Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the To-the-Moon,-Alice!-To-the-Moon! dept.

No more sending humans to an asteroid. We're going back to the Moon:

The policy calls for the NASA administrator to "lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities." The effort will more effectively organize government, private industry, and international efforts toward returning humans on the Moon, and will lay the foundation that will eventually enable human exploration of Mars.

"The directive I am signing today will refocus America's space program on human exploration and discovery," said President Trump. "It marks a first step in returning American astronauts to the Moon for the first time since 1972, for long-term exploration and use. This time, we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprints -- we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars, and perhaps someday, to many worlds beyond."

The policy grew from a unanimous recommendation by the new National Space Council, chaired by Vice President Mike Pence, after its first meeting Oct. 5. In addition to the direction to plan for human return to the Moon, the policy also ends NASA's existing effort to send humans to an asteroid. The president revived the National Space Council in July to advise and help implement his space policy with exploration as a national priority.

President's remarks and White House release.

Presidential Memorandum on Reinvigorating America's Human Space Exploration Program

Also at Reuters and New Scientist.

Previously: Should We Skip Mars for Now and Go to the Moon Again?
How to Get Back to the Moon in 4 Years, Permanently
NASA Eyeing Mini Space Station in Lunar Orbit as Stepping Stone to Mars
NASA and Roscosmos Sign Joint Statement on the Development of a Lunar Space Station
Bigelow and ULA to Put Inflatable Module in Orbit Around the Moon by 2022


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
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 frojack on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:45AM (6 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:45AM (#609052) Journal

    If Falcon Heavy can be successfully landed and re-used, then why couldn't SLS be modified to do the same?

    If NASA bought that technology from SpaceX, (its not all that secret, and there is more than one such solution in existence), it might be worth the money, and save the design. Its too expensive to fly it as is.

    The whole idea that the final package has to go up on one rocket is just too much 1969 thinking. We built the ISS precisely to gain the experience so as to not need to do "one-rocket-missions" any more. There's no reason people should step foot on the moon without a ready and waiting habitat and return vehicle sitting there waiting for them.

    but Moon-then-Mars manned exploration is probably clearly a better idea.

    FIFY

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:13AM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:13AM (#609054) Journal

    NASA should just buy launches from SpaceX, and maybe support ULA, Blue Origin, etc. to prevent a complete monopoly or stagnation (along with supporting smaller launchers like Rocket Lab, which could be launching tomorrow [spaceflightnow.com]).

    ULA's upcoming Vulcan [wikipedia.org] design is only intended to be partially reusable. Clearly, just knowing that reusability is an achievable goal is not enough for fully reusable rockets to be designed.

    Space Launch System is manufactured by Boeing/United Launch Alliance, Orbital ATK, and Aerojet Rocketdyne. Are they the ones that would have to license SpaceX's technology? Will SpaceX sell their secrets to entrenched military industrial complex companies that have opposed [politico.com] and shit [soylentnews.org] talked [floridatoday.com] them [soylentnews.org] every step of the way?

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:20AM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:20AM (#609124) Journal

    If NASA bought that technology from SpaceX, (its not all that secret, and there is more than one such solution in existence), it might be worth the money, and save the design. Its too expensive to fly it as is.

    The problem is reusability only makes sense if you're launching in volume. For the Space Shuttle, that threshold was about 40 launches per year. I think SpaceX expects it to kick in at a somewhat lower launch rate, but still probably higher than today's 18+ launches this year. SLS is planned to launch every one to two years. It's not in the league where it is viable as an expendable vehicle, much less cover the additional overhead of reusability.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:11PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:11PM (#609305) Journal

      I'm a little conflicted about this:

      https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=17/11/30/0442222 [soylentnews.org]
      https://archive.fo/vh0Bb [archive.fo]

      After a decade of “What If” hypotheses concerning SpaceX, its European competitors now accept that the company may in fact be able to reduce costs by introducing previously flown Falcon 9 first stages into its business.

      Gerd Gruppe, a member of DLR’s executive board and responsible for DLR’s space program, said the agency has concluded that SpaceX is on the verge of realizing the savings it has promised from reusing first stages.

      “With 20 launches a year the Falcon 9 uses around 200 engines, and while their cost of refurbishment is unknown, we think SpaceX is well on the way to establishing a competitive system based on the reusability” of the rocket’s first stage, Gruppe said here Oct. 24 at the Space Tech Expo conference.

      But it doesn't seem to me that SpaceX has to reuse anywhere near 16-20 rockets to see a cost benefit:

      https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=18744&page=1&cid=486870#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]

      Are the discounts coming because it is experimental and risky for the customer? Or because SpaceX is ready to offer a better value? Either way, it seems like insurance companies are bullish [seattletimes.com] on the reusable rocket concept after seeing so many successfully landed boosters and a handful of commercially reused boosters.

      We could get a better indication of how well reusability is working for SpaceX after they fulfill their goal of reusing a booster within 24 hours (or let's say a week since launches are often delayed by days), and when SpaceX publishes permanently lower prices here [spacex.com] (perhaps indicating that you get a lower price only if you fly using reusable mode).

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:16PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:16PM (#609209)

    Reusability isn't something that can easily be worked in to a design after-the-fact. It's something that really needs to be planned from the start. If they're going to make the SLS reusable, they need to effectively start over (which, granted, would let them fix a lot of the stupid design choices they've made, but since those were more pork-driven than engineering-driven anyway it probably wouldn't help).

    I'm also not sure about the economics of trying to reuse solid fuel rockets (the SLS boosters). I suspect it wouldn't be worth it, leaving only the core stack as a possible cost saver. Better than nothing, but as long as the project is being driven by the pork it's pretty irrelevant.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:06PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:06PM (#609248)

      I'm also not sure about the economics of trying to reuse solid fuel rockets (the SLS boosters). I suspect it wouldn't be worth it, leaving only the core stack as a possible cost saver. Better than nothing, but as long as the project is being driven by the pork it's pretty irrelevant.

      I thought they did reuse the solid fuel rockets (SRBs) on the Space Shuttle, and that was decades ago. The SRBs would separate when they ran out of fuel, then deploy parachutes so they could be recovered.

  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:56PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:56PM (#609266) Journal

    If Falcon Heavy can be successfully landed and re-used, then why couldn't SLS be modified to do the same?

    The second rule of Government Spending. Why recycle a used item when you can sell them a new one for five times as much?

    The first rule of Government Spending was cited in the movie Contact.

    It's like the opposite of the rules of acquisition?

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.