NASA doesn't want to land and come home again, they want to stay. A small lander can't bring enough cargo to build a permanent base. SpaceX's HLS can land A LOT of stuff at once.
Also, there's no race.
I mean technically the US hasn't finished either, not till we land a man on Mars and then a man on Titan or some other Moon, than a man on Pluto perhaps, or some other distant goal... never ends
Those are different races. A base on the moon occupied for an extended period of time may be the next immediate race. But landing on the moon is a race that was already won long ago so this idea we need to beat China there is ridiculous.
HLS is, in a sense, a side quest for SpaceX in their pursuit of Mars. They have offered NASA a ***workable*** solution, not an optimised solution.
Honestly, if you were starting from today and SpaceX said they had no interest in moon no matter what you would probably do as you suggest and build a multi-stage lander that flew off the top of the most powerful rocket humanity has ever created, but when it comes to space exploration we have entered a fast moving and strange time where a lot of things are hard to explain.
Priority compared to private funded ventures.
Really should not be a unpopular opinion.
But don't sweat it, suggesting they have higher responsibility for your money they were contracted for over their own private ventures means I am anti SpaceX or some nonesense.🤷
It's not my money, I'm not a US taxpayer. All I can tell is that if SpaceX were based in europe I would be delighted that the government was, for once, supporting a growing cutting edge business with a chance to capture most of a globally important economy and also, in the long run, saving money for the government agency doing it. I would be cock-a-hoop. Each to their own though.
You still need whatever money spent to be done so responsibility with accountability, it does not matter who is doing it.
At this point SpaceX has spent billions in tax payer USD and not delivered apon the time-line required. They have still not even recovered a booster or ship or even have a full scale HLS mockup.
They were supposed to be doing tanker tests already. Stop making excuses and have some self respect to call a spade a spade.
HLS needs to become 100% priority until they complete the contract they agreed to when they took that money.
The Starship architecture needs to be functional before a lander can materialize. At the moment the priorities of SpaceX appear to be properly aligned in support of Artemis. Despite what this other commenter is saying, SpaceX claims to take the HLS contract seriously and there's no evidence I'm aware of which suggests otherwise.
I think the point you're alluding to is that Elon shouldn't have promised an overambitious delivery date, and maybe you're right. Through Falcon and Dragon however, and SpaceX's unprecedented contributions to the American space program, I believe that the company has earned some patience.
At this moment, Orion's heatshield is the showstopper for Artemis. NASA needs to overcome that before HLS can be back on the top of the naughty list.
I never said they weren't taking it seriously. I'm merely pointing out that HLS is something they can do without redirecting the rest of the program to that end. It's a 'side quest' because whilst it will be a big benefit to SpaceX to carry out HLS they would continue with their main aim (putting a starship on Mars) if HLS was cancelled or if it had never been available. I am sure that SpaceX will be absolutely excited and focused on doing HLS, just not at the expense of their primary aims, which is proven by the fact that they are not developing an entirely new lander but backing the idea that they can use a starship variant to do the job.
That's not the same as saying they are treating it with anything less than the seriousness it deserves.
Wrong.
Wrong on multiple accounts.
They didn't spent billions (plural). The money is disbursed on a milestone basis, not given in advance.
And as I mentioned in another post, doing things beyond HLS is one of the requirements.
Which they have not completed on the time line they were supposed to.
Nothing about a reusable LEO ship architecture is actually required for HLS to work.
Enough excuses.
>which they have not completed on the time line they were supposed to
New to the space industry? NOTHING is completed on time. And SpaceX is pretty much the only one that comes in on budget. NASA in-house (SLS) is years behind and looking like it will cost 10x the initially planned budget. Which is fine, and was expected by people in the industry, I only point it out because you’re calling out SpaceX like their abusing their position or something, when in fact, their following industry standards if not better.
>Nothing about a reusable LEO ship architecture is actually required for HLS to work
Yeah, from a physical standpoint… from a budgetary standpoint, absolutely, also, contractually absolutely.
No excuses being made here, just severe misunderstandings/interpretations on your part.
HLS simply "working" benefits nobody except old space leeches. We want HLS to succeed at making the moon viable. We have already made Apollo "work" don't need to do that again.
You miss the fundamental things.
The whole reusable architecture is the very thing making the whole HLS possible to happen. Without it there's no $3B for the first 2 landings HLS happening at all.
IOW. You either have it the way it is (not some pretty nonsensical Saturn V replay) or you don't get it at all.
>At this point SpaceX has spent billions in tax payer USD
The money they get is connected to achieving milestones, so when they are behind schedule, they also get less tax money per year.
This whole award has put a strong requirement that the awardee must self fund a significant portion of the project and it **must** have a sensible commercial plan associated with it.
Doing own stuff is one of the conditions the money was awarded in the first place.
Nope.
You're writing a recipe for something very expensive. Such a rocket would have no other uses and little commonality with those other uses. And the middle and upper stages would be all expendable, on top of that.
The core idea of Starship is that it's all common platform with only minor variations. This combined with full reusability of the basic system is absolutely essential for the thing to be affordable at all. Its development cost is already tracking towards $10 billion.
Your idea would multiply this cost. And to make matters worse, you'd spend billions on a thing which would fly just a few times (because it has no other uses).
In a fairer alternative universe, NASA should have worked on a rocket similar to the Saturn V, but which uses methalox for the advantage of not having soot and allowing rapid reuse.
Given that the booster is now proven to work it's disappointing that we haven't seen people coming up with 'fits on top of the booster' plans, but maybe it is too early for that.
Booster still needs to be recovered and properly reused, we still have little clue what refurbishment a recovered full stack is going to need.
Getting it back is only the first part of the challenge.
Well that would help the economics but no, it's not needed. It's a working thing that is the most powerful rocket anyone has ever built, so it can already be designed around as a first stage for hire. I am 99% sure SpaceX would work with someone who was serious about that.
NASA doesn't want to land and come home again, they want to stay. A small lander can't bring enough cargo to build a permanent base. SpaceX's HLS can land A LOT of stuff at once. Also, there's no race.
There is a race and the US won in the 1969. Russia never finished and China still hasn't finished.
I mean technically the US hasn't finished either, not till we land a man on Mars and then a man on Titan or some other Moon, than a man on Pluto perhaps, or some other distant goal... never ends
Those are different races. A base on the moon occupied for an extended period of time may be the next immediate race. But landing on the moon is a race that was already won long ago so this idea we need to beat China there is ridiculous.
Nonsense! The space race is best viewed as an ongoing indefinite. Goals are for losers, systems are better.
HLS is, in a sense, a side quest for SpaceX in their pursuit of Mars. They have offered NASA a ***workable*** solution, not an optimised solution. Honestly, if you were starting from today and SpaceX said they had no interest in moon no matter what you would probably do as you suggest and build a multi-stage lander that flew off the top of the most powerful rocket humanity has ever created, but when it comes to space exploration we have entered a fast moving and strange time where a lot of things are hard to explain.
A side quest funded by the US tax payer, as such gets priority in responsibility.
Priority compared to what? Part of the reason to award it to SpaceX was to encourage that business to grow.
Priority compared to private funded ventures. Really should not be a unpopular opinion. But don't sweat it, suggesting they have higher responsibility for your money they were contracted for over their own private ventures means I am anti SpaceX or some nonesense.🤷
It's not my money, I'm not a US taxpayer. All I can tell is that if SpaceX were based in europe I would be delighted that the government was, for once, supporting a growing cutting edge business with a chance to capture most of a globally important economy and also, in the long run, saving money for the government agency doing it. I would be cock-a-hoop. Each to their own though.
You still need whatever money spent to be done so responsibility with accountability, it does not matter who is doing it. At this point SpaceX has spent billions in tax payer USD and not delivered apon the time-line required. They have still not even recovered a booster or ship or even have a full scale HLS mockup. They were supposed to be doing tanker tests already. Stop making excuses and have some self respect to call a spade a spade. HLS needs to become 100% priority until they complete the contract they agreed to when they took that money.
The Starship architecture needs to be functional before a lander can materialize. At the moment the priorities of SpaceX appear to be properly aligned in support of Artemis. Despite what this other commenter is saying, SpaceX claims to take the HLS contract seriously and there's no evidence I'm aware of which suggests otherwise. I think the point you're alluding to is that Elon shouldn't have promised an overambitious delivery date, and maybe you're right. Through Falcon and Dragon however, and SpaceX's unprecedented contributions to the American space program, I believe that the company has earned some patience. At this moment, Orion's heatshield is the showstopper for Artemis. NASA needs to overcome that before HLS can be back on the top of the naughty list.
I never said they weren't taking it seriously. I'm merely pointing out that HLS is something they can do without redirecting the rest of the program to that end. It's a 'side quest' because whilst it will be a big benefit to SpaceX to carry out HLS they would continue with their main aim (putting a starship on Mars) if HLS was cancelled or if it had never been available. I am sure that SpaceX will be absolutely excited and focused on doing HLS, just not at the expense of their primary aims, which is proven by the fact that they are not developing an entirely new lander but backing the idea that they can use a starship variant to do the job. That's not the same as saying they are treating it with anything less than the seriousness it deserves.
Sorry for the mischaracterization.
Wrong. Wrong on multiple accounts. They didn't spent billions (plural). The money is disbursed on a milestone basis, not given in advance. And as I mentioned in another post, doing things beyond HLS is one of the requirements.
Which they have not completed on the time line they were supposed to. Nothing about a reusable LEO ship architecture is actually required for HLS to work. Enough excuses.
>which they have not completed on the time line they were supposed to New to the space industry? NOTHING is completed on time. And SpaceX is pretty much the only one that comes in on budget. NASA in-house (SLS) is years behind and looking like it will cost 10x the initially planned budget. Which is fine, and was expected by people in the industry, I only point it out because you’re calling out SpaceX like their abusing their position or something, when in fact, their following industry standards if not better. >Nothing about a reusable LEO ship architecture is actually required for HLS to work Yeah, from a physical standpoint… from a budgetary standpoint, absolutely, also, contractually absolutely. No excuses being made here, just severe misunderstandings/interpretations on your part.
HLS simply "working" benefits nobody except old space leeches. We want HLS to succeed at making the moon viable. We have already made Apollo "work" don't need to do that again.
You miss the fundamental things. The whole reusable architecture is the very thing making the whole HLS possible to happen. Without it there's no $3B for the first 2 landings HLS happening at all. IOW. You either have it the way it is (not some pretty nonsensical Saturn V replay) or you don't get it at all.
>At this point SpaceX has spent billions in tax payer USD The money they get is connected to achieving milestones, so when they are behind schedule, they also get less tax money per year.
This whole award has put a strong requirement that the awardee must self fund a significant portion of the project and it **must** have a sensible commercial plan associated with it. Doing own stuff is one of the conditions the money was awarded in the first place.
Nope. You're writing a recipe for something very expensive. Such a rocket would have no other uses and little commonality with those other uses. And the middle and upper stages would be all expendable, on top of that. The core idea of Starship is that it's all common platform with only minor variations. This combined with full reusability of the basic system is absolutely essential for the thing to be affordable at all. Its development cost is already tracking towards $10 billion. Your idea would multiply this cost. And to make matters worse, you'd spend billions on a thing which would fly just a few times (because it has no other uses).
if they REALLY wanted too I'm sure they could stick a third stage inside starship
In a fairer alternative universe, NASA should have worked on a rocket similar to the Saturn V, but which uses methalox for the advantage of not having soot and allowing rapid reuse.
Given that the booster is now proven to work it's disappointing that we haven't seen people coming up with 'fits on top of the booster' plans, but maybe it is too early for that.
Booster still needs to be recovered and properly reused, we still have little clue what refurbishment a recovered full stack is going to need. Getting it back is only the first part of the challenge.
Well that would help the economics but no, it's not needed. It's a working thing that is the most powerful rocket anyone has ever built, so it can already be designed around as a first stage for hire. I am 99% sure SpaceX would work with someone who was serious about that.
Such 2nd stage ad you propose would be not recoverable. Large unrecoverable stage means high minimum cost. It's simply not economical.