller has only 1/100th the thrust of an identical propeller at identical speed on Earth)

You forgot about lower gravity. It's possible to design such a craft. It might make more sense to be a combined dirigible and airfoil/lifting body. It would also probably have to be about a kilometer across.

 

[Red Pill Green]

Who *doesnt* like cost-plus-kickbacks contracts?

 

[alkeiser]

How about, "Fuck No." to this idea?

 

[wagnerrp]

There's 1/100th the lift on Mars that there is on Earth.

That means that a given heavier-than-air vehicle would need to move 100x faster on Mars than Earth to have the same lift.

It's v², so you only need to move 10x faster on Mars. Except Mars has 1/3rd the gravity, so you only have to lift 1/3rd as much, and move a little less than 6x faster. That makes a rocket powered aircraft practical, but the colder and denser atmosphere means rotors would be butting up against transonic issues. You would have to make them a lot bigger, but it's certainly within the realm of possibilities.

 

[Barleyman]

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure I've seen stated "payload to moon" with bigger figures than to Mars. On a quick check, yes indeed you need some 3.2km/s for TLI and 3.8km/s for TMI, not to mention you've got twice as much gravity to handle in Mars as opposed to Moon.

WRT Hydrolox, its got *great* thrust to mass ratio. I think you meant thrust to volume. Taking a ship to moon to refuel may not make that much sense but hauling water to LEO very well may. In a pinch you can even drink it besides breathing it and using it for thrust.

Whether that pans out remains to be seen.

 

[Statistical]

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure I've seen stated "payload to moon" with bigger figures than to Mars. On a quick check, yes indeed you need some 3.2km/s for TLI and 3.8km/s for TMI, not to mention you've got twice as much gravity to handle in Mars as opposed to Moon.

It takes more energy to get to Mars orbit than lunar orbit but he wasn't talking about going to orbit he was talking about going to the surface. The moon has no atmosphere so all the DeltaV has to come propulsively. Mars landing can use the atmosphere for a significant portion reducing the DeltaV required propulsively.

It is about 6 km/s DeltaV from LEO to lunar surface and there is no way to reduce that. In fact the safer indirect route through LLO raises it a few hundred meters per second. It is about 10.0 km/s from LEO to Mars surface but you can shed about 6 km/s of that propulsively meaning your propulsive requirements are about 4 to 5 km/s. SpaceX BFR can do it with as little as 5 km/s in the tank at LEO and that includes a bit of a reserve.

 

[wagnerrp]

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure I've seen stated "payload to moon" with bigger figures than to Mars. On a quick check, yes indeed you need some 3.2km/s for TLI and 3.8km/s for TMI, not to mention you've got twice as much gravity to handle in Mars as opposed to Moon.

There's a difference between flying past and actually reaching the surface intact. The Moon requires about 900m/s past TLI to enter low orbit, and another 1.9km/s to land. Mars only requires about 500m/s past TMI and atmospheric entry to land. That puts the Martian surface 1.7km/s closer than the Lunar surface, provided you have appropriate shielding.

 

[rachel612]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

Aside from the previously-mentioned water ice, there's also helium-3, which might be useful in more advanced fusion reactors. (This presumes that we can get currently-planned reactors to work right.)

Yeah, the jury hasn't even been empaneled for that argument yet. It's not that fusion can't work, it's that we need entirely new materials science before we can build a fusion reactor that doesn't turn to Swiss cheese in a matter of days.

 

[TechCrazy]

Isn't this the same Subcommittee that had a member that thought - rocks were falling into the ocean causing sea levels to rise?

Bet you can't guess which party.

 

[Barleyman]

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure I've seen stated "payload to moon" with bigger figures than to Mars. On a quick check, yes indeed you need some 3.2km/s for TLI and 3.8km/s for TMI, not to mention you've got twice as much gravity to handle in Mars as opposed to Moon.

It takes more energy to get to Mars orbit than lunar orbit but he wasn't talking about going to orbit he was talking about going to the surface. The moon has no atmosphere so all the DeltaV has to come propulsively. Mars landing can use the atmosphere for a significant portion reducing the DeltaV required propulsively.

It is about 6 km/s DeltaV from LEO to lunar surface and there is no way to reduce that. In fact the safer indirect route through LLO raises it a few hundred meters per second. It is about 10.0 km/s from LEO to Mars surface but you can shed about 6 km/s of that propulsively meaning your propulsive requirements are about 4 to 5 km/s. SpaceX BFR can do it with as little as 5 km/s in the tank at LEO and that includes a bit of a reserve.

Seeing some figures on using that so-called atmosphere would be interesting but I'll concede for the time being that it will save you some (or a lot) of rocket juice. Landing to the moon for water ice is going backwards, you'd want to haul that ice to LEO for orbital refueling, not unlike what SpaceX is proposing, only the last figure I saw was something like five SH refuel flights to top up the Starship in orbit. It'd be an interesting excerise to work out numbers how they pan out hauling empty tanks to moon, topping them off and returning to LEO vs doing the same from Earth but it's way past my bedtime..

 

[Statistical]

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure I've seen stated "payload to moon" with bigger figures than to Mars. On a quick check, yes indeed you need some 3.2km/s for TLI and 3.8km/s for TMI, not to mention you've got twice as much gravity to handle in Mars as opposed to Moon.

It takes more energy to get to Mars orbit than lunar orbit but he wasn't talking about going to orbit he was talking about going to the surface. The moon has no atmosphere so all the DeltaV has to come propulsively. Mars landing can use the atmosphere for a significant portion reducing the DeltaV required propulsively.

It is about 6 km/s DeltaV from LEO to lunar surface and there is no way to reduce that. In fact the safer indirect route through LLO raises it a few hundred meters per second. It is about 10.0 km/s from LEO to Mars surface but you can shed about 6 km/s of that propulsively meaning your propulsive requirements are about 4 to 5 km/s. SpaceX BFR can do it with as little as 5 km/s in the tank at LEO and that includes a bit of a reserve.

Seeing some figures on using that so-called atmosphere would be interesting but I'll concede for the time being that it will save you some (or a lot) of rocket juice. Landing to the moon for water ice is going backwards, you'd want to haul that ice to LEO for orbital refueling, not unlike what SpaceX is proposing, only the last figure I saw was something like five SH refuel flights to top up the Starship in orbit. It'd be an interesting excerise to work out numbers how they pan out hauling empty tanks to moon, topping them off and returning to LEO vs doing the same from Earth but it's way past my bedtime..

The MSL (curiosity rover) had an entry velocity of ~5900 m/s. The heatshield hitting the atmosphere slowed it down by ~5450 m/s to a velocity of ~450 m/s. The parachute slowed it another 350 m/s down to 100 m/s and the skycrane propulsively slowed it the last 100 m/s to zero.
http://spaceflight101.com/msl/msl-landing-special/

From the 2016 presentation SpaceX intends for Starhip to work similarly except without a parachute. TMI is roughly 4 to 6 km/s depending on mass and payload (4 km/s is more efficient, 6 km/s is faster). Starship will carry another ~ 1km/s of propulsive DeltaV for course correction, EDL, and a reserve.
https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/fil ... y_2016.pdf

You can get from LEO to Mars surface with only about 4.3 km/s of propulsive DeltaV even without parachutes although 5 km/s provides a bit more flexibility and margin. Even 5 km/s is less than the 6 km/s needed to reach the lunar surface.

 

[mhalpern]

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure I've seen stated "payload to moon" with bigger figures than to Mars. On a quick check, yes indeed you need some 3.2km/s for TLI and 3.8km/s for TMI, not to mention you've got twice as much gravity to handle in Mars as opposed to Moon.

WRT Hydrolox, its got *great* thrust to mass ratio. I think you meant thrust to volume. Taking a ship to moon to refuel may not make that much sense but hauling water to LEO very well may. In a pinch you can even drink it besides breathing it and using it for thrust.

Whether that pans out remains to be seen.

Wasnt talking about orbit as others have mentioned, if you want to land on Mars you dont have to go to Mars orbit, and generally you wouldn't you reenter directly, as for hydrolox, your tank has to be huge and well insulated meaning higher dry mass compared to methalox which gets nearly as high isp as far as cryogens go, but is far more dense

 

[mhalpern]

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure I've seen stated "payload to moon" with bigger figures than to Mars. On a quick check, yes indeed you need some 3.2km/s for TLI and 3.8km/s for TMI, not to mention you've got twice as much gravity to handle in Mars as opposed to Moon.

It takes more energy to get to Mars orbit than lunar orbit but he wasn't talking about going to orbit he was talking about going to the surface. The moon has no atmosphere so all the DeltaV has to come propulsively. Mars landing can use the atmosphere for a significant portion reducing the DeltaV required propulsively.

It is about 6 km/s DeltaV from LEO to lunar surface and there is no way to reduce that. In fact the safer indirect route through LLO raises it a few hundred meters per second. It is about 10.0 km/s from LEO to Mars surface but you can shed about 6 km/s of that propulsively meaning your propulsive requirements are about 4 to 5 km/s. SpaceX BFR can do it with as little as 5 km/s in the tank at LEO and that includes a bit of a reserve.

Seeing some figures on using that so-called atmosphere would be interesting but I'll concede for the time being that it will save you some (or a lot) of rocket juice. Landing to the moon for water ice is going backwards, you'd want to haul that ice to LEO for orbital refueling, not unlike what SpaceX is proposing, only the last figure I saw was something like five SH refuel flights to top up the Starship in orbit. It'd be an interesting excerise to work out numbers how they pan out hauling empty tanks to moon, topping them off and returning to LEO vs doing the same from Earth but it's way past my bedtime..

Why would you take lunar ice to LEO, it is far less costly in money and delta v to launch the prop from Earth where it is far cheaper and you have more useful options.

 

[Statistical]

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure I've seen stated "payload to moon" with bigger figures than to Mars. On a quick check, yes indeed you need some 3.2km/s for TLI and 3.8km/s for TMI, not to mention you've got twice as much gravity to handle in Mars as opposed to Moon.

It takes more energy to get to Mars orbit than lunar orbit but he wasn't talking about going to orbit he was talking about going to the surface. The moon has no atmosphere so all the DeltaV has to come propulsively. Mars landing can use the atmosphere for a significant portion reducing the DeltaV required propulsively.

It is about 6 km/s DeltaV from LEO to lunar surface and there is no way to reduce that. In fact the safer indirect route through LLO raises it a few hundred meters per second. It is about 10.0 km/s from LEO to Mars surface but you can shed about 6 km/s of that propulsively meaning your propulsive requirements are about 4 to 5 km/s. SpaceX BFR can do it with as little as 5 km/s in the tank at LEO and that includes a bit of a reserve.

Seeing some figures on using that so-called atmosphere would be interesting but I'll concede for the time being that it will save you some (or a lot) of rocket juice. Landing to the moon for water ice is going backwards, you'd want to haul that ice to LEO for orbital refueling, not unlike what SpaceX is proposing, only the last figure I saw was something like five SH refuel flights to top up the Starship in orbit. It'd be an interesting excerise to work out numbers how they pan out hauling empty tanks to moon, topping them off and returning to LEO vs doing the same from Earth but it's way past my bedtime..

Why would you take lunar ice to LEO, it is far less costly in money and delta v to launch the prop from Earth where it is far cheaper and you have more useful options.

Less money for sure not less DeltaV (2.74 km/s vs 9.30 km/s). To be clear I am not advocating lunar ice mining that is cart way before the horse.

 

[mhalpern]

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure I've seen stated "payload to moon" with bigger figures than to Mars. On a quick check, yes indeed you need some 3.2km/s for TLI and 3.8km/s for TMI, not to mention you've got twice as much gravity to handle in Mars as opposed to Moon.

It takes more energy to get to Mars orbit than lunar orbit but he wasn't talking about going to orbit he was talking about going to the surface. The moon has no atmosphere so all the DeltaV has to come propulsively. Mars landing can use the atmosphere for a significant portion reducing the DeltaV required propulsively.

It is about 6 km/s DeltaV from LEO to lunar surface and there is no way to reduce that. In fact the safer indirect route through LLO raises it a few hundred meters per second. It is about 10.0 km/s from LEO to Mars surface but you can shed about 6 km/s of that propulsively meaning your propulsive requirements are about 4 to 5 km/s. SpaceX BFR can do it with as little as 5 km/s in the tank at LEO and that includes a bit of a reserve.

Seeing some figures on using that so-called atmosphere would be interesting but I'll concede for the time being that it will save you some (or a lot) of rocket juice. Landing to the moon for water ice is going backwards, you'd want to haul that ice to LEO for orbital refueling, not unlike what SpaceX is proposing, only the last figure I saw was something like five SH refuel flights to top up the Starship in orbit. It'd be an interesting excerise to work out numbers how they pan out hauling empty tanks to moon, topping them off and returning to LEO vs doing the same from Earth but it's way past my bedtime..

Why would you take lunar ice to LEO, it is far less costly in money and delta v to launch the prop from Earth where it is far cheaper and you have more useful options.

Less money for sure not less DeltaV (2.74 km/s vs 9.30 km/s). To be clear I am not advocating lunar ice mining that is cart way before the horse.

more prop when you factor in insulation plus we dont even know if lunar ice can be extracted, for all we know trying to do so could cause a LOT of it to sublimate at once, propelling dust and making life extremely difficult.

 

[dtaht]

It is very lonely being an asteroid exploration advocate these days. the cries for "Moon!" "Mars!" "Moon!" "Mars!"
register on me equally depressingly. There's less delta v to get to and back many asteroids than either moon or mars, what seems to be proven, valuable resources of all sorts (be them metals or fuel), no pesky gravity well to deal with... (you can get around on springs, not rockets or wheels) - and there's millions to choose from whizzing by, every day.

 

[DougF]

I thought Boeing legally owns the SLS design, although NASA obviously has the "unfettered" insight and access that the House bill would mandate applies to HLS.

Unless things have changed since I worked on NASA contracts, they are "build to spec", with the US government getting a copy of all the technical data as contract deliverables. As the only place the SLS can launch from is a NASA center, it doesn't matter who legally owns the design. They can't fly it from anywhere else, and even the building they build it in (Michoud) is NASA property. And who else would be stupid enough to buy a launch at the price Boeing would charge?

Not necessarily. The bean counters have have sacrificed tech orders for cost reductions before. The C-17 is one example. The USAF “saved” $1B by not buying the depot overhaul tech orders, so Boeing HAS to be a part of any depot overhaul until the C-17 goes to the boneyard. Any guesses what multiplier that gives Boeing, considering how long the military keeps equipment around? Conservatively, around 10-15 times the original “savings” total, at my best guess, over 40 years.

 

[alxx]

So they want to hand the moon to China?

 

[dhinchcliffe]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

Turn your question on its head. What is useful on Mars? Put aside all the grand plans. We can't live there without significant investment and there is no reason to believe that we can make it more than what it is. A dirt ball in a hard to reach orbit. No magnetosphere to speak of. No atmosphere to speak of.

Well, there is the second cradle of humanity argument. That may be worth something.

Don’t forget the millions of humans on earth living in deserts with rather inhospitable environments. It’s all about the habitats that we create for ourselves (see: Dubai, Las Vegas.) Even the first Mars colonists will have every digital distraction imaginable.