Relevant XKCD
One thing I've always wondered: let's say we NEEDED to go to the moon right away, even if it meant taking a few safety shortcuts. Like, aliens landed there and demanded a face-to-face meeting before they destroy our planet and we don't know how long they'll wait for us (could be minutes, could be centuries, but who wants to find out?)... What's the fastest we could, in theory, get there?
At the moment, we just cannot.
We don't even have space suits that can operate on the moon. The stuff they use on the ISS is made to be used in a total vacuum only, not walking around in the dust and on sharp rocks. There are new suits in development, but nothing final as far as I know. I'm not sure if any are close to being finished, let alone tested and certified.
There's also no vehicle that can land on the moon with crew right now. Nasa is relying on SpaceX to get their Starship program to the point they can do it. People are divided on this, but anyone with technical knowledge I heard about this say the SpaceX program is very challenging and probably not feasible. Especially with the super optimistic timelines they've been throwing around.
In theory you could put a Crew Dragon with a big trunk of supplies on a Falcon Heavy, which has the delta-V to go to the moon. But obviously that's pretty risky, once you go you're committed. When working in LEO you almost always have some kind of disaster recover scenario available where you abort and get back to earth asap. If you are underway to the moon, there is no turning back. The Crew Dragon has very limited mobility. But I think a trans-lunar injection and orbit around the moon would be possible, with a free return trajectory. So if going around the moon is good enough, that would be possible.
Still it would probably take 9-12 months to put such a mission together and it would be very risky indeed. And like I said, landing on the moon is a total no-go right now.
We should ask Scott Manley to do a video about this, I would love to hear his thoughts on this.
We went from first flight to landing on the moon in less than 70 years, and are worlds ahead of where we were then. I totally get that we wouldn't be able to leave tomorrow, but in the "could be minutes, could be centuries" scenario it's hard to imagine the answer being more than 70 years starting now, and that's what I'm curious about
Just a civilian guess, but 2 or 3 Delta V or Falcon Heavy to put 1 payload into LEO with a command module and lander, then 1 booster with fuel. Short of using prototype lander, fabrication would take months at best. Then a Starship or SLS to get a crew, food, and water into orbit.
Responding because I am also curious about this.
It depends, do you need to return your representative, or can we leave him on the moon? Latter is easier. Maybe he can hitchhike back with the aliens.
If it's a one-way mission, it could be done with a Falcon heavy and a slapped-together lander sourced from NASA. Maybe even an old Gemini capsule or something from the Smithsonian.
Or you could send up a Falcon heavy with fuel payload, rendezvous with the ISS, pick up a 'naut, and steal a Soyuz, although I'm not sure if they can be configured to land on the moon
Hopefully they don't delay it again. They're really taking their time.
Republicans will cancel it, I guarantee it. Then they'll put their stamp on a new mission, put it all into SpaceX hands, and send Melon some more money.
Not so sure about that. SpaceX already has the lander contract for Artemis and that's their main source of funding for starship development.
I think Trump really wants a big achievement like America back in space on his record, even if he doesn't deserve it.
They need to consult with Wallace and Gromit
https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU?si=YJcbmMxjvo0BAYNh
Required in every discussion of Artemis.
