> The real lunacy is simply not being mission-driven. A true mission driven design would have used a simple, reliable option using proven and existing technology. Like non-cryogenic fuel for example.
Are you talking about the lander? Because IMO, the lander it the least objectionable part of the whole thing. Congress, in their infinite wisdom, decided that the lander budget would be $3 B - about 1 year's worth of development costs of Orion + SLS, systems which have been in development for over a decade.
The moon rover got more money than that.
Any system that's going to squeeze into that constraint is going to need to be economically optimized and a bit... creative.
I'm talking about the entirety of Artemis. SLS was basically a job-saving programme initiated by Congress to appease senators that feared job losses in their respective states after the Shuttle programme was axed. Alternative designs that would use fuel storage in space and space tugs could've worked without an expensive new rocket.
> IMO, the lander it the least objectionable part of the whole thing
Then we have a disagreement :) The HLS requires the following in order work:
* the development of a rapidly reusable, radically new rocket system with new engines that haven't been flight tested before; alternative options could've used existing systems
* development of long term in-orbit cryogenic fuel storage - something that has never been tried before
* development of safe and reliable cryogenic fuel transfer between vehicles in orbit - again, a capability that has never been demonstrated before
* a lander with a single point of failure for exiting/entering the vehicle (on account of its ridiculous height)
* a lander that relies on turbo-pump driven bi-propellant engines for ascend - something so risky that Apollo-era engineers didn't even consider it
* a lander with a mass of around 100 tons for 2 crew initially - horrible weight to payload ratio, as this mass has to be launched from the surface
* several (actual number unknown as of now, but certainly more than 4) required refuelling launches
In conclusion we have 4 mission critical technologies that have never been demonstrated before, yet need to work flawlessly. We also have added risk due to the use of turbo-pump driven bi-propellant cryogenic fuel and the requirement of a 30+ metre crane for accessing the vehicle. I cannot comment on the stability during landing and ascend or the risks involved with dust and rocks from the exhaust plume on the moon.
As far as the economics go, yeah, I agree that with such tight budget a mission like that is very challenging to say the least. Low-balling the cost, exaggerating the timeline and hiring the person who on her own decided to hand out the contract throws a bad light on the issue, though.
Are you talking about the lander? Because IMO, the lander it the least objectionable part of the whole thing. Congress, in their infinite wisdom, decided that the lander budget would be $3 B - about 1 year's worth of development costs of Orion + SLS, systems which have been in development for over a decade.
The moon rover got more money than that.
Any system that's going to squeeze into that constraint is going to need to be economically optimized and a bit... creative.