Hey, we're going back to the moon again

[ReformedCharacter]

Interesting how Space Force are now getting the say on what can and can not happen regarding rocket launch systems. The potential for bureaucratic delays and in fighting is an ugly aspect to the rise of Space Force. I imagine Nasa do not view the potential interference of SF in what they want to do as a positive. But perhaps I am wrong. Are their reasons to believe that SF are a positive for NASA such as a second organisation to lobby the politicians for more funding etc.

Regards,

I've heard of the Space Force but only because Trump brought attention to it. Looking at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force

It seems to be a rebranding of something that has been part of the US military infrastructure since the beginning:

The U.S. Space Force traces its roots to the beginning of the Cold War, with the first Army Air Forces space programs starting in 1945

As to what they do:

The Space Force is the smallest U.S. armed service, consisting of 8,400 military personnel. The Space Force operates 77 spacecraft in total across various programs such as GPS, Space Fence, military satellite communications constellations, X-37B spaceplanes, U.S. missile warning system, U.S. space surveillance network, and the Satellite Control Network

The X-37B spaceplanes are interesting, resembling mini Space Shuttles, Scott Manley made a video about them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQN4hId5psg

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say 'Interesting how Space Force are now getting the say on what can and can not happen regarding rocket launch systems'.

The 2021 Department of Defense Budget requests $1.6 billion for three National Security Space Launch vehicles. Of this budget $1.05 billion will fund three launches: AFSPC-36, AFSPC-87 and AFSPC-112. The United States Space Force is reported to be working closely with commercial leaders in the space domain, such as Elon Musk (SpaceX) and Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin), to determine their capability in serving the mission. According to Lt. General David Thompson, the United States Space Force is already in contracting talks with Blue Origin. The budget includes $560 million to upgrade the launch systems of Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman, and United Launch Alliance. Further, the 2021 budget requests $1.8 billion for two Lockheed Martin Global Positioning System (GPS) III systems and other projects to fulfill the Space Superiority Strategy.

RC

[9873210]

The Space Force bureaucracy in question is the Range Safety Office. Their job is to safeguard Miami, Orlando and everybody else on the ground from errant rockets. This has been around from close to the beginning of rocketry, possibly before the beginning since the same function exists on rifle and artillery ranges.

Range safety is always somewhat antagonistic with the rocket scientist who view their job as sending rockets up and not caring where they come down. I suppose the function could be moved to the FAA rather than the military, and perhaps eventually it will. But the bureaucracy would function in much the same way, unless it fails and the space program gets totally shut down.

(Aside: during the Challenger disaster, once the solid rocket boosters became detached from the Orbiter they were blown up by the Range Safety Officer.)

[pje16]

once the solid rocket boosters became detached from the Orbiter they were blown up by the Range Safety Officer.

Seems to me that he needs a new job title

[ReformedCharacter]

The Space Force bureaucracy in question is the Range Safety Office. Their job is to safeguard Miami, Orlando and everybody else on the ground from errant rockets. This has been around from close to the beginning of rocketry, possibly before the beginning since the same function exists on rifle and artillery ranges.

Range safety is always somewhat antagonistic with the rocket scientist who view their job as sending rockets up and not caring where they come down. I suppose the function could be moved to the FAA rather than the military, and perhaps eventually it will. But the bureaucracy would function in much the same way, unless it fails and the space program gets totally shut down.

(Aside: during the Challenger disaster, once the solid rocket boosters became detached from the Orbiter they were blown up by the Range Safety Officer.)

The flight termination system has been an issue for the SLS due to delays. Apparently, changing the batteries needs the vehicle to be returned to the VAB.

The space agency also continues to work with the U.S. Space Force’s Eastern Range on a request to extend the range’s certification of batteries on the SLS moon rocket’s flight termination system, which would destroy the launcher if it veered off course after liftoff. The range must approve the battery certification — initially 20 days, then increased to 25 days and now would need to cover at least 45 days — in order for NASA to proceed with attempts in late September and early October.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/09/12/nasa-delays-sls-tanking-test-next-launch-opportunity/

Regarding the Shuttle...

Each time I sat at the Flight Director console during a shuttle countdown, about three hours before launch time, they brought me a plain white envelope, sealed. The envelope contained exactly one sheet of plain white paper with less than a dozen words typed in crisp black font. On that paper were the Code Words...By long standing jointly signed Flight Rules, if the shuttle were to veer off course, spin out of control, or break up, my responsibility as Shuttle Ascent Flight Director was to transmit those Code Words on my loop. On hearing those words, the FCO would depress the two buttons in front of him to – as we say – ‘terminate the flight’.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/waynehalesblog/tag/range-safety/

Apparently the Shuttle designers were kind enough to add a warning light to the Shuttle's control panel to let the crew know that the flight termination system had been activated.

RC

[odysseus2000]

Space Force is one of those difficult to define entities that the US likes to create and slowly enlarge.

As of now its budget is proposed to increase to $24b in 2023, from $15b per the Wiki article, already referenced in this thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... rce#Budget

There are those who argue that this is the end and its budget will not increase much going forwards:

https://spacenews.com/analysis-space-fo ... ort-lived/

However, Space Force see themselves as important and if that continues they will clearly need a lot of money and power:

https://www.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/FAQ ... ace-Force/

A: The U.S. Space Force is a military service that organizes, trains, and equips space forces in order to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force. USSF responsibilities will include developing Guardians, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.

I have no idea where all this goes, but having SF in charge of something like range safety suggests to me that they are becoming an increasing and powerful administration and that this will increase in the future. I doubt the US airforce administration is over happy about SF.

Regards,

[XFool]

Artemis: Nasa's Moon rocket completes fuelling test

BBC News

Nasa's giant Moon rocket has completed a fuelling test that should open the way to it making a maiden flight.

"Controllers managed to fill the Space Launch System vehicle with 2.7 million litres of liquid hydrogen and oxygen on Wednesday - a task that had previously proved impossible due to leaks."

[Osprey55]

The SLS only gets you toLunar orbit. You still need a lander to get to the surface, which is planned to be SpaceX's Starship.

So it seems there will be 3 people going ti the moon in a tiny capsule, while a huge, empty Starship goes along as well....

[ReformedCharacter]

The SLS only gets you toLunar orbit. You still need a lander to get to the surface, which is planned to be SpaceX's Starship.

So it seems there will be 3 people going ti the moon in a tiny capsule, while a huge, empty Starship goes along as well....

NASA wanted to pick two options from three bidders but can only afford one and Starship was the cheapest.

RC

[ursaminortaur]

The SLS only gets you toLunar orbit. You still need a lander to get to the surface, which is planned to be SpaceX's Starship.

So it seems there will be 3 people going ti the moon in a tiny capsule, while a huge, empty Starship goes along as well....

No, the SLS just gets you into Earth orbit. The Orion spacecraft atop the SLS gets you to lunar orbit (and hopefully back to Earth again). A crewed moon landing won't take place until the Artemis III mission which will involve a rendezvous between the Orion spacecraft and a Human Landing System (HLS) which is currently planned to be provided by SpaceX and which will have been placed in a near-rectilinear lunar halo orbit by an earlier support mission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

The Artemis program is organized around a series of Space Launch System (SLS) missions. These space missions will increase in complexity and are scheduled to occur at intervals of a year or more. NASA and its partners have planned Artemis I through Artemis V missions; later Artemis missions have also been proposed. Each SLS mission centers on the launch of an SLS booster carrying an Orion spacecraft. Missions after Artemis II will depend on support missions launched by other organizations and spacecraft for support functions.
.
.
.
Artemis III (2025) will be a crewed lunar landing.[11] The mission depends on a support mission to place a Human Landing System (HLS) in place in a near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) of the Moon prior to the launch of SLS/Orion. After HLS reaches NRHO, SLS/Orion will send the Orion spacecraft with a crew of four, which is intended to include the first woman and the first person of color to land on the Moon, to rendezvous and dock with HLS.[b] Two astronauts will transfer to HLS, which will descend to the lunar surface and spend about 6.5 days on the surface. The astronauts will perform at least two EVAs on the surface before the HLS ascends to return them to a rendezvous with Orion. Orion will return the four astronauts to Earth. Launch is scheduled no earlier than 2025.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS

Starship HLS, or Starship Human Landing System, is a lunar lander variant of the Starship spacecraft that will transfer astronauts from a lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon and back. It is being designed and built by SpaceX under contract to NASA as a critical element of NASA's Artemis program to land a crew on the Moon in the 2020s.

The mission plan calls for a Super Heavy booster to launch a Starship HLS into an Earth orbit, where it will be refueled by multiple Starship tanker spacecraft before boosting itself into a lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO). There, it will rendezvous with a crewed Orion spacecraft that will be launched from Earth by a NASA Space Launch System (SLS) launcher. A crew will transfer from Orion to HLS, which will descend to the lunar surface for a stay of several days which is to include five or more EVAs. It will then return the crew to Orion in NRHO.

[Osprey55]

Yes I know. I was being imprecise with my SLS, when I should have said SLS+Orion, or maybe 'Artemis 1', I guess.

But my point remains that a large part of the 'return to the moon' project is not close to being ready yet. Even though the media seem to think Artemis 1 is a dress rehearsal for a landing, more akin to Apollo 10. The Starship variant, meanwhile, has to do the same thing as Artemis (get to the moon), but also, get refueled while in earth orbit, plus land and take off from the surface. Maybe it stays in lunar orbit.

[ReformedCharacter]

Yes I know. I was being imprecise with my SLS, when I should have said SLS+Orion, or maybe 'Artemis 1', I guess.

But my point remains that a large part of the 'return to the moon' project is not close to being ready yet. Even though the media seem to think Artemis 1 is a dress rehearsal for a landing, more akin to Apollo 10. The Starship variant, meanwhile, has to do the same thing as Artemis (get to the moon), but also, get refueled while in earth orbit, plus land and take off from the surface. Maybe it stays in lunar orbit.

We choose to go to the moon in this decade, maybe

RC

[NotSure]

New attempt of unmanned mission pencilled in for Tuesday. Apparently fuel issue now fixed, but forecast storm may cause additional delay.

[no paywall on link]

https://wapo.st/3ReVfQK

[AJC5001]

New attempt of unmanned mission pencilled in for Tuesday. Apparently fuel issue now fixed, but forecast storm may cause additional delay.

[no paywall on link]

https://wapo.st/3ReVfQK

Not any more!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/63022093

Adrian

[AsleepInYorkshire]

We're going back to the Moon because it has military collateral advantage.

There - I've said it - it's out there!

The USA would not go back to the moon unless there was;

1. A military advantage
2. A financial advantage

Why would they pay a lot of money to go back? There's something there they want!

AiY(D)

[XFool]

We're going back to the Moon because it has military collateral advantage.

I doubt that. What military advantage could it possibly offer?

[servodude]

We're going back to the Moon because it has military collateral advantage.

I doubt that. What military advantage could it possibly offer?

The Loonies can chuck rocks at you

[mc2fool]

We're going back to the Moon because it has military collateral advantage.

I doubt that. What military advantage could it possibly offer?

The Loonies can chuck rocks at you

TANSTAAFL!

[ReformedCharacter]

The Loonies can chuck rocks at you

Don't knock it, we all need a hobby. I was going great till I took out my bathroom window

RC

[AsleepInYorkshire]

We're going back to the Moon because it has military collateral advantage.

I doubt that. What military advantage could it possibly offer?

May I suggest instead of asking me this question that you Google it. It may help with your doubts?

AiY(D)

[XFool]

We're going back to the Moon because it has military collateral advantage.

I doubt that. What military advantage could it possibly offer?

May I suggest instead of asking me this question that you Google it. It may help with your doubts?

Well, there's history: Plan for a Lunar Outpost

https://armyhistory.org/soldiers-moon-armys-strange-true-plan-lunar-outpost/

I remember people in the 1960s being afeared of nuclear rockets fired from the moon. Until the obvious was pointed out...

Then there is today: US Military Eyes Strategic Value of Earth-Moon Space

https://www.space.com/us-military-strategic-value-earth-moon-space.html

"Indeed, the protection of trade routes and lines of communication are traditional military responsibilities, and this will continue to be true as cislunar space becomes "high ground" — a position of advantage or superiority."

OK. If ever there are commercial industries, bases and infrastructure developed using the Moon then there would be military interest in protecting them. But I still see no clear, immediate "military advantage", as this would normally be understood.