Should the DoD be involved in returning us to the Moon?

 Copyright 2024 Robert Clark

   

 Recent news is China expects to send manned missions before 2030. However, delays in the Starship HLS  human landing system and the 2nd NASA mobile launcher suggest we might not be able to return to the Moon until 2029 or later.

 Some space analysts such as Namrata Goswami have argued China has already surpassed us in the current race back to the Moon, [1]. Space analyst Jordan Wright makes the point that arguing that we already got there first anyway is like saying the U.S. should be called the United States of Norway because Leif Erickson got here first, [2].

 The key point is China getting back to the Moon first gives them a significant advantage in establishing a base first there and developing resources, [3]. They could even claim the most useful locations for exploiting resources. When China makes a pronouncement of when they will reach the Moon it should be taken seriously. Unlike the U.S. and every other country’s space program even Russia’s, the Chinese space program is just an off shoot of their military. Then when they want to get to the Moon they’ll do it in the simplest way possible. They don’t have to apportion to each state their little portion of the federal spending to keep each Senator and Congressman happy so the program gets funded.

 Remember at the beginning of the U.S. space program in the late 50’s when our rockets kept failing, while the Soviet Union kept succeeding, made famous in the book and movie the Right Stuff? We weren’t able to finally succeed until we gave it over to the military to manage.

 Since the DoD now considers the Moon to be a strategic resource they should consider their own approach to getting to the Moon, not through the over bloated SLS. It is quite notable Robert Zubrin, founder of the Mars Society, observed a single launch of the Superheavy/Starship can get a manned mission to the Moon with no refueling flights, nor SLS required:

 

Mars Direct 2.0 - Dr. Robert Zubrin - IAC 2019.

 What’s even more astonishing is each of those flight should only cost ~$100 million, as Elon Musk has said that is the cost of a SuperHeavy/Starship launch. I said ”should” because that’s what it would cost to SpaceX. But of course once the DoD is paying for it, SpaceX will find a way to charge them a billion dollars for it. But even that is just chicken feed to the annual DoD budget in the range of $850 billion a year.

 It's quite notable as well Zubrin calculates that two launches of reusable Starship at a 100+ payload to LEO capacity could do manned missions to Mars. This means the expendable version at 200+ tons to LEO capacity[4] could so single launch manned missions to Mars. Remember both the possibilities of single launch manned Moon and Mars missions can be done now. It would require just stripping off the reusability systems and adding on an already existing small stage such as the Falcon 9 upper stage to serve as a 3rd stage/lander.

 The low possible cost, based on the real cost to SpaceX, is astonishing in comparison to the projected multi-billion per launch cost of the Artemis architecture, with all of its /SLS/Orion/Starship HLS or Blue Moon landers/Boeing EUS/Advanced SRB's/Lunar Gateway space station/ components. The SLS is amortized at $2 billion per launch, the Orion capsule at $2 billion each, and a $4 billion contract to SpaceX for two launches of the Starship HLS amounting to $2 billion each, or a $3 billion cost for a single launch of the Blue Origin Blue Moon lander. That's already $6 to $7 billion per mission. Then the Boeing EUS/Advanced SRB's/Lunar Gateway are likely to add another $1 to $2 billion to the per mission launch cost. This is likely to be a total in the range of $8+ billion per mission for the Artemis missions.

 I once asked ChatGpt what were the per launch costs of the Apollo program in current dollars. It’s response was:

____________________________________________________________________________

 The Apollo program, which included a total of 17 missions (from Apollo 1 through Apollo 17), cost approximately $25.4 billion in 1973 dollars. To estimate the cost per flight in today’s dollars, we’ll follow these steps:

    1.    Adjust the total cost for inflation:

    •    The cumulative inflation rate from 1973 to 2024 is approximately 5.8 times. This means that $1 in 1973 is worth about $5.80 in 2024 dollars.

Total cost in 2024 dollars = $25.4 billion x 5.8 = $147.32 billion

    2.    Calculate the cost per flight:

    •    There were 17 Apollo missions, including the uncrewed and crewed missions.

Cost per flight = $147.32 billion/17 = $8.67 billion per flight

Summary:

The Apollo program cost approximately $147.32 billion in today’s dollars, which breaks down to about $8.67 billion per flight on average.
____________________________________________________________________________

  And we already know Apollo was unsustainable.

  In contrast the approach using the Superheavy/Starship launcher directly, no refueling flights nor SLS required, could potentially be as low as ~$100 million per flight. It is quite notable this is in the range of what NASA pays for crewed flights to the ISS. In other words the long-desired goal of having a sustainable human habitation on the Moon is doable now by following this far simpler, faster, and cheaper approach.

 Unfortunately, large government programs, and Artemis certainly is one, have an inertia that make them difficult to budge. NASA is too attached to the Artemis program and SpaceX is too attached to its multi-refueling approach for flights to the Moon and Mars to change them. The only possibility is for the DoD to pay SpaceX for this alternative approach.

 Not only would China getting first its footprints and a base on the Moon in the current lunar race offer the advantage of valuable resources, but it could in fact give it a devastating military advantage.

 The concept of lunar mass drivers or railguns have long been written about as means of getting lunar resources back to Earth or into space, such as for orbiting propellant depots. But they also have a clear usage as a near indefensible weapon. China is planning on building such "mass drivers" on the Moon for delivering resources in the form of "spin launch", [5]. Publicly, their stated purpose is only for delivering resources back to Earth. But given that China's space program is just an off-shoot of their military, its military applications must be under consideration as well by the Chinese military.

  Robert Clark

 

 1.) Features | Security | East Asia
China Has a Head Start in the New Space Race
The “Age of Apollo” is over and the Chang-e era has dawned.
By Namrata Goswami
May 29, 2019
https://thediplomat.com/2019/05/china-has-a-head-start-in-the-new-space-race/

2.) China just took the lead over NASA and Artemis in the race back to the Moon!
https://youtu.be/u47T1PVBW4I?si=u609RHLABcoZ6P6Z

3.) China plans to build moon base at the lunar south pole by 2035.
News
By Andrew Jones published September 10, 2024
https://www.space.com/china-moon-base-south-pole-2035

4.)250 Tonnes to Orbit!?: SpaceX's New Expendable Starship Option.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UutHG8Y2UuQ

5.) China will build a Super-Weapon on the Moon! Can NASA stop them?
https://youtu.be/eElDqTNe4oE?si=FC1TFw5TSubyUkCE