Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

NASA Chief Says a Falcon Heavy Rocket Could Fly Humans to the Moon

posted by chromas on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:45AM   Printer-friendly
from the bang...zoom...straight...to-the-moon dept.

upstart writes:

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

NASA chief says a Falcon Heavy rocket could fly humans to the Moon

[...] Until now, it was thought that only NASA's Space Launch System could directly inject the Orion spacecraft into a lunar orbit, which made it the preferred option for getting astronauts to the Moon for any potential landing by 2024. However, [NASA Administrator Jim] Bridenstine said there was another option: a Falcon Heavy rocket with an Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage built by United Launch Alliance.

[...] This plan has the ability to put humans on the Moon by 2024, Bridenstine said. He then emphasized—twice—that NASA's chief of human spaceflight, William Gerstenmaier, has yet to bless this approach due to a number of technical details. His reservations include the challenge of integrating the Falcon Heavy rocket in a horizontal position and then loading Orion with fuel in a vertical configuration on the launchpad. The Falcon Heavy would also require a larger payload fairing than it normally flies with. This would place uncertain stress on the rocket's side-mounted boosters.

"It would require time [and] cost, and there is risk involved," Bridenstine said. "But guess what—if we're going to land boots on the Moon in 2024, we have time, and we have the ability to accept some risk and make some modifications. All of that is on the table. There is nothing sacred here that is off the table. And that is a potential capability that could help us land boots on the Moon in 2024."

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
NASA Chief Says a Falcon Heavy Rocket Could Fly Humans to the Moon | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 24 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 02 2019, @11:58PM (2 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday April 02 2019, @11:58PM (#823864)

    No, that [arstechnica.com].

    Sadly, i think I read it has been destroyed because of the stainless steel change.

    I can't help but wonder what results one would get by making an empty 9m cylinder with this drum, just to link enough F9 cores to throw something really big at the moon (people + lander+ gateway), before return each of the 4/5/6 boosters back to the ground..
    Probably less efficient than Super Heavy, but that launch would redefine the word Awesome.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday April 03 2019, @12:34AM (1 child)

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday April 03 2019, @12:34AM (#823873) Journal

    Yes, it was destroyed and there are photos:

    https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-all-in-steel-starship-super-heavy/ [teslarati.com]

    Ars comments speculated that there are good reasons to scrap it:

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/rocket-report-spacex-scraps-costly-tooling-vandenberg-lull-starliner-slip/?comments=1&start=40 [arstechnica.com]

    Accounting, probably. If they felt confident enough that the tooling would never be used again, then they could scrap it and write it off. Since it was so new, it's likely that very little depreciation had already been taken and so they could write off most of it, as opposed to keeping it "for a few years" and then writing it off. They also save the storage cost and protect any proprietary design attribute(s) that may have existed.

    According to GAAP, if you don't actually scrap the tooling, then you really can't write it off. If that's not enough, it's also a way (maybe the best way) of sending up a clear message of confidence in the new direction to both internal and external interests.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 03 2019, @12:48AM

      by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday April 03 2019, @12:48AM (#823877)

      Yup, that's the one I had read. :_(

      Back of the envelope math says you can fit 8 5m F9 around a 9m core (made of carbon fiber and really a lot of struts). 72 engines takeoff... drool...
      Can we get another billionaire to commission that? Either shatter all launch records, or make a $500M fireball ...
      It would "just" need a bit of engine control software, and one hell of a launchpad. The rest is ready to send us to the moon/Mars/Saturn by the end of the year. That's how you do quick-turn reuse, NASA !

      /dreaming