Yesterday,
after a long day at work, I came home to headlines of “NASA to return to the
moon in five years!” I’m no rocket scientist or space policy expert, but my
first reaction was, “In your dreams.” But if I was given the task, I’d do it
with two Falcon Heavies and a Falcon 9.
One Heavy would launch the lunar lander, the second would launch what
was basically a space tug, and the F9 would launch the crew. The three would dock in Earth orbit, and the
tug would send them off to the moon.
They’d land, come back up, and the tug would bring them back to
Earth. There would likely be a crewed
test run, but unlike Apollo 10, the
crew would stay in orbit while the lander went down and up automatically. Just to fully test it before putting crew
onboard.
One
problem with this, is that while there are dozens of designs for lunar landers
and space tugs, will any of them be compatible with each other, with the Falcon
Heavy, and ready to go within five years?
With enough money, possibly.
Things
could be simpler if the mission uses the Space Launch System or the Super Duper
Falcon, or whatever it will be called in five years. Yes, but the advantage the Falcon Heavy has
is that it’s flown. The SLS and SDF are
still in the design phase. So how much
of the five years will be eaten up just getting them flight ready?
Now
I’m sure some of you are saying that since we went to the moon in eight years in
the sixties, with our better technology we should be able to get there in five
today. But two of the reasons we were
able to do it so quickly in the sixties is that, One, we had to beat the
Soviets, and Two, NASA had all the money they needed in order to beat the
Soviets. It was a Race that our
government, military, and large swaths of the populace felt it was of vital
importance we win. What reasons do we
have to go today?
No comments:
Post a Comment