SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
SpaceX has won a big NASA contract to fly cargo to the Moon
"This is another critical piece of our plan to return to the Moon sustainably."
[...] Last summer, NASA put out a call for companies who would be willing to deliver cargo to a proposed station in orbit around the Moon, called the Lunar Gateway. On Friday, NASA announced that the first award under this "Gateway Logistics" contract would go to SpaceX.
The company has proposed using its Falcon Heavy rocket to deliver a modified version of its Dragon spacecraft, called Dragon XL, to the Lunar Gateway. After delivering cargo, experiments and other supplies, the spacecraft would be required to remain docked at the Gateway for a year before "autonomous" disposal.
"This contract award is another critical piece of our plan to return to the Moon sustainably," NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said in a news release. "The Gateway is the cornerstone of the long-term Artemis architecture, and this deep space commercial cargo capability integrates yet another American industry partner into our plans for human exploration at the Moon in preparation for a future mission to Mars."
SpaceX's most powerful rocket will send NASA cargo to the moon's orbit to supply astronauts:
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration on Friday picked SpaceX as the first supplier to bring cargo to the agency's Gateway station in orbit around the moon, a big contract win for Elon Musk's space company.
SpaceX said it will use a new variation of its cargo spacecraft, called Dragon XL, to carry "more than 5 metric tons of cargo to Gateway in lunar orbit." The company will lift the spacecraft using its Falcon Heavy rocket, the most powerful rocket in the world.
I thought SLS was going to return us to the moon.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday March 28 2020, @02:21PM (15 children)
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/03/dragon-xl-nasa-spacex-lunar-gateway-supply-contract/ [nasaspaceflight.com]
5 metric tons to TLI/lunar orbit seems low, and may be too low for some Lunar Gateway [wikipedia.org] modules that could be in the 8-10 ton range, such as the Power and Propulsion Element. But that number is almost certainly for a reusable mode Falcon Heavy with 3 landed boosters. They can launch more in expendable mode and still get the module to lunar orbit cheaper than competitors.
If Dragon XL can offer more volume/width than the normal payload fairing, that could be useful for some Air Force launches.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday March 28 2020, @02:35PM (10 children)
If the station were in earth-moon orbit, all the boosters could be returned to earth for reuse, along with a bunch of moon rocks, and the station itself can be expanded piecemeal while in service.
Doesn't seem like that's ever going to happen though.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday March 28 2020, @03:43PM (6 children)
The manned space program is always going to suck until NASA starts paying for hundreds of fully reusable rocket launches. Until then, it's just goofing around.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday March 28 2020, @04:18PM (5 children)
Yes, propulsion is still ancient bottle rockets. We need big changes there.
I'm not convinced a manned space program is the way to go. We should polish up on the automation (robotics) first to mitigate the effort needed to survive and thrive.
Space is a great place to visit to see the sights, but I wouldn't want to live there. I'm happy with the spaceship we're riding on right now, doesn't require a lot of human effort to maintain with resources we haven't begun to explore to make life even easier. We have to make our portable equipment operate the same way.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday March 28 2020, @04:35PM (4 children)
The U.S. has spent hundreds of billions on manned space programs over the decades, the big one being the Space Shuttle. It seems like that kind of money will still be around, especially if we can suddenly get 10x bang for the buck. The usual suspects will make sure that manned spaceflight continues, even if they aren't involved with launching the payloads.
Robotic exploration and telescopes will just greatly benefit from fully reusable launches. Not only that, but lower cost per launch and huge payload fairings could allow universities and smaller countries to attempt some of the same kinds of missions that only NASA, ESA, etc. do today (instead of a cheapo CubeSat rideshare).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday March 28 2020, @06:36PM (3 children)
Robotic exploration and telescopes will just greatly benefit from fully reusable launches.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm only asking if you think it would be cheaper and more practical, logical to have the orbiting station on a regular orbit between the moon and earth instead just hanging around the moon all day. You can have people prepping the boosters for drop off on return while in transit.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 28 2020, @07:26PM (1 child)
It's actually a rather complicated figure eight orbit with as I understand it a relatively high propellant cost just to maintain orbit. And twice an orbit, it'd be cutting through the L1 Lagrange point [wikipedia.org] (which is about 90% of the way to the Moon from Earth) which promises to be busy in the long run. My take is that it'd be easier just to keep the station at L1 even though that is unstable (it's not very unstable if one corrects regularly).
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday March 28 2020, @07:59PM
It's actually a rather complicated figure eight orbit with as I understand it a relatively high propellant cost just to maintain orbit.
Yeah, it won't fly...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday March 28 2020, @07:39PM
I am fine with putting stations in low Earth orbit or up to geosynchronous, and putting boots directly on the ground anywhere else, such as the Moon and Mars. No stations in lunar or semi-lunar orbit required, at least this century.
Maybe you can use this [wikipedia.org] but I'm not sure it's necessary.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2020, @05:16PM (2 children)
I'm not sure what benefit an Earth-Moon orbit would provide. It doesn't save any fuel. It's not as though you can "hop on" as it passes; you first have to match orbits, which means you'll go to the Moon whether the station was there or not. It might make sense for a long-duration mission (i.e. a living habitat for ongoing missions to Mars), but it seems overkill for a 3-day trip.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday March 28 2020, @06:07PM (1 child)
That's ok. You attach the rocket(s) outside the station, and even use them for course corrections, and bring everything back to earth for reuse. And four stations will give you daily service. You can put a bunch of payloads into a parking orbit until the station comes around, then they accelerate and latch on. Think of it as a coal train, with only four cars, but you can keep adding more. It would be much cheaper to build and launch them from the moon. That's where the robots have to fill in. Use them to make things real comfy for the people.
But that's for space stuff. For terrestrial needs, let's see what we find when we dig a little deeper than eight miles.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2020, @06:43PM
But the boosters can do that just fine without the station. You have to put them in the exact same orbit as the station in order to attach them, then you have to unattach them and change their orbits to do anything with them (such as land them).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 28 2020, @03:38PM (3 children)
Another alternative here is two launch Falcon Heavy (or even Falcon 9) missions to LEO. One with the payload and one with the booster and propellant necessary to get the payload to either lunar orbit or a Lagrange point. None of the payloads would be out of reach for a pair of Falcon 9s, much less a pair of Falcon Heavies.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday March 28 2020, @03:42PM (2 children)
I don't think SpaceX will even attempt to do that. Any in-orbit refueling efforts will be focused on Starship, which is intended to make Falcon 9 and Heavy completely obsolete once customers can trust in it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 28 2020, @04:05PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 28 2020, @07:28PM