Statistical Ars Legatus Legionis
15y
54,490
Polar LLO is really hard to get into. Even with a less dumpy crew vehicle bringing it all the way day to Polar LLO and back is dubious. I know know it runs against the popular trend of everything NASA does is stupid but the math doesn't lie.
I got this some years ago when NASA removed the sensitive restriction. Not sure it is available anymore. NASA is pretty bad about maintaining public access to old reports. It was created in the analysis requirements for Constellation.
A direct LLO requires a huge amount of DeltaV to enter and leave when talking about polar landing sites. This is because you need to do an up to 85 degree plane change Exactly how much depends on where exactly you are landing.
https://arstechnica.com/civis/attachments/1772812012884-png.129830/
1772812012884.png
It is at max of 1,313 m/s for the LOI and the south pole landing sites are in those 1,000+ m/s circles. There is a reason Apollo landed in equatorial regions. The LOI for Apollo 11 was 900 m/s.
Now if it takes 1313 m/s to get into LLO then it will take 1313 m/s to get back out. So we are talking 2,626 m/s. Throw in a couple hundred m/s for docking, course corrections (burns are never perfect) and safety margin and 3,000 m/s is a reasonable budget. You can reduce DeltaV somewhat by having a long loiter in LLO which reduces the prohibitive cost of a plane change by coasting up to the apolune (the same way GEO sats coast up to apogee in a GTO orbit but you now largely erased the big advantage of LLO over NRHO in that it is faster for crew missions.
Apollo did consider a polar landing for one of the late Apollo missions but it was canceled due to the higher risk of LoM and LoC. To get the margins needed the Apollo CSM would need to dwell in an intermediate orbit for an extra 2.8 days on the LOI and 1.6 days on the TEI. So an extra four days to the mission timeline. Technically Orion with its 1.3 km/s DeltaV "could" get to Polar LLO but it would require a loiter time of ... 6 days. That is 6 days on the way in and another 6 on the way out. You could make it asymmetrical to reduce risk like Apollo did but it would still be around 12 days loiter on top of 6 days transit on top of 6+ days surface mission.
For reusable landers LLO has another issue. It is so deep in the moon gravity well that while the lander itself uses less propellant you have to bring propellant to the lander. The propellant you bring to the lander requires more DeltaV so that propellant is requiring more propellant. So your lander uses less prop but yout tug/tanker uses more. Total prop usage per mission increases not decreases. A crew landing is essentially all propellant on a first order simplification.
TLDR: NASA knows what they are doing. NRHO got maligned by its association with porkish SLS & Orion (even by me in the past). NRHO is not a terrible orbit for a reusable architecture. It has numerous advantages to include that it is very cold. That is important if you have reusable cryogenic landers trying to minimize boiloff waiting months for crews to arrive. Your lander will point its nose at the sun to reduce thermal load. However in LLO like LEO the moon is a thermal mirror. Thermal load is substantially worse. Using NRHO as a staging point does not require a gateway station.
Even in the analysis above the alternate orbit is all around worse except saving 3% to 6% prop.
