NASA kills lunar space station to focus on ambitious Moon base

"Everyone wants to be on the surface."

See full article...

 

[Anton Longshot]

"kills lunar space station" LOL it was never going to happen anyway.

 

[Stankapl]

From another article I got the impression that he also killed Artemis and Orion after the fifth mission.

 

[Caleth]

From another article I got the impression that he also killed Artemis and Orion after the fifth mission.

This appears to be a takeaway for me too. The mockup shows HLS and what maybe is a BO lander?

But we aren't getting any of this done on the Artemis cadence rate of one every three years. So to make the math math they'd need to pivot to other options like SpaceX and BO for even a shot at a once a year cadence much less what this seems to demand.

But maybe I missed something or I'm reading too much into it?

 

[big-ted]

A recent study concludes that The Moon Has Far Less Water Than Previously Thought which might limit their ambitions especially when China gets there first

 

[1Zach1]

From another article I got the impression that he also killed Artemis and Orion after the fifth mission.

Not killed, but they are exploring (via asking industry to meet the needs that SLS/Orion currently fulfil via RFI) options for end to end missions to the lunar surface after A5.

Re the article: Good to see something at least slightly more defined than just waves hand lunar colony. I'm doubtful of the timeline being presented but I'd like to see some serious forward movement to see what is realistic for this plan.

 

[Idontpost]

deleted

 

[Graith]

View attachment 131330

Don't we need access to a pretty considerable quantity of water to safely operate a nuclear power plant?

I figure they mean that whatever lander, rover, and/or drones would be powered by a RTG, which doesn't require water.

 

[PHDave]

What does "cede the moon to China" mean. Will they shoot down our missions as we approach. Is there a special place that holds all the moons resources that they will control? Is it just one place on the moon that a base can be built? How competetive do we have to be for a base on the moon? Seems like it is a pretty big place for China to win the moon.

 

[Statistical]

Don't we need access to a pretty considerable quantity of water to safely operate a nuclear power plant?

No you do not. Space based nuclear power would use exactly zero water.

 

[Statistical]

I figure they mean that whatever lander, rover, and/or drones would be powered by a RTG, which doesn't require water.

No they mean space based fission. Like kilopower experiment. However that does not require water and water would make no sense anyways. We use water on Earth for very specific reasons which don't exist in space.

 

[1Zach1]

I figure they mean that whatever lander, rover, and/or drones would be powered by a RTG, which doesn't require water.

No, they mean nuclear electric propulsion.

NASA will launch the Space Reactor‑1 Freedom, the first nuclear powered interplanetary spacecraft, to Mars before the end of 2028, demonstrating advanced nuclear electric propulsion in deep space. Nuclear electric propulsion provides an extraordinary capability for efficient mass transport in deep space and enables high power missions beyond Jupiter where solar arrays are not effective.

 

[WhyNotZoidberg]

The first of these, running through 2028, is estimated to comprise 21 landings, putting a total of 4 metric tons of payload on the Moon, including the VIPER rover to prospect for lunar resources; four “Moon Fall” drones that can travel up to 50 km and reach areas difficult for humans to access; initial versions of a lunar terrain vehicle capable of surviving up to 150 hours without sunlight; and radioisotope heater units. During this phase NASA will also seek to establish two lunar orbital communications satellite constellations.

Does anyone really think they can accomplish these goals, or even one of them by the end of 2028? I don't see any of these things happening.

 

[Statistical]

NASA buried the lede a bit but the most exciting thing for me is they are looking for commercial crew to lunar orbit.

Assumptions of NASA’s Desired Future State:

* Two commercial providers for end-to-end lunar transportation

* For this RFI, ‘end-to-end’ refers to transportation from Earth launch through arrival to an orbital transfer location (e.g., NRHO or alternative staging orbit), and return from the orbital transfer location to Earth.

* Surface delivery is not within scope except insofar as it informs docking ortransfer operations with HLS providers.

* Crewed missions delivered to surface every 6 months (1 mission per year for each provider, initially)

* Respondents should provide sensitivity of launch cadence and surface duration,and their effects on unit costs.

...

Respondents should assume that NASA intends to procure recurring transportation services under Firm-Fixed-Price contract structures once technical maturity and demonstrated performance allow. Responses should identify the earliest feasible point of transition to FFP and propose a pathway to achieving it.

https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/4b20c2d3bc6b445bad80caafd049bd59/view

The end state would be commercial providers doing Earth to lunar orbit and back to Earth. The existence of cislunar tugs/transporters, in orbit refueling, and reusable landers. That is how you go to the moon and stay there.

 

[Statistical]

Does anyone really think they can accomplish these goals, or even one of them by the end of 2028? I don't see any of these things happening.

Accomplish the goals eventually sure. The 2028 date is just for an audience of one. My over under for first crew landing is 1/1/2030. Taking bets now.

 

[schnackenpfefferhausen]

He framed it as part of a “great power” challenge, saying that if NASA does not succeed now it will cede the Moon to China.

Mr. President, we must not allow a mine shaft moon base gap!

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

A recent study concludes that The Moon Has Far Less Water Than Previously Thought which might limit their ambitions especially when China gets there first

The only water on the moon is at the bottom of polar craters. It’s estimated to be less than 4% of of the crater surface material by mass.

So that’s going to take an immense effort to mine a significant amount of water. That’s only a concern for a far future in which we attempt fuel production, it shouldn’t matter to Artemis. Artemis needs to focus on exploration and scientific research so we can learn a lot more about the moon, its creation and its actual resources.

 

[Dave's not here]

The first of these, running through 2028, is estimated to comprise 21 landings, putting a total of 4 metric tons of payload on the Moon, including the VIPER rover to prospect for lunar resources…

Am I understanding this correctly, that there will be 21 lunar landings by the end of 2028?

 

[Statistical]

A recent study concludes that The Moon Has Far Less Water Than Previously Thought which might limit their ambitions especially when China gets there first

Even if China "get there" first they have decided on an equatorial landing site like the US did with Apollo largely for the same reasons. Limited DeltaV from their hypergolic expendable landers. The south pole is interesting but hard to reach.

 

[Statistical]

Am I understanding this correctly, that there will be 21 lunar landings by the end of 2028?

Yes although likely they won't all be successful and most of them are smaller cargo landers and demonstration prototypes.

Also the timeline is compressed due to NASA needing to keep Trump from throwing a temper tantrum and flipping the board over. Add 2 years for all the earliest dates and 4 years for all the latest dates.

 

[msawzall]

Does anyone really think they can accomplish these goals, or even one of them by the end of 2028? I don't see any of these things happening.

It's an Elon timeframe.

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

Am I understanding this correctly, that there will be 21 lunar landings by the end of 2028?

But only 4 tons of payload total, or about 200 kgs each on average. So math is pointing to commercial launch and small robotic rovers, meaning not impossible, but certainly optimistic.

 

[Malmesbury]

View attachment 131330

Don't we need access to a pretty considerable quantity of water to safely operate a nuclear power plant?

A couple of nuclear reactor systems have operated in space. None used water in their systems, I believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BES-5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor

 

[Statistical]

From the presentation. The lander which looks like it is farting is the reusable crew landers. In 2028 that includes two uncrewed demo and two crewed landings.

2028 is not happening better to look at it as more the generalized plan with fake dates and fake money amounts. Earlier stuff on the left, later stuff on the right. The first phases is likely double ($20B) and the last two triple ($30B).

 

[RemoteSensor]

Wait until they find out that it was a Democratic president that wanted us to go to the moon in the first place

 

[lastskpirate]

Am I understanding this correctly, that there will be 21 lunar landings by the end of 2028?

That's how I read it. Possibly feasible if they can convince SpaceX to sell them enough Falcon 9 launches, as there isn't really any other choice at the moment: Vulcan is in timeout, and who knows when New Glenn or Starship will be ready. Seems extremely optimistic, though.

 

[saltyfrog]

Huh. Sounds like season 2 & 3 of "For All Mankind".

I assume Starship is part of this, to put 60 tons of material on the moon by 2032. And SpaceX employees could get a windfall from their IPO (whenever it happens).

 

[MJMullinII]

Good. There's ZERO reason to waste time/money/resources on a station in Lunar orbit when it's trivial to go straight from LEO to Lunar orbit directly. If you're going to do something that's never been done, a base ON THE LUNAR SURFACE is far more of an improvement ("improvement" to the lunar exploration situation I mean, a place to recuperate and, hopefully, avoid being irradiated in a solar flair situation would be very welcome I suspect )

Now MARTIAN orbit, that's another story. I can totally see why a space station in Mars orbit would be welcome, especially if it could be configured with 1G rotational gravity. It would provide astronauts making the multi-month trip from Earth to Mars with a place where, literally, they could get themselves in shape to actually walk/stand again before dropping to the surface.

Likewise, when returning from the Martian surface, they could recuperate before the trip back to Earth. That way they've only got the trip back and forth from which to worry about lack of gravity (in the event you can't produce 1G gravity on your ship I mean.)

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

This entire announcement is a pile of total fiction, literally none of this will ever happen.

Be specific. Why won’t VIPER happen? Why won’t the other robotic “drones” happen?

 

[Ken_g6]

Even if China "get there" first they have decided on an equatorial landing site like the US did with Apollo largely for the same reasons. Limited DeltaV from their hypergolic expendable landers. The south pole is interesting but hard to reach.

Why is the south pole hard to reach? When approaching the moon, it's only a small angle difference to enter a polar orbit vs. an equatorial one. And the moon doesn't rotate nearly as fast as Earth, once a month vs. once a day, so that shouldn't affect delta-v much.

Edit: I'd say communications issues are more likely at fault. It's easier to land somewhere you can see Earth than somewhere it might hide behind a hill.

 

[fenris_uy]

The space agency is prepared to do everything it can to help its contractors succeed, from embedding subject matter experts to relaxing requirements. But the time for excuses is coming to an end, he said.

Prove it, if a contractor is late in a Cost plus contract, then don't award him the maximum posible "plus" for the contract.

SLS is late for Artemis III, Boeing doesn't gets an award.

Betchel is late with the launch tower, they don't get an award.

Prove that you don't want to waste billions.

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

Huh. Sounds like season 2 & 3 of "For All Mankind".

I assume Starship is part of this, to put 60 tons of material on the moon by 2032. And SpaceX employees could get a windfall from their IPO (whenever it happens).

This isn’t going to fundamentally support the loony IPO valuation one iota. Even when Starship enters service they will have a $30B revenue company attempting to justify a $1.5T+ valuation with xAI attached to their bank accounts hoovering out cash like a squid attached to your face and hoovering out your oxygen.

 

[Muon]

Gateway's HALO and PPE are both in assembly and integration testing right now, so what are they going to do with the parts? Replace the ISS?

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

Good. There's ZERO reason to waste time/money/resources on a station in Lunar orbit when it's trivial to go straight from LEO to Lunar orbit directly. If you're going to do something that's never been done, a base ON THE LUNAR SURFACE is far more of an improvement ("improvement" to the lunar exploration situation I mean, a place to recuperate and, hopefully, avoid being irradiated in a solar flair situation would be very welcome I suspect )

Now MARTIAN orbit, that's another story. I can totally see why a space station in Mars orbit would be welcome, especially if it could be configured with 1G rotational gravity. It would provide astronauts making the multi-month trip from Earth to Mars with a place where, literally, they could get themselves in shape to actually walk/stand again before dropping to the surface.

Likewise, when returning from the Martian surface, they could recuperate before the trip back to Earth. That way they've only got the trip back and forth from which to worry about lack of gravity (in the event you can't produce 1G gravity on your ship I mean.)

Starship has reentry shielding allowing it to directly and immediately land on mars, where there already is a substantial amount of gravity. That saves the immense costs of building a space station in Martian orbit and creating separate landers, and maximizing payloads to the surface.

 

[fenris_uy]

This appears to be a takeaway for me too. The mockup shows HLS and what maybe is a BO lander?

But we aren't getting any of this done on the Artemis cadence rate of one every three years. So to make the math math they'd need to pivot to other options like SpaceX and BO for even a shot at a once a year cadence much less what this seems to demand.

But maybe I missed something or I'm reading too much into it?

You only need SLS and Orion if you plan to send people. Most of the missions proposed are delivering material, and you don't need people to do that.