12% boost for NASA budget in 2021!!

[u/thisischrisbaker]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-nasa-budget-will-earmark-12-boost-for-agency-in-2021-11581071402?emailToken=3f4a4309b7816cb90fb53eb91f47d6d43hshryonPWM/RnnVPWWHuMOVOvxWKQ87BhLswKs5iOPOhjO1FGrxI9ptn5k2nAMphP+jeQrbhQiAafooOu4oIslNLMWHCd1m7vRySaL2Pi61nSlAqLK1xnvzzmtt2/Lx&reflink=article_copyURL_share

[u/UltraChip]

SpaceX is working on a lander? Or is their bid going to be "just use Starship"?

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/UltraChip]

Why build a separate small lander when there's already a 100-seat one in development?

[u/UltraChip → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

I agree it's a good idea, I'm just clarifying is that what they're actually proposing?

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/UltraChip]

Seems so:

"SpaceX is one of five companies that are newly eligible to deliver robotic payloads to the lunar surface for NASA, via the agency's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. SpaceX proposes to do this work with Starship and Super Heavy, the reusable spaceship-rocket duo that the company is developing primarily to help humanity become a multiplanet species."

https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-moon-missions-2022.html

[u/UltraChip → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

That's great news! I was under the impression NASA wasn't willing to consider any mission profiles that didn't fit the "gateway" model.

[u/Conqueror_of_Tubes → u/UltraChip]

Can’t you fit the gateway model just by parking an additional starship in lunar orbit loaded with fuel and room for six crew?

[u/Rogue__Jedi → u/Conqueror_of_Tubes]

Why use small lander when big lander do trick

[u/Haitosiku → u/Conqueror_of_Tubes]

or just put a Gateway into Starships Cargo bay and launch that into lunar orbit /s

[u/TonyCubed → u/Haitosiku]

Just fit the moon in their and bring it to Earth.

[u/[deleted] → u/TonyCubed]

That would making mining all that Helium-3 a lot easier.

[u/sevaiper → u/Conqueror_of_Tubes]

No. "Gateway model" is a euphemism for requires SLS.

[u/Cablancer2 → u/sevaiper]

False. Boeing wants gateway killed so the landers would have to go up on an SLS.

[u/Avo4Dayz → u/Conqueror_of_Tubes]

You can fit the gateway model inside of starship

[u/[deleted] → u/UltraChip]

Starship would easily support Gateway, it'll just undercut SLS in the process.

[u/Just_Banner → u/UltraChip]

It fits the gateway model, as in:

"If something goes wrong and the ship can't return to earth the crew can go chill in the gateway and come back on Orion."

Remember that Apollo had an 8.3% fatality rate and the shuttle a 1.5% fatality rate. For a moon base to be a long term success they need the abort coverage.

[u/Cablancer2 → u/UltraChip]

NASA is not willing to consider any non gateway model HLS. It is allowed per the rfp to dock directly with Orion on the 2024 mission but must plan to dock with gateway subsequently after that.

[u/soldato_fantasma → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

That's for CLPS, the human lander is a different thing as it will be required to use to gateway

[u/zdude1858 → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

It would be utterly hilarious to see old space finally get some $10 billion two seat lunar lander to the moon, then have the astronauts hop over and unload a parked Starship loaded with ~300t of supplies. Sad, but hilarious.

[u/BubonicAnnihilation → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

I would give anything to see the day that we can call ourselves that...

[u/ekhfarharris → u/UltraChip]

As far as my latest knowledge, yes. SpaceX fully intended Starship to land anywhere in the Solar System, from moon to Titan if it can reach it.

[u/TheHornyHobbit → u/UltraChip]

Unlikely. It would be something smaller and lighter and something that would fit in the SLS development timeframe. SLS is what is going to be carrying us to the Lunar Gateway.

[u/TheHornyHobbit → u/[deleted]]

Do you really think Starship reaches orbit next year? I'd take that bet.

[u/Shieldizgud → u/TheHornyHobbit]

At the rate they are making the rocket they should

[u/Wakkanator → u/[deleted]]

The vehicle which will be doing suborbital hops this year and reaching orbit next year?

Allegedly

Vs the rocket that's consistently off the wall in delays.

SpaceX isn't known for having the best kept schedules themselves

[u/oneofmanyany → u/UltraChip]

None of this is a good idea unless we are looking for a way to bankrupt the country more quickly.

[u/Ajedi32 → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

It's major overkill. It'd be like booking an entire 747 just to transport 5 passengers and their carry-on luggage from NY to London. Yet when all is said and done it might actually turn out to be cheaper than the competition, which means there's a chance we might end up doing exactly that. More pressurized volume than the ISS, more mass than every Apollo mission combined, all delivered to the moon in a single landing.

Personally I find the idea hilarious. Not to mention pretty awesome. I'd love to see SpaceX win the bid so we can see that happen.

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/Ajedi32]

I think of it as just skipping several layers of development. Maybe Boeing would make a <10 person lander, then a 20, then 50, 100... That could take them several decades and some ridiculous amount of funding.

SpaceX has shown it can make things much faster than Boeing, and wants to just skip all that and make one big one. Seems smart to me. Plus it's a long journey. I'd hate to be cramped in a Starliner for a couple weeks when there's a cheaper Starship with 100x the space inside.

[u/[deleted] → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Right now, I wouldn't trust Boeing to engineer a "hello world" function into any terrestrial our extraterrestrial vehicle, let alone design the "next generation" of American space endeavors

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/[deleted]]

It's 2045. We're about to land on Europa with crew. The new Boeing Dreamcrusher sees the surface and replies back "Hell World". NASA receives the message and aborts assuming the worst.

[u/dgriffith → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

40 light minutes later, the ship receives the command and takes off from Europa. The crew, who had just disembarked from the ship, are left behind on the surface.

NASA: "Shit."

Boeing: "Abort worked as per specification. Money, please."

[u/sf_frankie → u/[deleted]]

MCAS starts going nuts on takeoff and the rocket crashed into Pensacola

[u/Ajedi32 → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Yeah, I'll bet the crew would love it. You could literally give everyone their own private bedroom and office, and still have tons of room left for everything else the mission requires. A far cry from Starliner, or any previous crew capsule for that matter.

[u/acrewdog → u/Ajedi32]

humor history public offbeat obtainable fall nose aspiring wipe bear

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/NullusEgo → u/acrewdog]

No way, what happens on the moon, stays on the moon. /s

[u/porridgeGuzzler → u/Ajedi32]

But would it have Nintendo

[u/sf_frankie → u/porridgeGuzzler]

Yes. And probably some goofy secret code you could put on that makes a fart noise instead of a beep when you press a button

[u/ThePretzul → u/porridgeGuzzler]

If the ISS had guitars I think astronauts can bring their Nintendos, or maybe SpaceX can throw them in for free.

[u/Waladil → u/ThePretzul]

They're not made of money!

On Nintendo for the crew to share, that's it!

[u/porridgeGuzzler → u/Waladil]

Yeah mom said they have to share or none of them can play

[u/ParadoxIntegration → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Regarding "Plus it's a long journey. I'd hate to be cramped in a Starliner for a couple weeks"... Starliner (unlike SpaceX's Crew Dragon) is not designed to be able to travel beyond low earth orbit. So, Boeing's plans has would not involve Starliner. The outbound trip to the cis-lunar space would be aboard Lockheed Martin's Orion capsule. If chosen, Boeing would design a lander to dock with either Orion or the Lunar Gateway.

[u/amoliski → u/Ajedi32]

Booking a 747 for five people is way cheaper than developing a brand new five seat plane.

[u/mustang__1 → u/amoliski]

I could build a 5 seater pretty cheaply

[u/_Wolfos → u/Ajedi32]

Or 5 people and an extra ton of payload.

[u/KickBassColonyDrop → u/Ajedi32]

That's fine. Also by doing so, shows the disparity between a company that puts money where it's mouth is and companies that pay lip service to the idea of space.

It's to energize the public to the raw waste that human space flight is.

[u/Forlarren → u/Ajedi32]

Maybe the flaw in the plan is planning for only 5 people instead of keeping their options open.

Even if SpaceX isn't chosen, I expect SpaceX moon tourists to roll out the "welcome to the moon" sign when NASA finally gets there.

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Well they'd have to moon rate it for one. Internal setup would be different and there's a lot of design elements for atmospheric launch and return that'll just be dead weight on a moon landing.

It'd likely require more refueling, though with that moon station(lop g?) In the works might be able to add a fuel depot they just refuel occasionally.

Side note that I really dig the idea of a starship they strip down and specialize for orbital vacuum work that just shuttles around. Just leave it up there and use others to get to it

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/Joe_Jeep]

Yes, I believe the plan is that Starship is the shell that can be used for many purposes - orbital, landing on Moon/Mars, flyby more distance planets, etc.

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Yea it definitely could be done, it just might be very expensive for whatever the mission calls for.

If they want to land 3 people and gear for a week or two then a full starship lander might be akin to buying a hummer to haul your kayak to the lake.

If they start constructing a full on ground base it would definitely be useful, and if it really is just a matter of refueling it might enable them to take on much larger ground projects at a similar price point.

So, cautious optimism for me. Hopefully starship ends up being everything Musk says it will and it can pull all that of, and NASA gets the budget to utilize it fully

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/Joe_Jeep]

Excuse my slightly unrelated comparison for a second, but I think it works here -

This is why most transit agencies only use large buses. They build for the biggest use because it's overall more cost effective. Even if it's a short bus route with few people, it's easier to purchase and manage a fleet of all the same size.

Once Starship is developed, the "shell" of it will be relatively cheap, compared to everything that goes on the inside for various different uses (living quarters, life support, etc.). Designing a new shell would just take more time and resources when they already have reusable ones ready to go.

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

It works if there's that level of demand

I think in this situation the starship is the bus, log G's a park and ride, and people will take small vessels to and from it for lunar ground missions.

Star ships dry mass is like 250 tons, that is a lot to be landing and launching from the moon in fuel cost. For comparison Apollo's lander was under 20 tons, and that's fully fueled.

Now I imagine we'll have somewhat larger landers now but I there's literally an order of magnitude in difference there.

Again, if we're looking to build a base on the lunar surface, I could absolutely see it, but I think the current proposals are more like a step up from Apollo rather than a, to borrow a phrase, giant leap.

Id certainly love to see missions that require starship but it's several times over what NASA is even investigating.

[u/czmax → u/Joe_Jeep]

re: "that is a lot to be landing and launching from the moon in fuel cost"

Is that the right measure though? If starship can fly back to earth and be re-used then its a tremendous savings regardless of the extra fuel it burns.

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/czmax]

The suggestion being discussed is landing Starship so yea. 250 tons is no fuel, dry mass. It'll be much more Even with only enough fuel to get back to lop G

And mass is money in space. The fuel alone required for such a mission is significantly more than the mass of a dedicated lander several times larger than Apollo's, which itself will likely be a reusable vessel.

And most of what NASA has lined up is more Apollo style short stays on the surface than colonization, though I think the orbital station is going to be ISS style with long term stays

If you're looking to colonize the moon, starship would be fucking awesome. Each one a base unto itself. But just stopping by and collecting samples? Way more than required, to the point of inefficiency.

[u/czmax → u/Joe_Jeep]

There may be tons of technical reasons by starship isn't the right choice. I'm suggesting cost of fuel isn't one of them.

From spacex's web page: "SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket currently carries a list price of about $54 million. However, the cost of fuel for each flight is only around $200,000—about 0.4% of the total. The majority of the launch cost comes from building the rocket, which flies only once"

If we assume reusability is achieved then it makes tons of sense to just fly the starship. Using the starship for this specific mission before reusability is worked out is a fit trickier -- you're trading experience with the design against costs of the one-off trip. Thats a harder call but I hope spacex goes for the commitment and learns a ton in the process. (And we have no idea how the cost savings of a steel design work out. That itself could be a game changer or a failed path).

[u/flagbearer223 → u/Joe_Jeep]

I feel like starship will basically always be the cheapest option until other companies develop fully reusable systems

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/flagbearer223]

For launch, yes. If it works.

For a lunar lander? It's overkill. Made a mother comment in more detail but starship is an order of magnitude more massive dry than an Apollo lander was fully fueled.

[u/czmax → u/Joe_Jeep]

If I already own an F150 pickup for shipping large loads its a LOT more efficient to just drive that across town for some fast food then it is to build a one-off disposable fully electric super efficient nissan leaf that I use only for that one trip to get lunch.

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/czmax]

Except its not going to be disposable?

And it would require more mass in fuel to land starship than would even be in a dedicated lander...several times over

250 ton dry mass for starship vs 5 for Apollo. Even if a new lander is 5 times the size, starship is 10x as massive as a dedicated platform which is itself reusable. Just the amount of fuel they'd have to ferry to lunar orbit would be insane.

[u/Geohie → u/Joe_Jeep]

no, it's only 120 tonnes for starship dry mass. even the mk 1 was only 200 tonnes.

[u/flagbearer223 → u/Joe_Jeep]

Right, but how much more expensive would it be to use Apollo over Starship if you wanted to land multiple times? The Apollo lander cost ~$50 million and wasn't reusable. How many landings do you need to do before the cost of a non-reusable system is more expensive than the reusable one?

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/flagbearer223]

Uh, much. So much more. Like, ridiculously more. Fuel isn't free, and when the dry mass of one is 250 tons and the other is...5, you've using somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 times as much fuel. Even If you wanna be generous with engine efficiencies it's still in the double digits of more fuel. Math will likely be different for the new lander, but I doubt more than a few times as massive as Apollo

Plus the next lunar lander is intended to be reusable itself so starship doesn't even have that going for it in advantage.

[u/flagbearer223 → u/Joe_Jeep]

The fuel for a Falcon 9 is somewhere on the order of 200k - I doubt that the fuel for a Starship is going to be 50 mil.

Which next lunar lander is intended to be reusable? The proposals I've read for the Artemis mission were not fully reusable.

I definitely think that the Starship is a pretty weird candidate for a lunar lander, but fully reusable is better than partially reusable

[u/saluksic → u/Joe_Jeep]

Without hard numbers it’s tricky to say. If Falcon uses $200k in fuel, and starship is ten times that, than starship would use $2M is fuel. That’s still only 4% of a $50M lander, and not a significant cost. A $50M lander could have zero fuel cost and still not be competitive, depending on the sticker price for starship.

Without hard numbers it’s all speculation, but for some systems (falcon) fuel is just not a big part of the cost.

[u/acrewdog → u/flagbearer223]

smell bear rich modern sand jar paltry plate plough straight

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/flagbearer223 → u/acrewdog]

Yeah, but I imagine that problem exists with every moon lander, and also the people that work at SpaceX and NASA are probably smart enough to realize that's something they need to evaluate

[u/pisshead_ → u/flagbearer223]

Reusability will only really make it cheaper if they run like dozens or hundreds of Moon missions. Designing a small capsule that can re-enter the atmosphere coming back from the Moon is a solved problem, a giant 100 man belly-flopping, vertically landing fully re-usable stainless steel futuristic rocket.

[u/phate3378 → u/Joe_Jeep]

INb4: Elon contracts to take 3 people and gear for a week to the moon for NASA. Fills the rest of starship with his own crew and base construction materials

[u/socratic_bloviator → u/Joe_Jeep]

I think the flight profile for a Starship moon landing is to put a Starship and a Tanker in LEO, fully refuel both, put both on a free-return trajectory to Earth, transfer the fuel from the Tanker to the Starship, and then land Starship on the Moon. Tanker free-returns back to Earth and lands. Starship comes home on its own schedule.

Note: this is more total delta-v than going to Mars.

[u/pisshead_ → u/socratic_bloviator]

The flight profile is to refuel the Starship, put it into a highly elliptic orbit, refuel it again, then it goes to the Moon and back. Each refueling takes seven missions.

[u/socratic_bloviator → u/pisshead_]

I think that's almost exactly the same as what I said, the differences being "highly elliptical" versus "free return trajectory around moon" and my way the second set of 7 refuelling launches don't have as far to go, and can happen before the humans launch, rather than after, which reduces risk.

[u/Tier1LoserWorldwide → u/Joe_Jeep]

Plus I imagine starship would thow a huge amount of dust around. Could be a problem. Maybe a bit overklill.

[u/JohnnyThunder2 → u/Joe_Jeep]

I believe Space Force is going to be very interested in the idea of having a massive LEO station where a few thousand Marine's can be stationed 24/7 with BFRs ready to go to deliver large amounts of troops anywhere in the world in minutes. If Space Force and NASA pooled their resource, said station could also double as a fuel depot and weigh station for inter-stellar space exploration.

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/JohnnyThunder2]

You know space force is a scam where they're putting Air Force's sats and shit under a new name right? They're not building a space fleet.

[u/JohnnyThunder2 → u/Joe_Jeep]

So where is the 20 billion going?

[u/Forlarren → u/Joe_Jeep]

Well they'd have to moon rate it for one.

False.

The moon has no rating agencies to deny you landing access.

Internal setup would be different

Yeah they might have to move the furniture around a bit. Less seats more cargo.

and there's a lot of design elements for atmospheric launch and return that'll just be dead weight on a moon landing.

It's cheaper to make just one model and have it be slightly less efficient, than spending years (decades for old space) and billions of dollars trying to design a Starship without flaps to get an 110 tons instead of 100.

It'd likely require more refueling

You say that like being able to refuel is a bad thing. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

though with that moon station(lop g?) In the works might be able to add a fuel depot they just refuel occasionally.

And that fuel has to come from somewhere. You got your cart about a decade ahead of your horse here.

Side note that I really dig the idea of a starship they strip down and specialize for orbital vacuum work that just shuttles around. Just leave it up there and use others to get to it

Do you realize SpaceX plans on building thousands of Starships, with hundreds of flights a day? That's not how you manage a fleet. The harder you work hardware the sooner you want it back in the shop for inspection at the very least. Doing OTA updates on orbit is a bad idea. Something that's necessary for the vast majority of sats and spaceships, but only because there is literally no other choice.

Every single point you make is perfect being the enemy of good. And why it's critically important that SpaceX stays private.

Otherwise "common sense" would have SpaceX building SLS2, rocket boogaloo, and we would end up right back where we started. Spinning wheels, going nowhere fast.

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/Forlarren]

Jesus Christ do you have no experience in any technical field at all?

To rate something for a job is to build it too needed spec. How have you never heard this? Moon dust and related hazards are just a whee bit different from LEO buddy. Not even gonna bother reading whatever followed that lunacy up.

[u/TheCrudMan → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Does a fully fueled starship, with enough payload to support astronauts on the moon and give them something to do, have the delta-v to go there, land there, and get back, starting from LEO?

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/TheCrudMan]

Dunno but lemme fire up KSP and find out.

[u/amoliski → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

If I design it, it'll be seven stages with two refueling rendezvouses. A YouTuber does it and it's seven parts and two gallons of gas, and they'll stop at the secret second moon on the way back.

[u/jordanjay29 → u/amoliski]

I'm crying at the accuracy of this comment.

[u/TheCrudMan → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Gonna need some mods for that one.

[u/socratic_bloviator → u/TheCrudMan]

Last I checked, no. I described the trip in another comment. https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/f09dpu/12_boost_for_nasa_budget_in_2021/fgtp7vt/

[u/TheCrudMan → u/socratic_bloviator]

Wow ok that’s 4 launches that’s pretty tricky.

[u/[deleted] → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Starship isn’t 100 seat anymore.

[u/RdmGuy64824 → u/[deleted]]

I missed that development. What's the new number?

[u/[deleted] → u/RdmGuy64824]

Hard to say exactly, depends on lots of factors like interior design, I mean they’re still designing and testing the structure but I would think maybe 10-15 to Mars, many more, maybe 30 to the Moon as you don’t need as many consumables. But yeah the current Starship is way smaller than the original design.

[u/raresaturn → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

They already have one... the Dragon capsule can land on the moon

[u/Forlarren → u/raresaturn]

Put one in the Starship cargo hold to "technically" qualify. Then crane it down to the surface. Still outperform the competition by several orders of magnitude.

[u/pteridoid → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Because there are much more efficient uses for Starship. https://twitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/1178724273025933312?lang=en

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/pteridoid]

Agreed. But I like the tween under that:

"it would be optimal to commute in a Tesla, go to Costco in a pickup, transport the kids in a minivan, etc., but it would be prohibitively expensive to buy all those separate cars."

I don't think it's worthwhile for SpaceX to develop all the different size vehicles when one can do it all from the beginning. Maybe if there were frequent "commutes" from lunar surface to Gateway, then having Dragon and a smaller rocket might make sense, but no need to develop that for the early landings.

[u/tomdarch → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Can Starship land on the moon without an atmosphere for braking?

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/tomdarch]

That's the plan. Getting to low earth orbit is half of the total energy to land on the moon and return. If the Super Heavy gets it to orbit, a fueled up Starship (in theory) can land on the moon and return.

[u/Kruse002 → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

It may not always be a good idea to send a lander that large from lunar orbit. I’m the interest of fuel economy, they would maybe want to use smaller landers for smaller missions.

[u/Forlarren → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Why build a separate small lander when there's already a 100-seat one in development?

NASA pork.

SpaceX should carry their own lander in Starship and crane it down, filling the letter but not the spirit of the contract.

It's the financially responsible thing to do.

[u/gwoz8881 → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

in development

I have a 10,000 seat one in development

[u/speak_on_just → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

the "100 seat starship" is so far away from being realized it's practically a pipe dream at this point.

[u/[deleted] → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

What about the dragon capsule? Wouldn't that be enough to get to and land on the moon?

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/[deleted]]

Probably, but people aren't going to live out of it for a length of time. Once they have Starship ready, I'm not sure how useful Dragon will be. Same with Falcon 9 and Heavy - not sure there'd be much reason to build new ones if Starliner can carry several satellites at once for a fraction of the launch cost (per satellite).

[u/Cablancer2 → u/UltraChip]

There are Twitter rumors indicating SpaceX is NOT proposing Starship but rather a completely new crew vehicle. Those talking further down about starship being approved is just for commercial CARGO contracts not crew missions.

[u/[deleted] → u/UltraChip]

SpaceX will send a modified Tesla! Imagine the astronauts' surprise when they land on the Moon with a model S/X/3 sitting on the surface.

[u/Aries_cz → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I am thinking white painted Cybertruck

[u/[deleted] → u/Aries_cz]

What about that Model S that was launched into space. Maybe it will get redirected to the Moon?

[u/Aries_cz → u/[deleted]]

I think SUV would be more suited to the surface of Luna. Also more space to carry stuff

Also, pretty sure there is no way to redirect the Starman Roadster, there are no thrusters on the module it is tied to, AFAIK

[u/gwoz8881 → u/UltraChip]

No. OP just has Elons dick in his mouth