Nah, it won’t be that expensive. The X-38 is much more complex than a simple moon lander would have to be. A moon lander is dealing with low gravity, which means reaction times are low enough that you could control it by hand with attitude thrusters. So just get some old throttleable engine with enough impulse, hook up a hand controller to some attitude jets, and take a shot at landing. You can pratice on that old ‘Lunar Lander’ game. (-:
Anyway, you don’t have to go back to Gemini. We have lots of technology kicking around for landing on the moon. Remember, we don’t have to take off again, and we can certainly accept a higher degree of risk than what NASA is comfortable with. I’m sure they’ve got a few buildable designs kicking around for unmanned lunar landers that could be converted for your use, since it doesn’t have to be man-rated (you don’t mind crashing one time in a 100, do you?), and it doesn’t have to come back. So the guy in the capsule is really just another payload. No big deal.
Or, you can go over to the ESA and see if you can buy into their “EuroMoon 2000” project, which I think is on the shelf now. But they designed a large 1000kg lunar lander with a 250kg payload. There you go. That’s you, and maybe 300 lbs of consumables. It’s designed and ready to go. Bon Voyage.
Hey, I said I wasn’t a flight dynamicist! scr4 is about right; the escape velocity of the moon is around 1.5 miles per second, so that’s the speed you’d approach the moon coasting in from “infinity”.
But the Gemini has attitude control thrusters - they could easily be modified to work as a retro-rocket to slow your balloon rig down. Of course, you’re still gambling on landing on a clean surface. However, since you don’t need to take off again, you’d have a much easier time than the Apollo boys finding a spot. They had to make sure they could land on a reasonably flat surface away from any big obstructions and craters so they would be at a reasonable attitude for takeoff. You just have to hit the ground and roll to a stop in one piece.
I still say you could build a Gemini, or something functionally equivalent to one, from scratch for $10 million. The most complicated parts are the electronics (mostly off-the-shelf components), the environmental system (which you could obviate the need for by wearing a shuttle spacesuit, at probably less than a million dollars), and the re-entry system, which you don’t need except for the retro-rockets.
I don’t think so, but someone more knowledgeable will be a long with details.
I will note that all remaining shuttles are now in museums and no longer flight worthy. I doubt that they can be made flight worthy even if there was some reason to do so. If we are going to the moon, we will need to start over, either build new shuttles or go back to Apollo tech.
The space shuttles were designed for a very specific role - ground to earth orbit and back. They would be a terrible choice for a moon landing.
First, there’s the fuel. You can’t refuel the space shuttle in orbit because there’s no place to put the fuel - the external tank is jettisoned before the shuttle reaches orbit. You’d need to haul the external tank into orbit with you, and then somehow refuel it. Hauling that much fuel into orbit will take about a dozen additional space shuttle flights, and you’ll have to develop a way to dock them and pump the fuel from one to another. Oh, you’ll also have to figure out a way to keep the fuel you’ve already pumped cryogenic for that long, since otherwise it will boil off in a few days. You’ll also need to figure out a way to keep the shuttle powered and working for the years that it will take to lift all that fuel.
And once you’ve done that, you won’t be able to go anywhere, as the shuttle main engines aren’t designed to relight once shut down. The shuttle main engines work once per flight, and then need to be disassembled and refurbished before they can fly again. You could maybe use the orbital maneuvering engines for the flight to and from the moon, but they are only designed to draw fuel from the fairly small internal tanks that don’t even remotely have enough fuel to go to the moon and back.
The communications, radiation protection and thermal management systems for the shuttle were designed for use in earth orbit only. You probably don’t need to worry much about radiation for a short trip, but you’ll need to redesign the communications systems and possibly the thermal management as well.
Even if you get the shuttle to the moon, you can’t land. The shuttle was designed to land in an atmosphere - on the moon, the wings and other aerodynamic control surfaces will be useless. You can’t do a vertical landing on the engines, either. The main engines are non-restartable and even if they were don’t have the deep-throttle capability required for a vertical landing, and the orbital maneuvering engines aren’t powerful enough.
So no. The Shuttle would only be useful for hauling the parts of your moon rocket to orbit at best, and even then you’d probably be better off doing that with heavy-lift expendable commercial launches. Your lunar lander needs to be designed pretty much from scratch.
Seems to me the latest mars lander could be modified. If that thing could get into space, go to mars, and lower a several thousand? pound onto the surface the moon should be a piece of cake.
Replace the rover with a crammed capsule that has a deployable airbag, oxygen, a barcolounger, and the samiches.
Oops, forgot you don’t have the advantages of aero bracking or parachutes so you would have engineer an interminent stage that would accomplish/minic that part of the sequence.
It would be a cludge and you’d probably be doing it in a less than optimum fashion but at least a good majority of the hardware would have been tested and you actually have a good idea of what it would cost.
If you really want to go to the moon and are willing to fund it yourself, start throwing money at SpaceX. They have already launched their own rocket with a reusable if unmanned capsule, and have designs under development that could be adapted for a moon trip. A Falcon Heavy booster to put a modified manned Dragon capsule on the way to the moon, using SuperDraco thrusters to land vertically and take off again, is probably the path most easily available at the moment.
With its orbital manuevering thrusters, not the main engine. It only needs to slow down enough to dip into the upper atmosphere, and aerobraking will take over from there.
As a very rough look at what is needed, looking at the unmanned lunar exploration probes is probably more helpful in answering the OP. The Surveyor series weighted roughly 1 ton on launch, and 300kg when landed (depleted of fuel.) They launched on an Atlas Centaur D. A SpaceX Falcon 9 has 2 to 3 times the performance - and so we could imagine landing a system with a mass of about a ton on the moon with one. A Falcon9 launch costs $54 million.
The Surveyors are 60’s technology, so the flight control and electronics could be modernised. An off the shelf set of systems used for more modern space vehicles could be substituted. Look at Clementine for instance as an example of a very cheap successful lunar orbiter. Getting say 200kg of fleshy payload onto the surface of the moon is probably not too hard. So, say about 3 days to get there, and allow another day or so on the surface. A person can survive in a space suit for that time. Not comfortable but doable. Probably do the whole silly thing for 100 million or so. Given the zombie nature of the OP, there might be some additional saving possible.
Getting back really makes things vastly harder. The Apollo missions were as bare bones as reasonable. The risk was clear - they assumed they would lose 1 in a hundred missions. losing one in ten was considered unacceptable, one in a thousand not possible even with all the money on the planet.
This was seriously considered at one point during the Apollo program.
It was basically a backup plan. If the Apollo capsule didn’t work, and lunar orbit rendezvous turned out to be impossible, it would have been theoretically possible to launch an upgraded Gemini capsule with lunar landing capability on a mission to go directly to the lunar surface and back.
Honestly, I read this as a left-wing sarcasm joke. Poe’s law.