
NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea - howard941
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/nasas-lunar-space-station-is-a-greatterrible-idea
======
Mvandenbergh
The thing about the original moon landing programme was that it had a great
clarity of outcome and timeline.

What: Land a man on the moon and return him safely

When: Before the decade is out

That meant NASA could really focus and throw out everything that wasn't
directly on that path.

Reusability - take too long, we'll build each craft from scratch.

Permanent mission - Too complicated, keep the missions very short.

Multi-launch architecture - Nope, too complicated again. Launch it all
together.

Crew size? Two on the moon so they could help each other, one in the CM to aid
in docking. Want a larger crew? Sorry, no. Three is the minimum so that's what
you get.

Complicated re-entry vehicles? Nope. We know we can make ablative work.

What is NASA's manned programme for now? Maybe the Moon. When, who knows?
Maybe Mars. What architecture, when, how, for how long? Who knows. Moon orbit?
For what, when? who knows.

It's impossible to run a clear programme if you don't know what it's for!

~~~
smaddox
As far as I can tell, the primary purpose of manned space missions is to
redirecting taxes to congressional districts and defense contractors. The
secondary purpose might be to inspire interest in STEM, but it seems much less
successful at achieving that objective.

~~~
BurningFrog
The other cynical view is that the moon program was _really_ military.

As in, if the Soviets got to control the ultimate "higher ground", they could
rule the world from it. Apollo made sure no one could control space, and we
now have peace in space.

I kinda believe in this, though I don't know how historically verified it is.
It's of course _not_ what you _ever_ say in your rousing speeches to the
nation and the world!

~~~
wongarsu
There was fear that if the Russians got to the moon first they might set up a
base, and having a base they could shoot down any other landing attempt
(literally, with guns mounted in their moon base). Thus the moon could become
Russian domain, which would not just grant them great research opportunities
but also a virtually unreachable weapons platform. (Remember that the first
crewed space station was 2 years after the moon landing, and also Soviet)

On that basis the military was advocating for a moon mission years before
Kennedy's speech. It's hard to tell if this actually played a big role in the
decision to go to the moon, but it was the cold war after all.

Also the Soviet Union was winning most of the relevant milestones in space
(first satellite, first animal in orbit, first human, first woman, first space
walk, etc), and this was a great source of national pride. Beating them had
great propaganda value.

~~~
dTal
>Also the Soviet Union was winning most of the relevant milestones in space
(first satellite, first animal in orbit, first human, first woman, first space
walk, etc), and this was a great source of national pride. Beating them had
great propaganda value.

I would rather say that the Soviet Union was winning the _irrelevant_
milestones, precisely for the propaganda value. First woman in space means
nothing, really - you put a woman on your spaceship, wham, easy win. The moon
landings forced the USA to tackle real engineering challenges - rendezvous and
docking, piloted spacecraft and piloted orbit changes, functionally useful
EVAs, keeping humans alive in space for long periods, etc.

~~~
novaRom
Oh boy, you underestimate the power of feminism. First woman in space is a
lot, especially if you go back to 60th of previous century.

~~~
dTal
That's the point - it's a propaganda win, not a technical achievement in any
way. Not to belittle the symbolic importance of it, but cmon - first dog
murdered by being launched in a rocket, first time running two manned missions
at the same time, first nap in space - a large proportion of the Soviet
"firsts" were just low-complexity stunts.

One of the last major "firsts" was "first organisms to circle the moon" \-
they barely squeaked this one in a few months before Apollo 8, and they
accomplished it by shoving some tortoises into a Soyuz (no food or water
required!).

------
lettergram
It’s kind of ridiculous how often NASA has to reallocate their focus.
Personally, I’d like to see a longer term 5 - 10 year plan that is voted on by
congress and basically the funds are deposited in an escrow.

It’s insane the waste that occurs from random political moves like this. I
understand the need to be able to direct NASA, but that should be in addition
to the described 5 - 10 year plans. This would give the flexibility needed,
while at the same time ensuring skills and contractors are maintained and long
term visions are still possible.

I kind of view the “gate” in its current state as NASA knowing it’s the
correct choice technically and trying to politically make it viable. Shouldn’t
we listen to the experts here?

~~~
Ididntdothis
Since Bush every incoming president has set up a “vision” that scraps all
previous work and which then in turn gets scrapped by the next guy. I wonder
how the people working there can keep motivated knowing that most of their
work is just for show. Seems unmanned missions are fine but manned missions
are just a mess.

~~~
magduf
From what I've heard, a lot of people have left NASA as a result of the month-
long government shutdown this year. NASA is a political football, and it's not
going to get any better: it just takes too long to see a big mission (i.e.,
manned ones) through, so they're never going to get done with the way our
government is running these days. The probes are usually OK because those can
get done a lot quicker.

~~~
justin66
> From what I've heard, a lot of people have left NASA as a result of the
> month-long government shutdown this year.

I've got two friends there, a civil servant and a contractor, and I've heard
no such thing. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but I'm curious whether
there's any data to back this up. You'd have to be careful looking at that
data, too: a lot of people are retiring from NASA simply because they're old.

Nothing that's happened to NASA lately is a new phenomenon.

~~~
magashna
Total conjecture, but seeing as how the private space industry has ramped up,
it would make sense to leave during such a hostile administration

~~~
ansible
Where are people going to go if they want to do science? OK, the ESA, Japan,
India. Maybe China. But is there anywhere else to go _in_ the USA?

~~~
jandrese
SpaceX? Or if your science isn't specifically on materials for rockets/physics
for rockets/etc... you could be funded by a university or research institute
and simply pay for (part of) a launch on a SpaceX rocket.

NASA still does quite a bit of science work though, so I wouldn't count them
out entirely. Administrations come and go. Sometimes you just gotta keep your
head down and keep doing your job until someone better is voted in.

------
avmich
For long time NASA announced a space program after space program only to be
canceled at an unfortunate moment.

We have to understand that our problems with advancing manned spaceflight are
mainly organizational. And because of that, it's beneficial to focus efforts
not on a grand goal, which may not survive the next budgetary fight in
Congress, but instead on capabilities which can mostly be used for whatever
goal we'll have in mind at any particular moment.

We're well on the way along this idea already. Whatever payload can be used
for on LEO, we already have means to get some 20 metric tons there reliably.
This, as Heinlein put, is already half-way to anywhere in the Solar system. We
also work on manned spacecrafts, which, while useful for getting to ISS and
back, can also be used - mostly - for much more distant trips, to near-lunar
space and more. We're growing a network of automatic stations, which can
provide early reconnaissance for various sky bodies, navigational beacons and
relays. A bunch of companies have growing experience with controlled landing
and launching of one-stage rocket devices.

Gateway has a good property in that it's another component on the way to the
Moon - and elsewhere - which has higher chances to survive another
organizational shakeup because it's easier to build Gateway than to mount a
sizable manned program to the Moon surface. Gateway is an ISS on steroids - in
terms of getting to a much higher point - but not much more in terms of
complexity, and we became pretty good with building and maintaining ISS. A
smaller ISS in Moon vicinity can be less risky and less expensive than many
other projects. As for usefulness - given that Gateway is in place, it's much
easier to manage risks for more bold manned and unmanned projects on the Moon.
Here I disagree with Griffin - he doesn't seem to recognize organizational
challenges which Gateway allows to solve.

Gateway has benefits in easier construction (you don't need to land heavy
modules on the Moon), better understanding of international cooperation (e.g.,
ESA will get experience launching modules towards the Moon), uses other than
Moon (for later stages, when we might have some flow of materials from the Moo
surface), easier return to Earth (so less risks), better coverage of Moon
surface in terms of accessibility etc. IMO, not bad for something which
actually has a better chance to get funded to completion than existing
alternatives.

~~~
cheeko1234
Finally, a sensical comment. You're exactly right.

Given the constraints of politics/funding, NASA can't pull off long-term &
ambitious goals like they used to in the 60s-70s, and the administrator of
NASA, Jim Bridenstine, knows that.

Using your term: ISS on steroids, the next stepping stone would be the Gateway
on steroids: an orbiting station around Mars.

Here's a cool pdf from NASA that goes into details:

[https://arstechnica.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/2019-Why-...](https://arstechnica.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/2019-Why-Gateway-v5.pdf)

~~~
aeternus
There are multiple launch systems that will have the payload capacity to go
straight to the moon within the next few years. Why not just use those?

No one will care about a Lunar space station, it's not enough of a step
forward to capture the public's attention. It's sad that NASA's 'futuristic'
new proposal is to do half of what we were able to do 50 years ago. People
will quickly vote to cut funding for it, and maybe they should.

~~~
avmich
> There are multiple launch systems that will have the payload capacity to go
> straight to the moon within the next few years. Why not just use those?

Maybe SLS and BFR - but those are not nearly ready, and SLS may not be able to
launch directly to the Moon what we may require to launch this time.

Remember that one of the problems of today is significantly lower risk
tolerances. We'll want system to be much safer, and that will translate into
more mass of the system for all kinds of backups. So Saturn-V or similar
payload throwers won't cut it this time. BFR may - but this is much less
visible on the horizon.

> No one will care about a Lunar space station... People will quickly vote to
> cut funding...

I doubt. ISS may be seen as a giant step back from Apollo (even if it has a
pile of its own benefits). Comparing to ISS Gateway is a significant step
forward. Just imagine: deep space instead of "just" 400 km up, Moon vicinity,
flights measured in days and not because one need to synchronize orbits;
platform for telescopes which are much more stationary and aren't obscured
with Earth every hour...

And launching expedition to the Moon from Gateway can be that much more
convenient.

------
superkuh
It's terrible because they effectively canceled the asteroid retrieval mission
(ARM) when they chose to fund the proposals that did not include any de-spin
mechanisms. This leaves them with literally 3 possible asteroids to try to
bring in. Useless.

The point of the lunar gateway was to have a close (in time) place for
resources and the like. But without any ability to capture and bring in
asteroids it's just a waste of space.

~~~
inlined
It could be that they’re fighting for tangible progress that would let them
repropose something like ARM that now has a cheaper marginal cost.

------
jessriedel
> Aware of such criticisms, NASA is defending the Gateway. In May, the agency
> quietly distributed a white paper titled “Why Gateway?” [PDF] that makes the
> case for the space station.

Casey Handmer's take on that document, the best I know and strongly critical,
is here:

[https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/05/05/the-lunar-
gate...](https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/05/05/the-lunar-gateway-
nasas-version/)

~~~
DuskStar
> The SLS is derived from the shuttle core propulsion system, but despite
> adding a stage and 30% more fuel somehow lost 40% of its lift capacity. If
> you know how this happened, please let me know.

That is a massively sick burn right there.

------
crispyambulance
All this "get back to the moon" stuff makes me wonder what the purpose of
going to the moon actually is. It's definitely different for different people.

If the whole point of the endeavor is just _another_ space race exercise to
demonstrate American prowess like the we did in the 1960's-- perhaps that's a
waste of effort? Do we really need that symbolic achievement at such an
enormous cost? Not to mention the opportunity cost of having to drop more
scientifically productive robotic missions?

The fact that the dithering idiocy of our current "administration" is even
uttering anything about a moon mission sort of makes me think they see this as
just a baloney "show-the-world" stunt.

What if, instead, there was a focus on true science, unmanned missions, and
perhaps steps towards actual space applications: mining, asteroid protection,
and staging for _permanent_ space installations ?

~~~
CWuestefeld
JFK didn't have any particular love for the scientific discovery of a moon
mission. It was the same kind of thing that you're describing today:
demonstrate American "greatness" in a world that seemed increasingly hostile -
just substitute Islamicists/Terrorism for USSR/Cold War.

I think that tells us two things:

1) We can still accomplish great things even from lowly motivations, and

2) We shouldn't necessarily take those lowly motivations as proof of a craven
administration.

~~~
crispyambulance
I agree that people who get involved with space programs will be glad to "take
what we can get" in terms of funding whether that means deep-space robotic
missions or another manned moon landing.

Good things will happen with both. But why not choose the _best_ _way_
_forward_ when it comes to space exploration?

Why not free ourselves from the strictures of yet another "space race" with
low-brow nationalistic goals where we again end up citing uninspiring spin-
offs as the reward for "winning" the race?

------
quanticle
This might be a radical idea, but after reading that article, my thought was,
"At this point, the most merciful thing to do might be to put NASA out of its
misery." Specifically, this would entail:

\- The US government getting out of the business of _designing_ launchers:
We'd acquire launchers the same way the Air Force gets airplanes: define
requirements and solicit bids. This isn't perfect (see: F-35), but it's a darn
sight better than the current SLS process. After all, in World War 2, it's not
as if the US Army Air Corps (and later, the US Army Air Force) designed every
plane that it acquired. It put out requirements and solicited designs from
aircraft manufacturers like Boeing, Curtiss, Vought, Douglas, etc. Now that
rocketry is no longer an unproven and speculative endeavor, we should do the
same, and seek to build up multiple competing rocket manufacturers

\- Giving near-Earth science to NOAA: Right now, Earth-focused satellites are
split between NASA and NOAA. Giving a single agency responsibility for Earth-
focused scientific satellites will ensure that they have a single clear voice
advocating on their behalf

\- Sending the astronaut program back to the Air Force (or maybe create the
much ballyhooed "Space Force")

\- Creating a new, smaller, more focused organization for exploration of deep
space (i.e. space beyond Earth's gravity well). While this organization
_could_ wear NASA's logos, I think it would be better if there were a clean
break with the past and the organization got a new name and new branding

~~~
cheeko1234
This is a terrible idea. NASA is still the best agency in the world for moving
humanity forward, even with bureaucratic inefficiencies. No other agency will
have the funds to do what NASA does for non-military reasons.

For every tax dollar spent, the U.S. still gets about 7 times the return.

~~~
DataGata
What do you mean by "7 times the return"? In productivity increases via.
technology? In just the fiscal multiplier effect? In keeping decrepit, middle-
of-nowhere NASA departments up and running?

------
PaulHoule
Polls show that ordinary people don't care about the Moon and Mars.

There is actually more support for planetary protection from asteroids, space-
based observation of both Earth and Sky (people love the Hubble), resource
utilization in space, etc... That is, the real Gerard K. O'Neil stuff.

If it were me I would set a goal of building a sunscreen at the Earth-Sun L1
point (e.g. planetary protection) using lunar or asteroid materials --
something like the lunar gateway would be an ideal crossing point for that.
Space-solar power could be a byproduct of these efforts. This should have the
urgency of Space Battleship Yamato (aka Star Blazers.)

The lunar gateway is also essential to long-term deep space exploration. One
place where Obama was totally wrong was going to Mars without going to the
Moon first. Since a Mars mission is going to be isolated from Earth for so
long, we need to know that all of the technology is completely reliable and
the best way to do that is get it to the point where going to the Moon is like
riding the bus.

Radiation exposure in deep space is a known problem with the known solution of
using space resources to build a radiation shield. This could be lunar or
asteroidal rock and ought to be an early goal.

I am also very curious about Lunar geology and also the possibility that the
moon has hidden sources of volatiles. People talk about the water, but you
also need Carbon and Nitrogen as well as Phosphorous and Potassium to grow
plants and run an economy. (Also you can't breath pure oxygen unless you want
to end up like the Apollo 1 astronauts)

------
yellowapple
One of the things the anti-station crowd misses is that giant rockets like
Apollo are pretty expensive and wasteful. Apollo was great for getting us to
the Moon first, but not necessarily for continuing to go there.

An ideal would be at the very least a place for the lander to dock and refuel
during the return trip. Then you don't have to haul a lander on every single
mission, and thus can use a smaller/cheaper rocket with just the (reusable!)
crew module.

------
jpadkins
I think one of the great potentials of commercial space exploration (and
exploitation) is better long term focus (and stable leadership). Changing the
mission every 4 or 8 years is not conducive with this stage of space
exploration.

------
Animats
The earth-orbiting ISS is only marginally useful. Who needs another money
drain around around Luna?

Moon Direct probably makes the most sense. It needs only the Falcon Heavy
(about $150 million per launch) as a booster. That's a real rocket that's
flown. No need for NASA's vaporware Space Lanch System ($14 billion spent so
far over 8 years, still unfinished, zero launches.)

Apollo did it with one giant launch, but now that assembling systems in orbit
has been done many times, there's no real reason to build something the size
of the Saturn V again.

------
contactlight11
The whole idea of the Senate Launch System (SLS) is flawed from the start.
When NASA has been at its finest, it has been on the edge of innovation. Think
Apollo, Shuttle, ISS, all the Mars Landers, the Voyagers, Cassini, New
Horizons, etc.

So why is NASA wasting billions to make a rocket, something we've known how to
do reliability for more than 50 years? The reason is simple - politics. NASA
is a political agency. They suffer from the same short-sighted, narrow focus
thinking that a lot of other areas in policy live with. This is what
hamstrings NASA the most, the constant change in directive, especially with
regards to human spaceflight.

There are commercial alternatives that can already provide heavy lift
capability, or at the very least are well positioned to take $1-3B and get one
with even heavier capabilities flying. NASA is far too risk adverse these days
to be building a rocket or a crew vehicle. They figured this out for
commercial crew, why can't they figure it out for other architectures? Imagine
NASA being able to cut the $2.5B/year line item that SLS has ballooned to and
redirect that to other human spaceflight goals. Leaving commercial companies
to build does not mean NASA is entirely removed from the process, for example
ULA/SpaceX have been heavily reliant on knowledge transfer and oversight from
NASA on their path towards commercial crew.

Honestly, having just graduated from a top aerospace/electrical engineering
school and having experience in the industry myself, this is why you see the
top talent going to places like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and a whole host of other
commercial companies. These companies have a clear vision that NASA lacks. The
NASA centers recent graduates gravitate towards are Caltech/JPL and
APL/Goddard because they operate (almost) entirely independently from the rest
of bureaucratic monster with serious research and a get-it-done attitude. A
lot of the work at other facilities is farmed out to commercial companies,
leaving a lot of NASA people in oversight/paperwork heavy jobs. This is not a
blanket statement, but there is certainly a lot of "one technician doing the
work and 5 engineers watching him" going on.

So if you follow the idea that NASA belongs at the forefront of research, what
type of work do they do? Well, they are research heavy and build only the most
advanced tech as a result. They research Mars and build rovers/architecture to
further that research and get humans there. They conduct research on the ISS
to further medicine for people back on Earth and learn about long term "0g"
exposure. They research deepspace travel and build lunar gateways and
architecture to support that. They build drones to go to Titan, build probes
to fly by outer planets, etc. And then, they pay a commercial company to fly
it for them (just because NASA did the bulk of the research that enables
current rockets to be so successful does NOT mean they have to continue being
the one making the rocket. Yes SLS has Boeing as a primary contractor, but the
point is it's branded as a NASA rocket).

------
inflatableDodo
Sounds like it could be good if you want to go there repeatedly, bad if you
just want to get there as fast as possible again.

------
LoSboccacc
on one hand I agree that a lunar base would be a cheaper option for a wealth
of reasons including not having to refuel orbit keeping rockets, however,
landing supply is far more risky than docking supply, which compound with the
mission's distance and scope: failing a shipment is always an eventuality, but
losing it at launch is far worse than losing it on arrival, in the first case
you know immediately, in the other you know 2-3 weeks later, and that
influences how large your stockpile needs to be.

what I'd say would be useful is if this station was the stepping stone for a
lunar space elevator. then it would be a great investment and a true stepping
stone for a permanent lunar presence, but a stationary orbit around the moon
is impossible (too far, you'd fall on earth), so the tether would actually
have to anchor the station.

------
jbattle
Given the exponential nature of Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation, I don't
understand why its not common to perform multiple launches from the ground to
LEO, and then rendezvous in orbit and go to the moon, or mars, or whereever.

If I'm understanding the mechanics properly (informed mostly by kerbal space
program!) the biggest "expense" in traveling most places is getting into LEO.
And every doubling of payload requires more than doubling of fuel. All of
which requires significantly larger and more complex rockets.

Either I'm misunderstanding the true costs of launches (I know the fuel itself
is relatively cheap) or I'm underestimating the complexity of linking two
spacecraft in a robust and rigid connection while in orbit.

~~~
jessaustin
TNSTAAFL. I think you're misunderstanding that equation?

You're trying to get to orbit, so hold _v_ and delta- _v_ constant. Then you
have the ratio of "wet" to "dry" masses constant. So the more you're
launching, the more fuel it takes, and that is linear. I don't see how physics
would work otherwise?

~~~
manicdee
The ratio of wet and dry masses for a launch vehicle also depends on ISP,
thrust, and aerodynamics. You can have an extremely high ISP and thus a lot of
theoretical delta-v but you waste it all because your thrust ratio is below 1
and the vehicle can’t leave the ground.

Over a certain size you can’t build up anymore and have to make the vehicle
flat. This is because a certain surface area of exhaust nozzle can only
provide so much thrust. So you get to about 100m and then your rocket can’t
leave the ground because the mass of propellant is higher than the available
thrust.

Then there’s thrust to weight, meaning that to get off the ground and about
two minutes into your launch it is far more important to have a lot of thrust
than to have high efficiency. The rule of thumb for KSP players is 1.2 thrust
to weight on the ground. You will fight gravity losses and end up with about
0.2g acceleration off the pad. This increases gradually as the mass of the
vessel is burnt off.

Later in flight the major force to overcome is atmospheric drag. The faster
you go, the worse it gets. Fat rockets will have a harder time. So you can’t
go too wide, you can’t go too tall, and there are many trade offs to be made
along the way.

But the short version is no, you don’t hold v and delta-v constant. There are
many more variables to consider when launching a rocket from a standing start
where gravity and an atmosphere are involved.

Rockets do not scale linearly.

~~~
jessaustin
Yes of course rocketry is complicated. ITT we're discussing the specific
question that parent raised: are a bunch of small-payload rockets more
efficient than on big-payload rocket? We assume that actual engineers have
done the work of designing rockets that actually reach orbit, whether small or
large; that's why we assume equal velocities. Any particular orbit is
characterized by a specific orbital energy. Tsiolkovsky certainly considers
the effects of gravity; that's the point.

------
whatshisface
The genius of LOP-G is that it can be converted back to an asteroid intercept
platform (its original purpose) should the next president decide to change
NASA's mission yet again.

------
LinuxBender
Would building a lunar space station get us closer to being able to deflect
mass extinction sized asteroids?

~~~
moate
Of course it would.

But the important question is "how much closer". That would be much harder to
answer.

~~~
LinuxBender
Is there anyone from NASA or SpaceX here that could offer some opinions on how
much closer we could get to deflecting / mining mass extinction asteroids?

------
philwelch
Out of curiosity, why isn't the gateway being planned for the Earth/Moon L1
point?

------
Causality1
Going back to the moon is just busy work to distract from the fact they don't
have the funding or the ambition to get to Mars.

~~~
reallydude
Going back the moon is the logical next step in going to Mars. You don't send
off materials and bodies in the hope that years later it will work out.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon)

It took many attempts to get a successful moon mission where we landed. How
many more before we could dig into the rock for a habitat? Now multiply the
time by the round trip to Mars. The fantasy of being on Mars in X years is
fraught with dangers that include our own imperfection in execution. Don't
expect a man on Mars in your lifetime, at least not one who comes back.

~~~
mytailorisrich
Indeed, the Moon is the best location to develop and perfect technologies to
settle on another planet and to live there autonomously.

Because it's very near it's obviously much faster and cheaper to ship things
there, and it allows near-instant communication back and forth.

Once the technologies are mature it will just be a question of longer shipping
to mars or anywhere else.

~~~
Causality1
No, earth is the best place to develop technologies to settle on another
world. Planning a moon base when we can't even build and run a sealed
biosphere on earth is like looking for sponsors for your F-1 team before
learning how to drive a car.

~~~
0xffff2
Why would you need a fully sealed biosphere? It's not like we're going on a
solitary one way trip. We've kept the ISS running for enough years to prove
that, in terms of biosphere anyway, we have the technology to build a base on
the moon or Mars.

~~~
Causality1
>Indeed, the Moon is the best location to develop and perfect technologies to
settle on another planet and to live there autonomously.

So which is it? Do we need to build a base on the moon to develop technologies
to let us settle Mars or do we not need to go to the moon at all because we
already have the technology to build a Mars base?

~~~
0xffff2
I responded to something you said. You're quoting something that I never said
at me while completely ignoring the substance of my comment. That's no way to
have a rational conversation.

