Bezos may in-fact fund such a mission with his own money. (He seems pretty excited about the moon being the next logical destination)

I’m just pointing out that just because you detest “NewSpace” doesn’t mean that they cannot serve a useful purpose in achieving a permanent human settlement on the moon.

Not all cargos need to be launched in large pieces. The Delta IV Heavy, Falcon Heavy (eventually), and Atlas V can all launch at least 10mt to LLO. This should be sufficient sometimes. Perhaps enough for a small crew capsule.

Using existing/NewSpace launchers may be economical depending on how many SLS launches per year we actually achieve.

Sorry to be “late to the party”, but am dealing with weather related issues.

Glad to hear Bridenstine got the appointment.

Anyone who doubts he supports both Lunar ISRU and SLS/Orion need only read the article he wrote and posted on his congressional website.

Will be interesting to see how much he has to say in establishing policy.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf

While most of the public is spending significant blocks of their lifespan playing with a smart phone the creation of the SHLV by the space agency in the last century is a neglected and absolutely fascinating subject. Abe Silverstein fought a long battle promoting hydrogen as a propellant. If not for a pre-existing infrastructure that had been created to fuel a failed spy plane he probably would not have won the argument with von Braun about using hydrogen. This detail is important when considering the success of the Moon landing is attributed by von Braun to those hydrogen upper stages of the Saturn V.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch4.htm

The F-1 engine, developed by Rocketdyne, dated back to an Air Force program in 1955. NASA carefully husbanded this inheritance during the transfer of projects to the fledgling space agency: At that time, no vehicle existed to use the F-1. In fact, no designated mission existed either.

Sorry for the long post but the point I would like to make has to have some exposition. The point being vast resources and expertise were brought into play to enable humans to first escape the Earth’s gravitational field on December 21st, 1968. We find ourselves now groping and fumbling to even put someone in Low Earth Orbit (with cheap and nasty underpowered “private” technology predating hydrogen and the F-1). We should not even be trying to put people in LEO. We need another Jim Webb to dump that entire dog and pony show and focus on lunar return.

Let us all hope that sanity does prevail at the Space Council meeting.
It is way past time for a new direction.

At least this time, we have actual ideas already in place before hand.

Having heard this kind of “blow it all up and start over” talk for years from the Ayn-Rand-in-Space crowd I have to state that advocating for such chaos creation as a “need” is criminal. A common factor in the destruction of organizations, small business, corporations, nations, and empires throughout history. it is often the prelude and excuse for piratical theft.

The very best quote on this I have ever read, and a quote which is often abridged and misused, comes from that guy Santayana:

“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

You have to troubleshoot a system, fix what is broken, and tune it for maximum efficiency. Taking a hammer to it is like a child throwing a tantrum.

The Moon is the key to opening up the rest of the solar system to permanent human habitation.

Marcel

I never cease to be amazed at space advocates who purportedly support a lunar return but always include Mars in their argument. These two places are not and should never be discussed as if they are in some way common features of a unified plan. Mars is, like LEO, a dead end in regards to space exploration. Mars has cursed the space program since the end of Apollo as the place to go next when it was actually the place that kept NASA from going anywhere for the next 50 years.

It can never be said enough: the Moon is the prize we never should have taken our eyes off of and Mars is the profound mistake that must be corrected.

Human Space Flight Beyond Earth Orbit is space exploration and not “commercial” or in any sense a “service”. NewSpace has always conflated satellite launch and HSF as a way to mislead and deceive concerning the central problem.

That problem is the profit motive is toxic to any progress in space exploration. Space exploration defined as HSF-BEO has little to do with GEO telecom satellites (and lesser revenues from military spy satellites). This is the primary stumbling block to expansion into the solar system and why humans have not even left orbit for going on half a century.
LEO is a dead end and anyone who will not admit that is invested in doing so.

A state sponsored lunar return program with Super Heavy Lift Vehicles is the only path to breaking the deadlock and eventually enabling commercial enterprise BEO. It is not a flexible path. In this respect the NewSpace ideology, which is antithetical to any such public works project, is the worst thing that has ever happened to space exploration.

There is no SHLV except the SLS and the over-the-top demonization of this program by SpaceX groupies is blatant. NewSpace is really not about space at all- it is about a company that has cleverly propagandized and influence-peddled their way into the satellite launch business. Comments about ROI and big money invested in new systems by “someone” are Orwellian and symptomatic of unrealized damage done to public opinion by a pernicious cabal.

The idea that we should “turn over” responsibility for spaceflight to the “private sector” (which is not really any such thing, but rather, a collection of favored contractors who would vanish in an instant in any real marketplace) is missing a key point about the role of government in opening up space. NASA is more than simply a “technology development” shop — it is the representative of the federal civil government on the frontier. It represents the American people as a collective entity and is critical to establishing our rights of access and property in the future. Those not present on the frontier do not get a voice in making the rules.

Previous posts relevant to this topic:

Surrendering in Space

International Repercussions [Part 2] The Power Vacuum

American Space Program Reflects Standing in the World

Unexpected Connections: The Strategic Defense Initiative and Space Resources