SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
SpaceX Offers NASA A Custom Moon Freighter:
Under the current Administration, NASA has been tasked with returning American astronauts to the Moon as quickly as possible. The Artemis program would launch a crewed mission to our nearest celestial neighbor as soon as 2024, and establish a system for sustainable exploration and habitation by 2028. It's an extremely aggressive timeline, to put it mildly.
To have any chance of meeting these goals, NASA will have to enlist the help of not only its international partners, but private industry. There simply isn't enough time for the agency to design, build, and test all of the hardware that will eventually be required for any sort of sustained presence on or around the Moon. By awarding a series of contracts, NASA plans to offload some of the logistical components of the Artemis program to qualified companies and agencies.
For anyone who's been following the New Space race these last few years, it should come as no surprise to hear that SpaceX has already been awarded one of these lucrative logistics contracts. They've been selected as the first commercial provider for cargo deliveries to Gateway, a small space station that NASA intendeds to operate in lunar orbit. Considering SpaceX already has a contract to resupply the International Space Station, they were the ideal candidate to offer similar services for a future lunar outpost.
But that certainly doesn't mean it will be easy. The so-called "Gateway Logistics Services" contract stipulates that providers must be able to deliver at least 3,400 kilograms (7,500 pounds) of pressurized cargo and 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) of unpressurized cargo to lunar orbit. That's beyond the capabilities of SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which was only designed to service low Earth orbit.
To complete this new mission, the company is proposing a new vehicle they're calling the Dragon XL that would ride to orbit on the Falcon Heavy booster. But even for this New Space darling, there's not a lot of time to design, test, and build a brand-new spacecraft. To get the Dragon XL flying as quickly as possible, SpaceX is going to need to strip the craft down to the bare minimum.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19 2020, @10:44AM (1 child)
Those lucrative logistics contracts were designed specifically for Boeing... you can be sure their congress-critters will be hearing about this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19 2020, @07:32PM
Indeed. We need real men working on our space tech who know how to treat women right. It's simply irresponsible to let a company with a cuddle puddle couch have these contracts. The bros at SpaceX and their promotion of the date-rape drug marihuana are clearly responsible for the lack of women engineers. Boeing is the way to go.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday April 19 2020, @01:32PM (5 children)
Now taking bets on which happens first:
- SpaceX delivers cargo to lunar orbit using their moon freighter
- SpaceX lands a Starship on the surface of the moon.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday April 19 2020, @05:33PM
IIRC, things related to Project Artemis are delayed, and Gateway is more in doubt with the Administration favoring landing things on the Moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Lunar_Gateway [wikipedia.org]
PPE is a critical Gateway component. HLS = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Lunar_Lander [wikipedia.org]
SpaceX did get that failed Israeli lander to the Moon, and there are other private payloads (e.g. rovers) that are a part of Project Artemis that might use SpaceX to get there, probably with Falcon 9 rather than Heavy and Dragon XL.
BTW, coronavirus has halted SLS work.
Prior to workplace closures, SLS was making good progress ahead of opening missions [nasaspaceflight.com]
SpaceX will reuse a section of its latest busted Starship [teslarati.com].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20 2020, @05:59AM (3 children)
If Starship lands on the moon first, then it's a Moonship and not a Starship.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Immerman on Monday April 20 2020, @12:46PM
And if a Chevy Nova doesn't erupt in a planet-vaporizing explosion it's just a car?
Give it a rest, it's just a name, it doesn't mean anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20 2020, @10:41PM (1 child)
You're insisting the land on a STAR then? no other planetary bodies?
You know, when they try, you're just going to come back with "They never landed on the start, the ship was vaporized before it made contact with the surface."
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday April 20 2020, @11:04PM
Since when do stars have a meaningful surface?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19 2020, @04:28PM
throwing away the wrapper again ...
(Score: 2) by BananaPhone on Sunday April 19 2020, @05:48PM (2 children)
https://www.spacex.com/mars [spacex.com]
They are planning for a SECOND trip to Mars by 2024 with People!!
And this author is worried about 2028 on the Moon??
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday April 19 2020, @06:18PM (1 child)
That is going to be a tough deadline. The "dearMoon" [wikipedia.org] launch no earlier than 2023 seems more realistic.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday April 20 2020, @01:20PM
"dearMoon" is a passenger flight - there's going to be a LOT of unmanned testing before that. Probably several flights around and even to the moon. And since Elon doesn't actually care about the moon, probably several flights to Mars as well. After all, to get to the moon Starship will need orbital refueling anyway, and at that point reaching Mars isn't actually any more difficult, it just takes an extra month or three of coasting.
Mars is "special" though because the planets are only in the right alignment for the flight once every two years - if you want to do anything on Mars in a timely fashion, you *really* don't want to waste that window if you can help it. I doubt they'll be ready for this year's window, but I'd bet good money they launch at least a few test rockets in 2022, and if they do so they'll probably take a bunch of non-perishable goods that would be helpful to future colonists. Including, I suspect, an automated fuel-synthesis plant to try to start producing fuel so that future missions have the possibility of a return flight. If it works, they have return fuel waiting so that passengers are an option in 2024. If not, they'll have a good idea as to what they need to send to make it work so that they can have fuel waiting for a 2026 flight.
Meanwhile, a passenger flight around the moon would mean that the Starship is ready to fly passengers - life support is working, and landing is well-tested and reliable under the much harsher conditions on Earth (high gravity, crosswinds, etc). At that point, getting people to Mars is mostly just a matter of finding passengers willing to accept the radiation damage from the trip. (well, and maybe some upgraded life support)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19 2020, @06:57PM (2 children)
Trump wants Artemis to go to the moon by 2024, so it happens during his administration instead of the next one and he can have all the glory. But it's going to be just about impossible for that to happen. SLS might not even be flying at all by then, much less taking crews to the Moon. And it's not out of the question that SpaceX will land Starship on the moon before SLS gets there (or even leaves the factory).
NASA, finally bowing to reality, has admitted that the Gateway is a waste of effort and doesn't contribute to landing on the Moon at all, and they're not going to bother with it before landing on the Moon. They're still pretending they're going to build it, mostly as an exercise in giving money to space contractors, but if Artemis lands on the moon in 2024, very serious questions will be asked about what Gateway is good for (and it's not good for anything).
Since the incoming president always cancels whatever the last administration was doing in space, if Biden wins the election or Artemis isn't just about ready for launch in 2024, it will all get sent back to the drawing board anyway.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday April 19 2020, @08:17PM (1 child)
I think a new administration would not kill Artemis outright. It can be shuffled around easily. The Gateway could be cancelled or not, human landings could be scaled back, and there will be a bunch of low-cost landers/rovers that are probably safe. They can make it their own.
Artemis staying intact is probably for the best. The Gateway would likely be built with Falcon Heavy instead of SLS pork rockets now, and a pivot to Mars or any other major space project should wait until Starship is ready.
A new administration would decide the fate of the ISS. U.S. involvement is confirmed through 2028, which could be extended to 2030 if the Leading Human Spaceflight Act is passed. It remains to be seen if there is any real interest in ISS "commercialization". Russia could also refuse to play ball and remove their segments.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19 2020, @09:55PM
It all depends on SLS, when does it fly, how many are available, what capabilities does it have once it starts flying, what does it cost, what's happening with Starship? But I'm mostly thinking about the human flight part of it, which is the more interesting part. Robot landers that are part of the program but are mostly isolated from the human astronauts and the SLS aren't really the issue.
As far as the ISS, it's hard to say. Nobody knows how much it is going to cost to fly people to ISS in 2030. It would be an ideal place to do space tourism if it's cheap enough. You get a nice view of the Earth, long duration weightlessness, and the safety of home just a couple of hours away. It doesn't really have much other use. Very little science and no manufacturing happen there. Bigelow wanted to make hab modules for it, but they're shut down now.
The Russians might extract a few rubles from somebody by threatening to withdraw, but it would be pretty awkward for them to disassemble their part of the station, so they're going to either keep participating, or negotiate mostly for getting relieved of their Outer Space Treaty disposal responsibilities by whoever takes over the station.