> People keep going "the mission is go to to the moon". Is it? Why are we doing that?
Again, politics. The US has to assert dominance in space and cannot allow parties like China to one-up them. It's also a great way for political leadership to score points with the public. A more rational approach for establishing a permanent human presence on the moon would have included a thorough requirement analysis like Apollo did. Just FYI, SpaceX to this day (i.e. less than 12 months before the initially planned first landing!) don't even known how many tanker launches are required...
> How much do the "proven technologies" cost?
Less than developing a set of radically new systems from scratch - if done correctly (i.e. no cost-plus contracts). Some ideas, just for pondering:
* Falcon 9 is a reliable, proven, and partly reusable system. Its capabilities are sufficient to put crew and cargo into LEO
* FH is a proven and partly reusable system. Its capabilities are sufficient even for Lunar missions.
* Designing a mission around these existing capabilities would eliminate the risk of developing two completely new rockets (SLS and Super Heavy/"Starship") while allowing for testing vital equipment basically from day one (i.e. autonomous docking with fuel tanks, long term fuel storage in orbit, etc.)
> Are they reusable?
There's no reason why a moon lander and transfer vehicles shouldn't be reusable. This is not a question of the engines or fuel used. Just a side note: the "Lunar Starship" isn't going to be reused either on its first missions. This is a medium to long term goal that hinges on quite a few factors (like the feasibility of long-term cryogenic storage in space).
> one might look at how the long term storage and handling of hydrazine has worked out in enclosed environments on Earth
First of all, the environments are not the same - i.e. no unprotected humans will ever be around the fuel tanks or perform hazardous activities like smoking near them or operate valves. Secondly, in stark contrast to cryogenic fuels, we actually do have plenty of data points for long term use and storage of non-cryogenic fuels in space. Most satellites used hydrazine or its derivatives for station keeping and manoeuvring in deep space missions for decades. This is nothing new whatsoever.
On the other hand no one has ever successfully performed a vehicle to vehicle fuel transfer in space, let alone cryogenic fuel or long term storage of said fuels in space. This is new territory that doesn't even have all of its physics fully understood.
You're saying "we need to be mission focused". If the mission is "politics", then hey, you're right - turn on the money faucet we're doing Apollo again. Developing new technology, doing science, whatever - all not actually happening.
Of course...if it's not politics, then maybe the new technology is the point? That a mission where you don't fundamentally improve how you're doing it would in fact be the only waste of money, because it's just the same pointless thing all over again.
When I say mission, I specifically mean the mission in the form of Artemis, not a permanent human presence on the Moon. The latter doesn't require three brand new rocket systems, especially not a Shuttle derived one.
SLS was created to keep job in the states that had STS facilities and needed Shuttle tech to justify their continued existence.
SpaceX HLS was just as questionable. Competitors presented realistic timelines and budgets, while a single person at NASA on her own decided to exploit the power vacuum after an administration change to award the only contract to SpaceX only to be hired by them shortly after.
The mission is not to develop a rocket that can deploy StarLink 2.0 satellites or supposedly take people to Mars. The mission is also NOT to keep engineers who worked on Shuttle employed. That's the issue and that's the problem with Artemis.
As far as new technology is concerned - you focus on tech required for the mission: new and more capable space suits (in the works), a more capable vehicle (Orion), reliable long term power delivery (NASA's KiloPower reactors), a logistics hub (Lunar gateway), communication systems (relay satellites), new surface capabilities (contract signed with JAXA), etc.
If you really want to achieve a goal, like giving NASA some new focus and establish a permanent presence on the Moon, you take the lessons from the past and improve upon them. A shoestring budget, a needlessly expensive new launch system that only exists to keep jobs and reliance on high risk new technologies without proper justification aren't it.
Politics.
> People keep going "the mission is go to to the moon". Is it? Why are we doing that?
Again, politics. The US has to assert dominance in space and cannot allow parties like China to one-up them. It's also a great way for political leadership to score points with the public. A more rational approach for establishing a permanent human presence on the moon would have included a thorough requirement analysis like Apollo did. Just FYI, SpaceX to this day (i.e. less than 12 months before the initially planned first landing!) don't even known how many tanker launches are required...
> How much do the "proven technologies" cost?
Less than developing a set of radically new systems from scratch - if done correctly (i.e. no cost-plus contracts). Some ideas, just for pondering:
* Falcon 9 is a reliable, proven, and partly reusable system. Its capabilities are sufficient to put crew and cargo into LEO
* FH is a proven and partly reusable system. Its capabilities are sufficient even for Lunar missions.
* Designing a mission around these existing capabilities would eliminate the risk of developing two completely new rockets (SLS and Super Heavy/"Starship") while allowing for testing vital equipment basically from day one (i.e. autonomous docking with fuel tanks, long term fuel storage in orbit, etc.)
> Are they reusable?
There's no reason why a moon lander and transfer vehicles shouldn't be reusable. This is not a question of the engines or fuel used. Just a side note: the "Lunar Starship" isn't going to be reused either on its first missions. This is a medium to long term goal that hinges on quite a few factors (like the feasibility of long-term cryogenic storage in space).
> one might look at how the long term storage and handling of hydrazine has worked out in enclosed environments on Earth
First of all, the environments are not the same - i.e. no unprotected humans will ever be around the fuel tanks or perform hazardous activities like smoking near them or operate valves. Secondly, in stark contrast to cryogenic fuels, we actually do have plenty of data points for long term use and storage of non-cryogenic fuels in space. Most satellites used hydrazine or its derivatives for station keeping and manoeuvring in deep space missions for decades. This is nothing new whatsoever.
On the other hand no one has ever successfully performed a vehicle to vehicle fuel transfer in space, let alone cryogenic fuel or long term storage of said fuels in space. This is new territory that doesn't even have all of its physics fully understood.