/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10555879
>How is NASA going to return humans to the Moon in the next 5 years?
No one really knows except at the highest ups at NASA. They don't even have a lander ready.

>what are they planning to do?
Not to sound pessimistic, but I wouldn't consider NASA's recent Moon plans as anything more than just hype to get more public support. At least for now. NASA has delayed an set back goals for so long that whatever they're (or any space agency/company) doing shouldn't be taken seriously until actual demos of hardware are shown (like EM-1).

>The SLS has been backlogged so much they're considering launching Orion on the Falcon Heavy. What is the likelihood of this?
My guess is "very unlikely", for two reasons. One, SLS still has plenty of political support behind it, and they will be desperate to keep SLS relevant especially after potentially loosing Europa Clipper. Two, limitations of Falcon. Falcon is a very narrow and long rocket and Orion is fat and heavy. This will pose significant problems in not only adapting Falcon to carry Orion, but also during launch.

To reiterate, unless NASA shows some hardware and actually uses it, then their recent hype of "we're going back to the moon!" shouldn't be taken seriously. They have hyped up previous "ambitious" manned missions before for years and never delivered anything other than some nice concepts. NASA shouldn't be awarded for concepts, anyone can plan a manned moon mission, they should be awarded for achievements.

However, I really hope NASA is being serious this time.

>>10555879
Either Boeing actually gets itself in order and burns the midnight oil and incurs huge cost-overruns, requiring NASA to ask for supplementary funding, or...
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_TpmSram2g
This happens on schedule in 2023 and NASA just charters a trip on it for the following year.

>>10555946
>This happens on schedule in 2023 and NASA just charters a trip on it for the following year.
NASA will definitely not do that right after Dear Moon unless either BFR gets human rated by NASA, or it flies so much that it's proven to be reliable.

>>10555951
They may do something like transfer crew via a Commercial Crew vehicle to the craft in orbit, and just use it for the trip out to the moon's surface and back to LEO. That way it doesn't need a full NASA rating for manned flight for launch.

>>10555956
Maybe, you have a good point there. However, I doubt BFR will have it's maiden flight before SLS, mainly because if that did happen then Boeing will be in some serious shit politically.

>>10555970
Cargo BFR will probably fly in 2021, which really will light a fucking bonfire under Boeing's ass. Still, going from a cargo craft to a manned vehicle takes a lot of work, and Orion is a lot closer to being ready than a ship that's still just getting its tanks, plumbing, and heat shield worked out.

>>10555987
>Cargo BFR will probably fly in 2021
I doubt that, I think it'll fly by 2023 at the earliest, but hey I would love to be proven wrong there.

>which really will light a fucking bonfire under Boeing's ass
I hope so. I've never really liked Boeing, so I would love to see them finally get some payback for how badly they've handled spaceflight.

>>10556017
Cargo needs tanks, engines, shielding, controls, and the chomp door.
Manned will need an entire suite of life-support systems that can operate for at least two years continuously, plus everything the cargo version has minus the chomp door.
What I think is the first cargo BFR flight will be in 2021, but it may be a full year between that and its second flight.

>>10555893
>One, SLS still has plenty of political support behind it, and they will be desperate to keep SLS relevant especially after potentially loosing Europa Clipper.
Don't be so sure. It looks like the government is starting to lose patience with the SLS program to the extent they are considering ULA and SpaceX. Also it seems that the Trump administration wants to push to get a lunar mission before his theoretical second term ends in 2024. Sure this is almost certainly for completely selfish reasons so that he can pontificate and rub it in his opponents' faces but if that results in science moving forward then who am I to question it?

>https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/what-is-going-on-with-nasas-space-launch-system-rocket/
>In a remarkable turnaround, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine on Wednesday said the space agency would consider launching its first Orion mission to the Moon on commercial rockets instead of NASA's own Space Launch System.

>>10555879
>he thinks funding is the problem
Good goy, we can't go back to the moon because of the fak-..I mean funding issue!!

>>10556122
>Don't be so sure. It looks like the government is starting to lose patience with the SLS program to the extent they are considering ULA and SpaceX.
Maybe, hopefully that is the case. But nothing is stopping the government from cancelling SLS only to resurrect it with a new face and name, like a phoenix of bureaucracy.

>Also it seems that the Trump administration wants to push to get a lunar mission before his theoretical second term ends in 2024. Sure this is almost certainly for completely selfish reasons so that he can pontificate and rub it in his opponents' faces but if that results in science moving forward then who am I to question it?
I'm just jaded by NASA's plans at this point, so I wont hold my breath for this.

Although, I really wish I'm wrong about this and that NASA pulls it's shit together by next year.

>>10556122
Bridenstine has since walked back going commercial for EM-1, but the EM-1 deadline is definitely seen as the make-or-break point for the Administration on SLS.

By the way, this was the Frankenstack NASA figured might work to do EM-1 on a 100% commercial basis: a fully expended Falcon Heavy, launching an entire encapsulated and fueled Delta IV Heavy 2nd stage mated to Orion into LEO. It would require a lot of work, but the attraction was the dV was there, and all the parts already exist: NASA just needs to find out if they can actually work together to get to orbit.

>>10556131
Ho hum... aren't you clever.