Forget reusability — Concentrate on colonizing Luna

[MetricRocketeer]

Hi TRF colleagues,

Now that on its third attempt SpaceX Starship failed again to achieve all its mission objectives, we should refocus on the central and driving goal. That goal — the ultimate objective — is colonizing Luna. The United States is funding SpaceX to construct unnecessarily complex spacecraft.

From Luna, with its much weaker gravitational pull and its lack of atmosphere, spacecraft can much more easily take off and land than they can from Earth. From Luna, therefore, achieving reusability is easier.

Get to Luna as quickly and simply as possible, begin its irreversible colonization, and make it the base of operations. Then, from that base, we can worry about constructing and flying reusable spacecraft.

Stanley

 

[lakeroadster]

Hi TRF colleagues,

Now that on its third attempt SpaceX Starship failed again to achieve all its mission objectives, we should refocus on the central and driving goal. That goal — the ultimate objective — is colonizing Luna. The United States is funding SpaceX to construct unnecessarily complex spacecraft.

From Luna, with its much weaker gravitational pull and its lack of atmosphere, spacecraft can much more easily take off and land than they can from Earth. From Luna, therefore, achieving reusability is easier.

Get to Luna as quickly and simply as possible, begin its irreversible colonization, and make it the base of operations. Then, from that base, we can worry about constructing and flying reusable spacecraft.

Stanley

Substitute "The Moon" for "Luna"... and somebody might reply.​

Or re-write the entire post in Latin.​

 

[Antares JS]

When NASA put out the RFP for a new lunar lander, the SpaceX proposal/bid was the only one they could afford. Blue Origin's original bid cost twice as much and Dynetics was even more than Blue's.

What you are seeing is just the way SpaceX does things. They would rather fly frequently and wreck hardware than do what Blue Origin and NASA do and spend 10 years flying nothing until they are sure it's perfect. Aside from that, the lunar lander aspect is not the only thing Starship is supposed to do. Its first mission is to deploy Starlink satellites, and I suspect that will start happening by early next year at this rate.

Look at what they have done right as well - they got the ship into space, guided the booster to a touchdown point, and had every engine work on both this flight and the previous one.

The lander also not the only long pole for the next manned moon landing. I wonder, have you heard of all the issues there have been with the new spacesuits?

 

[dhbarr]

I should think, generally speaking, that whoever can routinely lift the greatest mass to orbit probably has a fair bit to say about what they should and shouldn't pursue. Fundamentally that's what Starship represents: mass to orbit, and later beyond.

 

[cerving]

It's only their third test flight, they don't do all-up tests. Testing incrementally is the best way to get to the ultimate objective... otherwise there's just way too many things to deal with. They will land on the Moon before Artemis... guaranteed.

 

[NTP2]

I wonder, have you heard of all the issues there have been with the new spacesuits?

I thought they were working pretty well?! Can you link a article?

 

[Antares JS]

I thought they were working pretty well?! Can you link a article?

Punch "Artemis Spacesuit Issues" into your favorite search engine.

They seem to finally be getting somewhere as of the middle of last year, but there was a lot of chaos in spacesuit development before that.

 

[NTP2]

Punch "Artemis Spacesuit Issues" into your favorite search engine.

They seem to finally be getting somewhere as of the middle of last year, but there was a lot of chaos in spacesuit development before that.

This is the only negative article I found, Article, but I bet a lot is hidden by the hype train.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Hi TRF colleagues,

Now that on its third attempt SpaceX Starship failed again to achieve all its mission objectives, we should refocus on the central and driving goal. That goal — the ultimate objective — is colonizing Luna. The United States is funding SpaceX to construct unnecessarily complex spacecraft.

From Luna, with its much weaker gravitational pull and its lack of atmosphere, spacecraft can much more easily take off and land than they can from Earth. From Luna, therefore, achieving reusability is easier.

Get to Luna as quickly and simply as possible, begin its irreversible colonization, and make it the base of operations. Then, from that base, we can worry about constructing and flying reusable spacecraft.

Stanley

I think you may be misunderstanding the goal and also assuming everyone involved has the same goal.

NASA has contracted SpaceX for certain specific services, and that contract is not for “colonizing Luna”. SpaceX is working toward fulfilling that contract, which is going to require a reusable system to make fulfilling that contract at the agreed-upon price a worthwhile business project. Beyond this contract, SpaceX’s other goals are to develop this reusable system so that it can provide attractive, low-cost services to other customers and also for its own business projects, like Starlink. The main goal is profit.

Maybe if the country agreed on it and Congress were willing to fund it, we could have a goal to colonize the moon as quickly as possible, no matter the cost, and NASA could offer contracts to prioritize speed over cost and efficiency, even if that meant expending hundreds or thousands of disposable vehicles. But that’s not the world we live in. NASA has more modest goals and has offered contracts much more limited in scope and cost, and SpaceX has bid on those contracts believing they can fulfill them at the agreed upon price if they can do it with reusable spacecraft. That’s how things work in the real world.

 

[Rocketholic]

@MetricRocketeer , You claim "...failed again to achieve all its mission objectives,..." but apparently fail to realize the desired mission objectives are categorized by level of importance. The various interviews and even the play-by-play commentary clearly indicated many, if not all, of the most important objectives were achieved. So, your statement isn't reflective of what actually happened. No doubt there was a "wish list" of objectives to hope to achieve but the "realistic list" was probably notably smaller. As such, most of it was achieved.
Elon and SpaceX have done and achieved more in such a small amount of time than anyone else and should be commended for it instead of condemned for what some may call failures. Every try at something provides data from which improvements can be made for future attempts.

The Moon is just a stepping stone. In fact, it is actually less important than establishing the Gateway [ https://www.nasa.gov/reference/nasas-gateway-program/ ]. A human presence on the Moon will likely happen regardless of the next major objective but understand that escaping gravitation wells, such as the Earth's, is the most difficult and costly part of space travel. Thus the Gateway program - a "space station" that will hopefully end up being a science lab, convenience mart, gas station, etc.

 

[Marc_G]

I don't think colonizing the moon is likely to be a thing any time soon. Sustained human presence maybe. But a colony? Why? Pick any remote resource-starved place on Earth that nobody wants to be, and you could create a colony there a lot more easily and cheaply.

 

[NTP2]

I don't think colonizing the moon is likely to be a thing any time soon. Sustained human presence maybe. But a colony? Why? Pick any remote resource-starved place on Earth that nobody wants to be, and you could create a colony there a lot more easily and cheaply.

Well it has water that can be made into hydrogen which can fuel NTP systems which are needed for asteroid mining.

 

[Marc_G]

Well it has water that can be made into hydrogen which can fuel NTP systems which are needed for asteroid mining.

True enough, but I think of "colonizing" a place meaning that a sustainable self-sufficient situation would be happening. I sorta doubt that happening there anytime in my or my kids' lifetimes. I see more of a place where people are stationed before rotating home.

 

[NTP2]

True enough, but I think of "colonizing" a place meaning that a sustainable self-sufficient situation would be happening. I sorta doubt that happening there anytime in my or my kids' lifetimes. I see more of a place where people are stationed before rotating home.

It would be cheaper, reduce the number of shuttles between the earth and the moon. (Same reason James town was self sufficient) you would need to bring pregnant women to earth to give birth probably (I can’t imagine that lunar gravity is good for babies) But that’s about it.

 

[Donnager]

Well it has water that can be made into hydrogen which can fuel NTP systems which are needed for asteroid mining.

You just have to bring the equipment capable of this, to the moon, with its power requirements.

And supply that power, maintain the machine.............

 

[NTP2]

You just have to bring the equipment capable of this, to the moon, with its power requirements.

And supply that power, maintain the machine.............

Well the moon is a great place for solar and nuclear power, yes a high start cost but it pays back triple in the long run (the British colony philosophy).

Ps solar is almost maintenance free but it also provides less power than nuclear that is obviously very maintenance heavy.

 

[Donnager]

Yes, but you have to get all that stuff to the moon, it all has to be vacuum capable, and so do the workers (as they work on it).

This is a manufacturing facility.

If it were on earth, how many people would be required to operate it?

 

[NTP2]

Yes, but you have to get all that stuff to the moon, it all has to be vacuum capable, and so do the workers (as they work on it).

This is a manufacturing facility.

If it were on earth, how many people would be required to operate it?

A lot because people are cheap on earth, it is possible to automate a lot of what workers do on earth it’s just expensive. On the moon the economics change, a human is a lot harder to make vacuum proof than a machine.

 

[JohnCoker]

An interesting alternative opinion to the rush for colonization (over fixing problems on Earth):
A City on Mars

 

[Marc_G]

An interesting alternative opinion to the rush for colonization (over fixing problems on Earth):
A City on Mars

Tempted to read this; have seen the reviews and such before

 

[Wrightme43]

In my mind, since I was a child the proper name for the moon, has always been Luna.
I want to go. I have always wanted to go.
It will pay off, I don't know how, but it will.

 

[Alan15578]

In my mind, since I was a child the proper name for the moon, has always been Luna.
I want to go. I have always wanted to go.
It will pay off, I don't know how, but it will.

Hmm, the Brits had a fondness for beaver pelts. Lunar rocks are quite valuable now, but the market is very shallow. I think the pay off will be in science and discovery, not marketable treasure.

 

[NTP2]

Hmm, the Brits had a fondness for beaver pelts. Lunar rocks are quite valuable now, but the market is very shallow. I think the pay off will be in science and discovery, not marketable treasure.

They also need wood (I believe that only 10 percent of Britain was wooded) and they believed there was gold (wrong side of the continent it turns out). I think that the pay off will be setting up infrastructure that can be used as a jumping point.

 

[Wrightme43]

Hmm, the Brits had a fondness for beaver pelts. Lunar rocks are quite valuable now, but the market is very shallow. I think the pay off will be in science and discovery, not marketable treasure.

250 degrees F in the sun, and -208 degrees F in shadow. If someone can not make unlimited power from that energy difference I am a monkey. LOL
Batteries to store energy, or convert it into lifted mass, or flywheels, or any other way of storage.
All the vacuum you can use. Create steam on one side of a piston, and vacuum on the other for reciprocating power take off.
Dig tunnels, live underground.
We know there is water there. Water and electricity, and you can reuse air. I lived on a nuclear submarine. I know it works. Side benefit is all the hydrogen you can use.
It sounds stupid, but lifting sewage would be perfect. Expose it to vacuum and cold, killing all pathogens, collect the H20, mix with the lunar dust, inoculate with earth soil organisms, make garden dirt.
All of the processes we use that require creating a vacuum could be used there with free vacuum, and energy at the cost of building generation capacity using the temperature and pressure gradients already in place.
I know it will pay off.
20,000 tons of sewage will be a valid useful payload to the moon. Starship will be able to do that easy, to orbit, then transfer like barges to the moon.