Saving Gateway, SLS and Orion? Sen. Ted Cruz proposes $10 billion more for NASA's moon and Mars efforts

[Admin]

Sen. Ted Cruz's newly unveiled legislative directives for Senate Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill would dedicate almost $10 billion to win the new space race with China.

Saving Gateway, SLS and Orion? Sen. Ted Cruz proposes $10 billion more for NASA's moon and Mars efforts : Read more

 

[George²]

The gateway, even does not exist yet. How to save something that is on paper and that I think is useless because trip to the Moon with Starship and other improved vehicles do not need this step.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I disagree about the need.

The lunar lander should not be hauling all sorts of unnecessary baggage such as reentry heat shields and airframes needed for reentry into Earth's atmosphere. That is a waste of propellant. That is why the Apollo mission had a separate lander, and the same thinking applies to any lunar mission. It is even more important for reusable craft that we don't want making the trip multiple times with unnecessary baggage.

And, with respect to Gateway's "existence", there is already work to produce it by the nations that have that responsibility. It just isn't yet finished or launched into place.

 

[George²]

Yes, of course. In 2027, or 2028, or 2029, whenever it comes to landing on the Moon, the US should do it like in 1969. Maybe instead of flat color displays, mechanical scales could be used, as then, and of course the engines, which will be very outdated.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The physics is no different in 2030 than in 1969 - just the technology has improved.

The new plans are to use the new technology in optimum ways to deal with the same physical issues.

Instead of the "throw it all away as soon as possible to minimize propellant needed" approach used by Apollo for a single trip, the "reuse it multiple times for multiple missions" approach is being used to minimize costs of multiple trips.

But minimizing costs still requires minimizing propellant needs, so breaking the journey down into steps and only transferring the things needed in a particular step is the best approach for that. Dragging a reentry vehicle for Earth's atmosphere all the way to the lunar surface and back is not smart. It can be left in LEO, and a much lighter vehicle can travel to lunar orbit, where a vehicle with lunar landing capability is waiting, so that the cis-lunar transporter does not need to include a lander each time, and the lander does not need to take the extra propellant for the cislunar return down to the Moon's surface and then back to lunar orbit.

A satellite in lunar orbit serves multiple functions for the trip between Earth and the Moon, including fuel depot as well as transfer point between cis-lunar craft and lunar landing craft.

 

[George²]

The physics is no different in 2030 than in 1969 - just the technology has improved

Do you sure that technology is improved:
FAA still use floppy disks and Windows 95. Same is the NASA: old tech that in today terms is just old junk. I think that this swamp that only function from last 30+ years is to eat budget money must be completely redesigned.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

There is a problem with Government IT. I have seen it first hand. The problem is that it is run by contractors that rebid every 3 years and the lowest bidder gets the contract. That is generally the lowest capability bidder, who then does a "job fair" to hire as many of the previous contractor's employees as possible before starting work. It is a game for the purpose of avoiding paying government health and retirement benefits for full time government IT experts.

Worse, the IT is always underfunded, so doing a major overhaul for "must work now" type systems is just not feasible with the funding level and turnover rate. Doing that requires building the new system while still running the old system, so more than twice as expensive for labor plus the new equipment expenses. Government can't just use commercial IT products in most cases.

The government gets what Congress pays for (or less), and Congress has a priority of buying votes with new social programs or better benefits or more eligibility for existing programs, not improving something IT that is still working OK for now.

So, not the FAA's fault, not NASA's fault. The Defense Department does get the high tech - because Congress budgets for it.