Die ehemaligen NASA-Administratoren Charlie Broden und Jim Bridenstine fordern Änderungen in der Architektur der Artemis-Mondlandefähre: „Wie sind wir dorthin zurückgekehrt, wo wir jetzt 11 Starts benötigen, um eine Besatzung zum Mond zu bringen? (bezogen auf Starship). So werden wir nie dorthin gelangen.“
Former NASA administrators call for changes in Artemis lunar lander architecture
18 Kommentare
With Starship V1, it was 20 launches: [https://spacenews.com/starship-lunar-lander-missions-to-require-nearly-20-launches-nasa-says/](https://spacenews.com/starship-lunar-lander-missions-to-require-nearly-20-launches-nasa-says/)
It’s not a race. There was a race before many of us were born. The USA won.
IMO they’re focusing on the wrong metric: they should be looking at the *cost to the taxpayer* rather than on the *number of launches*.
They’re right, the multiple refuel solution was crazy
If the goal was to beat China to the Moon, then the Starship HLS maybe isn’t the best choice.
But if the goal is a sustainable lunar presence, it is 100% the right choice.
Article doesn’t mention that bridenstine works for ULA, the half owners of which are pitching this alternative lunar lander plan that is both vague and fanciful.
Also, Charlie Broden?
Is it really 11 launches? Isn’t that for maximum payload to the moon (100 tons)? The HLS won’t carry anything that heavy.
Who cares how many unmanned launches it takes? It’s time cost and capability that matters
Seems that rapid turnaround was a pretty standard Silicon Valley deception.
The real question should be whether China cancels their mission as the US founders.
It’s almost as if there is incompetence and corruption in the United States that’s holding big projects back.
Which metric is most important?
1. Number of launches
2. Mission cost
3. Cost per ton of cargo
Does 1 really exceed the other 2?
As with all government agencies, the goal is to funnel taxpayer money to the LLC’s and private shareholders. Mission goals are not as important to them as lucrative, generous contracts. Ain’t like they have to give the money back, especially when those companies funnel money to politician’s campaigns.
Orbital refueling is a great solution for long term exploration, which was the original goal of the Artemis program, its much more complex and will obviously take longer to develop, but once its proven it will open the floodgates for long term sustained lunar operations.
Only recently have the goalposts shifted to turn it into a race, this has left both SpaceX and Blue Origin with very little chance of meeting the deadline as both architectures require large scale orbital cryogenic refueling to get to the moon.
Personally i see no point in the US trying to beat china when A: they already did this 50 years ago and B: Chinas first mission there will be nothing more than a flags and footprints PR stunt.
The better play is to lose the initial „race“ and instead take more time and come back with 100s of tonnes of payload to set up a full scale lunar base, instead of rushing ahead with a fully expendable architecture just for the sake of political PR.
„He described a two-stage design, with a descent element that remains on the lunar surface while the ascent element returns astronauts to Orion.“
Wow – what a radical idea. Exactly how we got there and back in 1969.
This is some legacy launch thinking right there. With current Falcon 9 launch cadence, 11 launches is less than one month, and with the planned reusability of both ship and booster, 11 launches could probably be performed in a few days.
I’d rather need 11 launches from a company that has done 138 launches this year alone. Than a single launch from a rocket that has launched once and can’t launch once per year. Especially if the 11 launches are cheaper than the single launch.
With 11 refuelings, if the chance something breaks with each refueling/launch is 1%, then the chance the something goes wrong over the whole thing is ~10%
The thing hasn’t even been into orbit yet it’s ridiculous.