Going back to the Moon

What is interesting IIRC it took 12 years from the moment NASA decided to try to land a man on the moon and bring them back in the 50’s and 60’s. Which they of course successfully achieved.
This one IIUC has taken longer than that and will not actually be landing on the moon but will be orbiting it with space dummies.

Well, I can’t say I like Musk or Tesla and their religious followership, it has to be clearly acknowledged that SpaceX has done what should have been done and must be done to make Spaceflight sustainable. Reuse of both capsule and carrier vehicles is essential for that.

I have heard some musings that once the Shuttle era engines run out, Orion could be launched on Space X rockets as easily as creating a matching adaptor. Makes sense, but if it’s gonna happen seeing that Space X has their own capsule and likely will build bigger stuff in the future, is questionable.

The return to “Apollo Type” spacecraft after the Shuttle is disappointing to some, but a logical thing to others. The Shuttle always was an Orbiter, that it failed commercially is tragic as it should really have been the type of device used. Basically, the Shuttle was derived of the X15 type approach to space flight, whereas capsules like Apollo or Soyuz for that matter are rocket based. Being able to re-use the capsules on the US side, makes them ahead of the Russian devices, but they are maybe not the leap forward that people thought would happen.

However, Space X’s re-usable launch vehicles has changed the equation a lot. The main argument of the Shuttle was it’s reusability as well as payload capacity. Reusability has been achieved on almost all components of Space X and parts of Orion. Payload is not so much the issue anymore as those launch vehicles can math the one of the Shuttle in commercial terms.

Neverthelesss, for interplanetar flights as well as interstellar flights, it is well acknowledged that none of those will launch from earth but from earth orbit.

Peter wrote:

Also the Saturn would still fly on 4 engines (and probably reach orbit?)

It did that several times.

Peter wrote:

Would the Musk rocket hover with OEI?

In the descent phase? Most probably not.

Peter wrote:

NASA addressed that on Saturn 5 with capsule ejection, which is obviously acceptable, albeit only within a certain post-launch time window.

The Crew Dragon has a similar escape system during launch. I strongly suppose so does the Orion Spacecraft.

This was one of the weak points of the Shuttle. It is known that the Crew of Challenger survived the initial explosion. Had the crew compartment in the front had an escape system or even a parashute system in case it breaks clear of the orbiter as it did in that event, the crew might have been saved.

Peter wrote:

Reusability is not quite real yet. The post-flight overhaul on the shuttle was hundreds of millions. No sign of that one having been really solved. The huge amount of damage to the shuttle was not expected when that project was started.

There is a monumental difference between the current capsules and the Shuttle, which was much larger. AFAIK Crew Dragon capsules have been re-used as well as boosters have. Yes, the Shuttle solid rocket boosters were re-usable but at much higher cost than the current boosters which actually land rather than splash down. The capsules are much smaller and considerably less complex, which means overhaul cost of those are a fraction of what the Shuttles cost were.

The Shuttle failed due to many problems, yet it still was an increadible platform and imho abandoning its development will haunt NASA eventually. The original plans for the Shuttle meant to have several dozens of them built rather than only six. With a larger quantity of vehicles, turnaround and expertise would have been much bigger. Also the idea of a aerodynamical and fully re-usable launch vehicle was never realized, which was one major reason the cost were so high. Fact of the matter is, for further development such as larger space stations up to space docks, they will need a shuttle with a similar or larger carrying capacity and, given the re-entry problem, there are not much options to that. With the Shuttle gone, there is no way to get large hardware back to Earth in one piece. So eventually it will have to come back in some form.

I did see a very interesting documentary on Buran recently, which appears to have been a quite interesting project. It failed due to lack of money, not because it was not viable. The only flight it did happened fully automatic and without a crew, which is something the US Shuttle was not capable of. They also were trying to get a version with retracable jet engines, which would have given Buran the capability to operate into almost every half ways large airport instead of being limited to a few select runways as the Shuttle was. And while Russian technology in Space and Aerospace was always “behind” technologically speaking, it was of a usually very rugged design and, in particular the Soyuz system with it’s rockets and crew modules prove extremely durable.

Somehow I hope we are going to see interesting times ahead. The fact that several developers are in operation right now is encouraging. I do hope Artemis will succeed and they manage to launch it one of these next days. The abandoning of the Moon flights and beyond was a big disappointment at the time. Now, that more and more of those things become privately funded, maybe we will see a less politically driven decision tree on what is feasible and what not.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

It is known that the Crew of Challenger survived the initial explosion.

I recall reading that it was apparent from the wreckage that the crew had begun emergency procedures. Really horrible.

The moon. Isn’t that a bit of a been there, done that thing anyway? Why bring people to the moon again?

LeSving wrote:

Why bring people to the moon again?

Many reasons.
- The moon will always be the nearest place where you can actually try out and test equipment meant for Mars or elsewhere.
- It may well become the home of space stations in the future where quite a lot of research could be done in conditions which are better than running the ISS e.t.c.
- The moon with it’s reduced gravity lends itself as a launch place for interplanetary or interstellar missions.

The main question is not why go back there, but why did mankind actually vaccate it? At the end of the NASA program, loads of scientific missions were not done which were planned (Landing on the far side being one) and at the time of the moon race both the USSR and USA were thinking loudly about a permanent presence there.

Also going back there in this current political arena carries a part of starting over the capabilities which got lost or put on ice after the Apollo program ended. One main question is, can we still do it? How can we do it better, with more payload, with a view towards permanent presence?

IMHO, if mankind really wishes to start up permanent presences on places like Mars, there is no way around doing it on the moon first.

Airborne_Again wrote:

I recall reading that it was apparent from the wreckage that the crew had begun emergency procedures. Really horrible.

The same is true for Columbia’s fatal re-entry. The crew must have known exactly what was going on.

There was a hush hush mission which almost met the same fate. STS 27, commanded by Hoot Gibson, was a defence department mission which got massive heat shield damage but survived entry, just. In case you have not seen this documentary, it’s darn good.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Mars

Why bring people to Mars?

I understand the exploration side of it, an astronaut exploring the secrets of space and all that . But is there any scientific advantage of bringing people? From a scientific point of view, it’s stuff like the James Webb space telescope that is interesting. The unmanned trips to Mars is interesting. The concept of exploring space and planets without people is interesting all by itself. The moment people get into it, it all ends up in a struggle only to keep them alive.

LeSving wrote:

Why bring people to Mars?

But why some say the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why 35 years ago fly the Atlantic? We choose to go to the moon. We chose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we’re willing to accept.

John F. Kennedy.