"What isn't in good shape is the architecture, including the choice of SpaceX's Starship. The former administrator listed the issues. First, there was the task of getting the Human Landing System (HLS) variant of Starship to the Moon, which would require an unknown number of launches from Earth to refuel it. "By the way," said Bridenstine, "that whole in-space refueling thing has never been tested either." Then there is human-rating the HLS variant, a process that Bridenstine noted "hasn't even started yet.""
"How long could the HLS variant of Starship loiter in orbit around the Moon before the crew arrived? Was putting a crew on the surface of the Moon with no means of returning to the Orion spacecraft for seven days acceptable? "The biggest decision in the history of NASA - at least since I've been paying attention - happened in the absence of a NASA administrator, and that decision was instead of buying a moonlander, we're going to buy a big rocket.""
Returning humans to the Moon before a Chinese taikonaut plants a flag is considered highly unlikely due to NASA's chosen architecture and reliance on SpaceX Starship for lunar landings. The Space Launch System experienced cost overruns but is now regarded as behind schedule and costly. The Orion crew capsule is usable and increasingly reusable, lowering per-mission cost. The Starship HLS would need an unknown number of Earth launches for in-space refueling, a capability never tested; human-rating for the HLS variant has not started. Concerns remain about lunar-orbit loiter time, seven-day surface return contingencies, and the decision to buy a big rocket instead of a dedicated moonlander.
Read at Theregister
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]