Rocket launch marks big step in building China’s lunar infrastructure

Queqiao-2 will relay data between Earth and Chinese spacecraft on the far side of the Moon.

See full article...

 

[BrangdonJ]

According to Eric Berger's anonymous source it is highly likely, that after few launches NASA will drop SLS and Orion and switch to Dragon + Starship.

1. HLS launched to LEO
2. refueled
3. astronauts launched to LEO on a Dragon
4. dock HLS
5. Earth-Moon-Earh roundtrip on HLS
6. Dragon launched to LEO
7. dock HLS
8. astronauts splash down on a Dragon

Even if Blue Origin enters the game they'll go a similar route (maybe with Starliner, hopefully being flight approved till then).

There is no rational reason to keep SLS on the long run, even if costs are not considered, one launch per year is obviously not enough to mainain continous present on the Moon.

I'm sure NASA would love to do something like that. Not sure that Congress will let them. It's more about the politics of pork than the technology. Although I would be interested to see what that anonymous source actually said.

 

[BrangdonJ]

You're looking at a colony as something that has to spring from an economic need, but you're forgetting there's a more primal reason that that will be people on the moon. Defense.

With the cost to access space dropping as much as it has the impetus and the ability to put people up there goes up. LEO is now filling up with Satellites after SpaceX proved their reduced costs can make Constellation sats viable. But LEO is close enough existing infrastructures will suffice.

Luna is the next ultimate high ground as I believe the article called it too. There will be as we understand it limited spots that will work for colonies, at least at first. Said spots are likely to be political pawns especially as China continues its rise to greater power. There is near certainly military interest in boots on the moon for the longer term. Both as a boast of military and technological prowess and in a claim staking sense.

Yes we have a treaty saying the moon and space aren't supposed to be militarized, but we all know that won't last when countries get belligerent. Look at the degradation of the nuclear treaties we have.

So once there's an established "fort" on the moon there will be possible incentives to send more people up there. Yes the soldiers up there aren't going to be buying over priced Camaros and eating at the local diner next year.

But long term habitable space will need support crews, support crews will mean there's likely space for other people as well, say scientists from NASA looking for cheaper lodgings than building their own.

So as DARPA's RFI that was talked about in a prior article suggests maybe communal resource hubs like electricity and heating and the like can be built in such a way that it spurs commercial providers. Who now have to send their own techs up. Those techs will want things to do, or will have free time to do things like live stream a buggy ride on the moon.

Which in our social media age will get millions of views. That will prove to someone there's a tourism or marketing market to pounce on and off we go.

It's almost certainly not next decade or even two, but that's IMO the likely natural course. Political pissing contest for prime lunar real estate into a workable small colony, then naturally into something much longer term as more economic benefits are created.

Is that begging the question? There's no need for a large military presence to defend a colony that doesn't exist. And the military themselves don't have much interest in the Moon. It's too far away both in time and in delta-v to be useful for attacks on Earth, or Earth orbit. If there's a base for science or tourism, there may be some military role in defending it, but it would be proportionate.

It's possible a Lunar colony could be sustained by tourism, if that ever gets cheap enough. There are plenty of places on Earth where tourism is by far the dominant industry and the one that supports the others. However, that's a big "if".

I've long believed that the place for a colony is Mars, and the place for a base is the Moon. That's partly because of the natural resources available in the two places. Mars is tough but it potentially has everything needed; the Moon is tougher and doesn't, so far as we know. And it's partly because of travel times. Staff can rotate in and out of a Moon base on a monthly (or six-monthly) basis, for example, which isn't possible with Mars. If someone gets pregnant on the Moon, they can return to Earth, have the baby, then go back. Not an option with Mars. So there may be a base on the Moon, similar to the ones in the Arctic, that never grows into a colony.