Remember that 2024 Moon thing? How about Mars in 2033? Authorization bill moots 2028 for more lunar footprints

There is every chance that Lucy is about to whip the football from Charlie Brown once again as a fresh NASA Authorization Bill was introduced with some significant changes to the infamous 2024 boots-on-Moon goal. The most eye-catching change (PDF) is that the first lunar landing could be pushed to 2028. A crew would then orbit …

[Pascal Monett]

Getting to the Moon is no walk in the park

It requires sustained political will, which is something hardly any country has these days.

Space exploration will go forth with private companies, helmed by billionaires, because they are the only forces left that have the vision and the willpower to get things done.

I personally doubt that NASA alone, on public funding, will ever get it done. NASA will be part of the trip, no doubt, but it is losing its position as leader. The question is, which billionaire is going to take point ?

[John Robson]

Re: Getting to the Moon is no walk in the park

It's not just vision - it's consistent vision.

Musk isn't going to throw out all his plans eight years later because he had them eight years ago, and then rinse/repeat every few years.

[Mark 85]

Re: Getting to the Moon is no walk in the park

Musk isn't going to throw out all his plans eight years later because he had them eight years ago, and then rinse/repeat every few years.

I have this suspicion that Musk and company will get to the moon and possibly mars long before NASA does. Then we'll see Musk's folks welcoming the NASA's folks to the moon and showing them around.

[Gonzo wizard]

Re: Which billionaire is going to take point?

On current form the smart money must be on Elon Musk. SpaceX are the only company regularly going into space with re-usable technology and a vision that far exceeds anything NASA, or any of the other competitors, has.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Getting to the Moon is no walk in the park

"Space exploration will go forth with private companies, helmed by billionaires, because they are the only forces left that have the vision and the willpower to get things done."

Even billionaires can't keep paying for stuff like this without some sort of return. Even a long term goal of a self-sustaining off-world colony will take more than they have and decades of time, at least. Not forgetting that a lot of the priavte space industry is feeding of the Government Teat for much of it's finance. Doing government work cheaper than government can is only sustainable while governments are spending on space and their spends match what the private companies want to do.

[ArrZarr]

Re: Getting to the Moon is no walk in the park

Hence the goal to make launches as cheap, reliable and mundane as possible - widening the net for people who want to put satellites in orbit to improve profits. Also the purpose of starlink (I think that's that it's called) for the satellite internet business.

Beyond that, if Musk can get his hands on either lunar or asteroid mining or becomes the defacto route to space for space mining hardware, then he has a license to print money, especially if he's able to pull off manned outposts on/orbiting the moon - Oxygen seems to be in ready supply within the regolith if you can extract it so there are possibilities for LOX refuelling at a minimum to reduce the mass getting lifted from Earth's gravity well and therefore potential for improving payload capacity on upper stages.

[Brangdon]

Re: Even billionaires can't keep paying for stuff like this

Some estimates have SpaceX Starlink constellation bringing in $30B a year. That is a lot more than NASA's budget. Of course there will be costs, and eventually competition, but there should be plenty left over for Mars.

[JCitizen]

Re: Getting to the Moon is no walk in the park

Just mining H3 from the Lunar soil, which has more than anywhere else ( supposedly); That could get fusion researchers excited enough to lend a hand to private venture. If all the present privateers worked together, they could get to the moon even faster! They might even want to build the world's ( or solar system's) first successful fusion reactor on the moon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Getting to the Moon is no walk in the park

Space exploration will go forth with private companies, helmed by billionaires, because they are the only forces left that have the vision and the willpower to get things done.

I wouldn't be so sure. Apollo was a cold war propaganda exercise to demonstrate that the Americans were better than the Russians, particularly after the Russians had done so well with Sputnik and their manned flights, and the huge sums spent didn't have to show any commercial profit.

It was hugely expensive. $100 billion in today's money, 400,000 people and a three thousand ton rocket just to put something with the crew carrying capacity of a portable toilet on the moon for a few days. If you want a profit then you will have to do much better than that. Even ten times cheaper, which might be conceivably possible with a lot of wishful thinking, it's still $10 billion for a portable toilet on the moon.

But we are now seeing the start of a new period of arms races with the rise of China, and the general world destabilisation caused by Trump's mercurial and erratic foreign policy. I think we are entering a new period of countries lining up to perform phallic displays with rockets.

[phuzz]

Re: Getting to the Moon is no walk in the park

"which is something hardly any country has these days"

China does. India and Israel both seem to be gearing up for their respective second attempts. ESA and Japan both have plans, as do Russia.

Pretty much ever country with space launch capability seem to be working on landing on the Moon, and several private companies too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting to The Mood sounds exectly like our bug release cycle.

[Simon Harris]

Getting to The Mood sounds like a jazz compilation album.

[FuzzyWuzzys]

Private money

The only way forward is private money...possibly Wayland-Yutani?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Private money

Not if Lunar Industries can their hands on all that lovely He3 first - we're just waiting to clone Sam Rockwell a few times.

[John 104]

Re: Private money

No way I'm traveling Wayland....

[Captain Scarlet]

Oi watch where you are flying!

*Time for the random Mysteron based comment because of the mention of Mars*

We have a speed limit imposed up here ya know and don't even think of landing in my spot!

[Mo'Fo B'dass]

Are we there yet?

If we get there in this decade (the moon) it won't be on a NASA rocket. Mars? Can't see the sense of sending a manned crew to Mars just to come back without landing. How long spent weightless? 6 months? A year? No, I think you'd need so spend some time on Mars before the return journey to build up those muscles and bones and you'd probably need an exoskeleton at that. When the 'nauts come back from long duration missions on the ISS they need people to lift them up and carry them around. Won't be anybody to do that on Mars and although the gravity is lower it could be a showstopper (without some frame or other). This could/should be tested on the Moon. So, if you want to get to Mars in a decent timescale then we'd better crack on with lunar missions. Develop a sustainable plan and stick to it. No more pork projects.

Jeez, UK could develop a sustainable, manned space program for the money it's spending on a single train track (HS2) and if the yankees ain't got the stomach for it I think UK should.

I'm sorry but it's been 50 years! Technology has improved exponentially since then, costs have fallen. It should be EASY to get to the moon by now. I'm rambling, I'm racked off. Where's my meds? Back in the sixties the yanks set themselves a target of 10 years to put boots on the moon. They succeeded. A monumental achievement. Why is now going to take another 10 years (we're not exactly going from a standing start are we?). I despair.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Are we there yet?

Risk aversion.

Back in the sixties they accepted the risk that people would die doing this pioneering exploration. These days they don't want to face that possibility.

[John Robson]

Re: Are we there yet?

" It should be EASY to get to the moon by now. I'm rambling, I'm racked off. "

Whilst technology has improved in many areas the physics is still the same. You still need to throw a large amount of mass at very high speed from the back of as light a weight structure as possible.

Yes, the SpaceX chilled Kerosene and superchilled LOX does give a performance boost - but the fundamental costs of getting something to orbit, are still massive.

SpaceX and BO are also pioneering the reusability of boosters, and possibly more. That is a significant change in cost, but the sheer amount of fuel required is always going to be costly.

[Mo'Fo B'dass]

Re: Are we there yet?

yes, physics remains the same but the rockets are better, the computers are better, the materials are better, the KNOWLEDGE is better, the imaging is better. The technology is well established and not necessarily bleeding edge so risk is much reduced. In nearly all cases (probably all) its relatively cheaper requiring much less manpower then before. At the moment we are just making it harder for ourselves by dicking around. Get it done and keep doing it.

[John Robson]

Re: Are we there yet?

They’re just not better enough. And, whilst we still use chemical fuels with gaseous expansion as a propulsive device... they never will be .

[ridley]

Re: Are we there yet?

Nah, your space ship doesn't have to be light weight just go nuclear.

Project Orion you know it makes sense.

[ArrZarr]

Re: Are we there yet?

The best bit about project Orion was the consultation with Coca Cola about the dispensary mechanism which was expected to use the same technology and techniques as vending machines.

[Spherical Cow]

Re: Are we there yet?

So, the astronauts' main job will be to put coins in the slot and press buttons? What if a coin is rejected and they are a bit slow getting it out of the change drawer and putting it back in the slot? If an item gets stuck should they shake the rocket or buy another item in the hope of knocking down the stuck one?

[A Nother Handle]

Re: Are we there yet?

Have you seen those new vending machines that take contactless payments? We just need a robot arm waving a credit card.

[DiViDeD]

Re: Are we there yet?

Ah yes. A lot of people at the time said that old Bang-Bang would never be used until Earth was too poor and hungry to worry about fallout

[96percentchimp]

Re: Are we there yet?

As Musk frequently observes, the fuel isn't expensive, but throwing away rockets is very costly. Developing the hardware is the most expensive part, particularly if you want it to be reusable, because you'll have to iterate through several designs that you can't reuse to a useful degree.

We've seen that with the Falcon 9/Heavy, which is just entering the commercially reusable stage of its development. SpaceX's Starship/Super Heavy is at a much earlier stage in its development, but it will get there (even if not on Musk's ambitious timelines). SLS will never be a cost-effective platform, it just exists to siphon money from the state, because that's Boeing's business model.

[John Robson]

Re: Are we there yet?

Define expensive... I don't think I could afford the fuel costs to put even just a kidney into orbit, let alone all of me onto another celestial body.

[DJO]

Re: Are we there yet?

I think you'd need so spend some time on Mars before the return journey to build up those muscles and bones and you'd probably need an exoskeleton

Or the habitation section of the ship could be spun to provide gravity on the trip, if that's too tricky smaller centrifuges would be simple to provide - perhaps just the sleeping pods could be spun. Giving each astronaut 8 hours of gravity every day would be enough to maintain bone density.

[Gonzo wizard]

Re: Giving each astronaut 8 hours of gravity every day would be enough to maintain bone density.

And space sickness as they have to adjust once every 24 hours to weightlessness. That sounds like a very bad idea (as is starting and stopping something rotating - that's a big energy penalty right there).

In any event you'll not generate anything like an earth-magnitude gravity so benefits will be minimal - and lack of gravity isn't the only issue that causes an astronaut's health to degrade over time.

[ridley]

Re: Are we there yet?

For this to work the spun structure needs to be very large or at least a long way from the hub.

If not then you are going to have real problems with different parts of your body experiencing different amounts of "g". I cannot remember the figure for the minimum radios needed but it is much bigger than you think.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Are we there yet?

The difference in gravity experienced obviously depends on the distance between head and feet. We can minimize it by finding the shortest dwarf astronauts or just send small children

[Brangdon]

Re: centrifuge

There's not much point spinning the astronauts just when they are lying down asleep. To benefit they need to be moving around, ideally exercising.

SpaceX plan seems to be to make the journey fast. 4 months in microgravity, then straight down to the surface. Hanging around in orbit is harder than landing, and you are still exposed to microgravity and radiation, so you want to get down ASAP. The notion of an orbit-only mission makes no sense.

[0laf]

I'm sure someone would sign up to a Mars orbit mission but what a shit deal. 12months in a tin can with a few days of a nice view. Added bonus of muscle atrophy, bone density loss and an increased cancer risk.

If they're going to go and not land at least get them to do something useful in orbit. Set up a way station, poke around Phobos or Deimos. Mine for fuel, I dunno but not just a huge loop.

[Glen 1]

I dunno, if an out-and-back vehicle was re-usable, it could form the basis of supply missions.

[John Brown (no body)]

If you mean an orbit to orbit vehicle, then yes. But they still need to launch fuel tankers

[ridley]

You are Buzz Aldrin and I claim my $5

[Citizens untied]

Dont forget going blind...

[iron]

> However, the bill also removes the Gateway... Shades of Apollo indeed and, despite the bill's brave words, not particularly sustainable.

The Gateway would not make trips to the moon any more sustainable. In fact the Gateway is just a mill stone around NASA's neck that requires SLS and prevents them using far cheaper alternatives from SpaceX and others, makes it harder to get to the moon and won't really provide any useful facilities. A better solution would be a moon base (preferably called Alpha, just don't store nuclear waste there) which could explore the potential for lunar refueling and other technologies that would be useful for a trip to Mars.

[Anonymous Coward]

Langrangian point

Is that near any of the Lagrangian points?

Asking for a friend...

[Gonzo wizard]

Re: Langrangian point

Haven't you heard? It's a Lagrangian point with wireless gigabit ethernet.

[batfink]

I note that the dates seem to match US Presidential Election cycles

Hmmm. Donny announced 2024, clearly wanting boots back on the moon during his tenure. Does this announcement of 2028 mean that NASA have inadvertently leaked the fact that Donny will be around for a third term?

Yes, yes, I know, constitutional restrictions etc. But I'm sure the Great American People will be right behind keeping their Glorious Leader for an extra term if asked nicely.

[Reg Reader 1]

Re: I note that the dates seem to match US Presidential Election cycles

but will Donny make his daughter heir or one of his sons?

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: I note that the dates seem to match US Presidential Election cycles

I'm still hoping he will make his horse a senator, we need some smarter ones

[Gonzo wizard]

Um... cost and sustainability (of the mission, long term)

SLS is a massive white (OK orange) elephant. Huge throw-away rockets that are little more than a Saturn 5 blueprint scaled up on the NASA photocopier. Everything used exactly once. A massive waste of money and unlikely to be sustainable for long, if they even manage a first moon landing at all.

SpaceX and Elon Musk have it right. Aim super-high (BFR, multiple re-use) and if you don't make it you'll still achieve some remarkable things along the way. Ten years ago people would have laughed uncontrollably at the idea of a vertically launching rocket that parked itself back where it came from, to be used again and again. But here we are.

Boeing may just be doing the bidding of their paymasters here but this throw-away approach will leave precious little by way of legacy once it is undoubtably cancelled due to cost escalation and diminishing returns.

[ridley]

Re: Um... cost and sustainability (of the mission, long term)

What o don't get about SLS is using shuttle engines, sure you have some lying around but when you run out surely it is going to be a huge waste of money to remake fantastically advanced resubale engines in order to three them away.

[asphytxtc]

Re: Um... cost and sustainability (of the mission, long term)

I believe they're developing the RS-25E (assume the E stands for "expendable") which should apparently be cheaper and simpler than the "fully reusable" versions..

Still rubs me up the wrong way, but hey.. I guess it's SOME sort of cost saving ...

[Pete 2]

What will NASA find when it gets to Mars?

Answer: SpaceX.

It seems to me that NASA can only continue to get government funding for these remarkable feats / token gestures, if nobody else beats them to it. Once some other outfit achieves NASA's goal, they have no more reason to continue trying for it. And the politicians have no reason to spend more money on it, either.

Just like happened between NASA and the Soviet space programme.

[Gonzo wizard]

Re: What will NASA find when it gets to Mars?

I suspect NASA will end up partnering with SpaceX. Much as I admire Elon Musk's vision, he needs an awfully large pot of money to make it happen. NASA could not only contribute to the pot but help accelerate development on many fronts with the experience they can bring to bear. It makes an awful lot of sense for both parties, as long as politics isn't allowed to get in the way (I expect Boeing would make one hell of a fuss).