Im proposing that instead of merely a Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, we should have a Commercial Orbital/Lunar Transportation Services (COLTS 
) and claiming we can definitely start right now within the current budget.
I am not talking about manned. To create and sustain the ability to land anything would be incredibly useful, as I will justify.
Why we can do it.
Very simply, because it is already in the budget; it just isn't phrased that way. There is already money for precursor missions, for example to land something at the lunar poles. There is already money to encourage commercial lunar landers, such as the lunar lander challenge and the google lunar X-prize. Again, there is specific mention in the budget.
So we have money to land stuff, we have money for commercial landers, my proposal really is just to underline the obvious implication that there should be a commitment to sustain a healthy lunar lander market.
Why we should do it.
...To reclaim the moon. To actually explore something in realtime. Think how embarrassingly long we could not even demonstrate in blurry photos evidence of our previous visit. It cost 80 million just to crash something into a pole and watch the flash to be analyzed over months to detect water. Even if the cost per kg is 200k, that would be far superior to our current situation.
...Because the reasons are already in the budget. To give focus to our R&D. A common complaint of the new budget is that Technology demonstrators without focus may lead nowhere. Perhaps as important, it may seem that way to the public if not applied to immediate achievements. By moving just our most promising teleoperating and ISRU demonstrations to the moon, it creates significant competition between a wide range of projects to be the best of the best, and on time. There are also many other R&D projects that would benefit. We can probably evolve small rocket systems faster than massive earth-to-LEO launchers.
...Because we will never run out of useful missions for small cargos. Once every possible space science mission is performed there are stream of teleoperating and ISRU demonstrations.
...To move beyond one off space science missions and LEO space stations that fall down again when interest wanes. What ever we put on the moon stays there. We can actually do things such as lay down acres of solar power panels printed on regolith with lawnmower sized robots, extract water from the poles. Water and power services will eventually leverage other larger experiments such as smelting and manufacture. A robotic colony will lead in inevitably to a human one, and not just a sortie or a base which is really just a rationalization for the rockets that got you there. When humans arrive they will increase by a large factor the effectiveness of an already functional infrastructure.
) and claiming we can definitely start right now within the current budget.I am not talking about manned. To create and sustain the ability to land anything would be incredibly useful, as I will justify.
Why we can do it.
Very simply, because it is already in the budget; it just isn't phrased that way. There is already money for precursor missions, for example to land something at the lunar poles. There is already money to encourage commercial lunar landers, such as the lunar lander challenge and the google lunar X-prize. Again, there is specific mention in the budget.
So we have money to land stuff, we have money for commercial landers, my proposal really is just to underline the obvious implication that there should be a commitment to sustain a healthy lunar lander market.
Why we should do it.
...To reclaim the moon. To actually explore something in realtime. Think how embarrassingly long we could not even demonstrate in blurry photos evidence of our previous visit. It cost 80 million just to crash something into a pole and watch the flash to be analyzed over months to detect water. Even if the cost per kg is 200k, that would be far superior to our current situation.
...Because the reasons are already in the budget. To give focus to our R&D. A common complaint of the new budget is that Technology demonstrators without focus may lead nowhere. Perhaps as important, it may seem that way to the public if not applied to immediate achievements. By moving just our most promising teleoperating and ISRU demonstrations to the moon, it creates significant competition between a wide range of projects to be the best of the best, and on time. There are also many other R&D projects that would benefit. We can probably evolve small rocket systems faster than massive earth-to-LEO launchers.
...Because we will never run out of useful missions for small cargos. Once every possible space science mission is performed there are stream of teleoperating and ISRU demonstrations.
...To move beyond one off space science missions and LEO space stations that fall down again when interest wanes. What ever we put on the moon stays there. We can actually do things such as lay down acres of solar power panels printed on regolith with lawnmower sized robots, extract water from the poles. Water and power services will eventually leverage other larger experiments such as smelting and manufacture. A robotic colony will lead in inevitably to a human one, and not just a sortie or a base which is really just a rationalization for the rockets that got you there. When humans arrive they will increase by a large factor the effectiveness of an already functional infrastructure.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram